Nationalism, Education and Migrant Identities: The England-returned 020309218X, 9780415551175, 9780203092187

Table of contents :
Book Cover
Title
Copyright
Contents
Illustrations
Preface and acknowledgements
Abbreviations used in references
Introduction: The ‘England-returned’
1 Indian students in the UK (1900–1947)
2 Images of Britain, India and the England-returned
3 The social interactions of the England-returned
4 The political identities of the England-returned
5 The careers and long-term impact of the England-returned
Conclusion: The future for the England-returned
Notes
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

Nationalism, Education and Migrant Identities

This book examines the role western education and social standing played in the development of Indian nationalism in the early twentieth century. It highlights the influences that education abroad had on a significant proportion of the Indian population. A large number of Indian students – including key figures such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Jawaharlal Nehru – took up prominent positions in government service, industry or political movements after having spent their student years in Britain before the Second World War. Having reaped the benefits of the British educational system, they spearheaded movements in India that sought to gain independence from British rule. The author analyses the long-term impact of this short-term migration on Britain, South Asia and Empire, and deals with issues of migrant identities and the ways in which travel shaped ideas about the ‘Self ’ and ‘Home’. Through this study of the ‘Englandreturned’, attention is drawn to contemporary concerns about the politicisation of foreign students and the antecedents of the growing South Asian student population in the USA and Europe today, as well as of Britain’s growing South Asian diaspora. Sumita Mukherjee is a Post-Doctoral Researcher at the University of Oxford, UK, working on South Asian interactions with British life pre-1950.

Routledge Studies in South Asian History

1 The Social History of Health and Medicine in Colonial India Edited by Biswamoy Pati and Mark Harrison 2 Decolonization in South Asia Meanings of freedom in post-independence West Bengal, 1947–52 Sekhar Bandyopadhyay 3 Historiography and Writing Postcolonial India Naheem Jabbar 4 Nationalism, Education and Migrant Identities The England-returned Sumita Mukherjee

Nationalism, Education and Migrant Identities The England-returned

Sumita Mukherjee

First published 2010 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2010. To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.

© 2010 Sumita Mukherjee All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN 0-203-09218-X Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 978-0-415-55117-5 (hbk) ISBN 978-0-203-09218-7 (ebk)

Contents

List of illustrations Preface and acknowledgements Abbreviations used in references Introduction: the England-returned

vi vii ix 1

1

Indian students in the UK (1900–1947)

13

2

Images of Britain, India and the England-returned

30

3

The social interactions of the England-returned

50

4

The political identities of the England-returned

81

5

The careers and long-term impact of the England-returned

113

Conclusion: the future for the England-returned

138

Notes Bibliography Index

143 161 178

Illustrations

Figure 1.1

Indian and Dominion students in Britain, October 1925

24

Tables 1.1 1.1 1.1

Indians selected for the ICS, 1911–1920 Indians at Oxford and Cambridge Universities Indian students at British universities, 1930–1940

20 23 26

Preface and acknowledgements

There are no stories of the ‘England-returned’ in my family before 1947. My maternal grandfather, Bimalaksha Chaudhury, the son of an industrialist, came to London in 1948 and joined Gray’s Inn to study for the Bar. He was the first in his family to study abroad, but this was after independence, and he did not ‘return’ permanently to India – bringing his wife and two children over for the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953 without telling them that he had no intention to return. My paternal grandfather, Amar Nath Mukherjee, was born in 1914 and educated in the Murshidabad village of Kagram. He left school aged sixteen to support his nine younger brothers and sisters but worked his way up from clerk to Chief Accountant of a major British electrical engineering company in Calcutta in the 1950s. Even though he was massively successful without a degree or foreign qualifications, my grandfather placed enormous weight upon the importance of education and held British education in the highest esteem. By studying the Englandreturned, I hoped to answer some of the questions I had growing up about why my paternal grandfather had so much regard for British education and understand the rhetoric about the England-returned that he must have grown up with. This book comes out of the doctoral thesis I wrote at the University of Oxford under the dedicated supervision of Judith M. Brown, who has been of great support throughout my postgraduate career and beyond. Maria Misra, Polly O’Hanlon and Ian Talbot read various forms of the thesis and provided very helpful comments. I would also like to thank the late Richard Symonds who was always so encouraging. The members of the Graduate Workshop for Imperial and Commonwealth History were great friends during my student days, particularly Iqbal Sevea, my viva buddy. Thank you to Rakesh Ankit for help with the final touches. Sincere thanks to Elleke Boehmer for guiding me through the English Faculty at the University of Oxford, and my colleagues on the AHRC-funded project ‘Making Britain: South Asian Visions of Home and Abroad, 1870–1950’: Rehana Ahmed, Susheila Nasta, Ruvani Ranasinha, Florian Stadtler and Rozina Visram. This book would not have been published without the advice of the two anonymous readers and Dorothea Schaefter who has been a most patient and supportive editor.

viii

Preface and acknowledgements

The research for this book was carried out in various libraries and I thank the librarians and archivists at the Asia, Pacific and Africa Collections, British Library; the Indian Institute, Oxford; Merton College, Oxford; St John’s College, Oxford; Trinity College, Cambridge; King’s College, Cambridge; the South Asian Studies Centre, Cambridge; the Inner Temple; the National Archives of India; the Nehru Memorial Library in Delhi; and the Visva-Bharati archive in Santiniketan. Thank you to friends who have sustained me away from the academic world and to family in Lake Gardens and Cricklewood. However, the most important thanks go to the three people who have stood by me throughout – my father, mother and brother: Arabinda, Nita and Chiron. From financial support to all the emotional encouragement, for teaching me to stand on my own feet and for sharing in all the joy and laughter, I dedicate this book to them.

Abbreviations used in references

ISD Report

Report of the Indian Students’ Department, India Office, London Lee-Warner Report Report and Minutes of Evidence of the Committee Appointed by the Secretary of State for India to Inquire into the Position of Indian Students in the United Kingdom, London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1907 Lytton Report Report of the Committee on Indian Students 1921–22, London: India Office, 1922 NAI National Archives of India, New Delhi NMML Nehru Memorial Library, New Delhi OIOC Asia and Africa Collections, British Library, St Pancras PRO Public Record Office, Kew Technical Scholarships Report Report of a Committee Appointed by the Secretary of State for India to Inquire into the System of State Technical Scholarships Established by the Government of India in 1904, London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1913

Introduction The ‘England-returned’

The ‘England-returned’ were young men and women from India who studied at institutions of higher education across the British Isles and then returned to India, as will be discussed here in the early twentieth century. The short- and long-term migration of educated Indians to Western countries has been a significant feature of movement from India since the nineteenth century. In the late twentieth century, much of this migration was semi-permanent, but at the beginning of the twentieth century, a large number of Indians were moving on a temporary basis for further studies. This book will focus on such Indian students who went to Britain before independence, particularly between 1904 and 1947. 1904 is taken as a starting point as it was from this year that scholarships were introduced by the Government of India for studies in technical subjects in Britain, thus widening and increasing the composition of Indian students in Britain. This study will follow the trajectories of these students, from the inception of desire to study abroad, through their experiences in British universities with other students and their encounters with British society, to their return back to India with their qualifications, and will investigate the long-term impacts of this education and experience upon their social, economic and political lives. The Indian students came from all regions of India and all religious backgrounds to study in institutions in Britain of all sizes and to study a wide, diverse range of subjects. The ‘Indians’ under discussion are generally of ethnic Indian descent and do not include the children of ‘mixed’ descent. This book covers a large group of people who underwent individual and collective experiences both in Britain and upon their return to India. As it is instructive and informative to view these students as a group in order to assess their wider impact, this book does not focus on particular individuals. However, as the background research is based upon primary source material of letters, memoirs and autobiographies of these former students, this overview of Indian students is illuminated and dependent upon individual recollections, examples and case studies. In following these students, the book will be posing a number of questions that include: Why Britain? Who was making the voyage? What opportunities arose from British education? How did their lives change? Did their opinions, outlooks or ideologies change? What were

2

Introduction

the positive and negative outcomes of this education? What were the wider impacts of these students upon Britain and India? In answering these broad questions, the book will also explore some of the finer points and nuances of the historical impact of these students to add to our understanding of British Imperial and South Asian history and some of the theory that directs historical study today. The use of the term ‘England-returned’ implies that these Indian students were a prominent and significant social group. Yet, despite their relatively large number and the prestige they attracted at the time, these students have escaped the detailed interest of historians. One of the reasons for this oversight is the difficulty of categorizing the study of these students into a particular existing field. The stories and paths of these students cover a wide range of issues from Indian social and political history, to British attitudes towards race and class, the educational history of India and Britain, the history of the imperial relationship between India and Britain, and the growth of international connections and globalization. Yet, the wide range of fields addressed by studying these students only adds to the importance of this research. As Edward Shils has noted and is worth quoting in full below, the study of Indian students in Britain before 1947 will be exciting and fill an important gap in history: It is a history full of drama, full of poignant and melancholy episodes of failures and humiliations, of the gradual loss of contact with India, even among those most fervently devoted to it. It is a microcosm of the process of the modernisation of return, the reassimilation into the family and into Indian life, the feeling of lostness at home and homesickness for a foreign country. It is a tale of honour and distinction, of prizes won and honours gained, and of ridiculous and pathetic mishaps and disasters. It is a history yet to be written.1 Scholarly interest in South Asian migrants to Britain has increased in recent years, but whereas historians have addressed the issues of travel and assimilation in Britain, very little research has followed migrants on their return and explored the long-term impacts of their foreign experiences upon their lives in India and Pakistan. Histories of race and immigration into Britain in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have tended to concentrate on ‘black’ visitors, be they from Africa or the West Indies: for instance, Paul Fryer’s historical survey of blacks in Britain, which was published in 1984.2 Following in this tradition, there have been a number of surveys of other communities who came to either visit or settle in Britain. From Rozina Visram’s expansive overview of South Asians in Britain from the seventeenth century until the Second World War to Kathleen Hunter’s concise work on Pakistanis in Britain and Bashir Maan’s study of South Asians who went to Scotland, there have been works with varying centres of foci that fit in to migrant histories.3

Introduction

3

Michael H. Fisher has written a number of studies of Indians who have visited or lived in Britain before the nineteenth century, from the individuals of Dean Mahomet and D. O. Dyce Sombre to general work on the Indian presence in Britain from 1600.4 Antoinette Burton has extensively researched Indian visitors to Britain at the end of the nineteenth century and has been particularly interested in the themes of travel and gender.5 Perhaps the historian who has researched most directly on Indian students in Britain has been Shompa Lahiri.6 Her book on Indian students in Britain between 1880 and 1930 was published in a series entitled ‘The Colonial Legacy in Britain’, situating the work as a contribution to British history and as an understanding of the migrants within British society.7 Therefore, apart from works that concentrate on a particular individual, such as Satadru Sen’s richly researched book on K. S. Ranjitsinhji, there is a noticeable lack of research on the flow of Indian students that continues to assess their impact upon returning back to India after their studies.8 This book will consider an extremely influential group of people. Largely from upper-middle-class elites, their travel and education in Britain opened up even greater opportunities upon their return to India. The England-returned were able to make an impact upon their local communities, and forge interesting career paths. Their prestige, their new outlook and their ability to interact with the British governing classes in India were instrumental in allowing them to assume positions of power and authority. A high proportion of political leaders before 1947 had been educated in Britain. Mohandas Gandhi and Muhammad Ali Jinnah had studied in Britain before 1900, but after this date Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, Subhas Chandra Bose, V. K. Krishna Menon and B. R. Ambedkar, to name a few, had all studied in institutions of higher education in Britain. Some Indian women also had the opportunity to undertake higher education in Britain including Sarojini Naidu and Kamaladevi Chattopadhyaya. British education was a common feature for other leading Indian figures, Michael Madhusudhan Dutt and Rabindranath Tagore, who had studied in London in the nineteenth century, the mathematician Ramanujan, the physicist Chandrasekhar, the novelist Mulk Raj Anand and the poet Muhammad Iqbal among them. There were individuals who made their marks after 1947 but had been to Britain before independence, such as Indira Gandhi (née Nehru). However, this book will not be concentrating on these particular famous individuals. Instead, it will explore the wider ramifications of study abroad for all students. Focusing, as it will, on what are students from disparate backgrounds as a group leads to a risk of homogenizing their experiences, but it is hoped that this approach will enlighten us on some of the broad themes in which they were making an impact. As all readers will be aware, every individual undergoes specific experiences and interprets them in their own way; historians are unable to delve fully into the psyche of any individual, but the aim of this book is to shed a bright light on the journeys that these students took – physically, socially, mentally and politically in the early twentieth century.

4

Introduction

The relationship between Britain and India before 1947 was complex. Britain had a large empire at this time, but had a special relationship with India. India was valuable to Britain for many reasons including her economic resources and strategic position. However, those Indians who went to Britain were able to extract intellectual and social resources and create international connections, exploiting the imperial relationship for themselves. Indian students were the largest group of foreign students in Britain, which highlights both the importance placed upon education by Indians, in particular British education, and the close relationship between India and Britain that saw more student migrants coming from India than any other British colony or dominion. These students need to be considered for the influential group they were and for the impact they had on empire. The students were conveyors of knowledge between the two countries and their British education had wide implications for Anglo-Indian relations. Importantly, these students began a trend for Western education that spiralled after 1947 and is currently a significant feature of Indian and Pakistani educated society and a huge influence on the subcontinent’s economy. This analysis of the England-returned will take to account a number of historiographical themes that include travel and transmigration, Indian perceptions of the West, colonial education, political identities and patterns of globalization.

Travel The importance of travelling and travel-writing for understanding ideas of the ‘Self ’ and ‘Other’ has become a major part of postcolonial and postmodern debates on imagery, identity and nationalism. Originally, studies of the effects of travel concentrated on European migrants, who went abroad and to the colonies. These preoccupations have been developed since Edward Said’s Orientalism encouraged academics to reassess Western preconceptions and their imagery of the Oriental ‘Other’.9 Said had described travel as a means of finding new outlooks and placing oneself in a position of ‘displacement’, which allowed writers to look from outside into other cultures. Nicholas Thomas has used this idea to explain travel as entailing ‘expansive steps away from “traditional” ties, and – more crucially and distinctively – an attitude of extension and displacement towards these traditions’.10 Travellers gained a new perspective on their own cultures by their distance away, and were able to give new insight into other cultures that they visited for the first time. The terms used to describe Western travellers as ‘explorers’, ‘conquerors’ or ‘discoverers’ did not give any agency to travellers from the East who explored and ‘discovered’ Europe for themselves. Indians were also involved in the Orientalist discourse and had their own images and representations of the ‘Other’. This balance has slowly been addressed. The importance of Indian travel-writing has been highlighted by a number of authors such as Antoinette Burton, Inderpal Grewal and Simonti Sen.11 Sen’s detailed work on Bengali

Introduction

5

travellers to Britain indicates that the colonized Indian was involved in a tense relationship with the metropolitan, their feelings derived out of admiration of the West but also partly out of shame and an inferiority complex. She has stressed that travel-writing is a crucial source for understanding the educated colonial mind, and that their physical encounter with the West was important for relocating notions of the ‘Self ’ and ‘Other’. Indians who went abroad, and in particular to Britain, were able to engage in direct comparisons with their own society. This encounter emphasized differences and highlighted the areas that needed reform in India. For many, travel was a way of broadening one’s mind, which taught them about new cultures but taught them more about other parts of India as well. Inderpal Grewal has linked travel abroad in the nineteenth century to the homogenization of the image of India, in particular reference to Indian women; Travel fostered ‘a notion of India as one country’. Although Grewal is interested in the construction of the idea of the ‘Indian woman’, her point is equally valid to understanding how an ‘Indian’ identity and idea of an ‘Indian nation’ was constructed during this period and was influenced by travel abroad.12 Yet travel could be confusing. Homesickness could lead to nostalgia and illusions of home, whilst the notion of ‘home’ changes through this period abroad.13 Indian students were not travel-writers. They did not journey abroad in order to produce travel guides, nor were they merely tourists in Britain. They went with specific purpose and for a significant period of time. They underwent separation and displacement from their homes and from India. This experience informed their ideas about their own identities and their perceptions of Britain, India and the world. By the twentieth century, Indian students were able to glean a great deal of information about the United Kingdom before they left India; the presence of British officials and British rule in India as well as education had all given Indians ideas about the UK. Michael Fisher has explained how Indians living in London after 1857 had their understanding of the British and themselves reshaped, through awareness of the degrading effects of colonialism, and how the shared condition they held with Indians from other regions often overcame traditional cultural or political distinctions.14 Fisher has pointed out that it was those who came in the later nineteenth and twentieth centuries who better understood British culture, politics and law. They had many more compatriots to associate with and to share the experience with, and it was they who discovered the discrepancies between the British image of liberal humanism and the practice of British colonialism in India.15 Upon return, it was through autobiographies and other forms of public output that the England-returned were able to assert their identity and nationality and reveal how important travel had been in shaping these ideas. This book will acknowledge the range of emotions and viewpoints experienced by Indian students, as the research is reliant on individual memoirs and autobiographies, many of which were written years after return. Yet these

6

Introduction

students were all involved in the same migratory experience, coming to the same country with the same purpose, and so many of the effects of the travel to Britain would have been shared. Travel made Indians increasingly aware of the global extent of British influence, of their position as ‘subjects’ and of their objectification by the British, highlighting contrasts with the situation in India.16 However, many were able to ‘reconstruct’ and reaffirm their identities through nationalism; these former students were writing at times of national consciousness in India and Pakistan, both before and after independence. Thus they talked about their individual developments but also how they were part of important groups, such as the student societies, which were seen as precursors to the group loyalty needed for nationalism. These writings were not only a means to assert the self but moreover a means to portray their selves as ‘modern’. As Dipesh Chakrabarty has explained so well, the Indian autobiography (which many of the Englandreturned were engaging with to discuss their times as students) was a ‘public’ output, often lacking a confessional or private aspect, focusing on the ‘modern’ and the ‘national’ and thus undermining the ‘real’ experience.17 Autobiography tended to be an Anglophone genre, generally written in European languages, and many of the England-returned used this model to remember their times as students in Britain. They were perpetuating the Anglophilia that was so present among their educated middle-class contemporaries in India. Conscious of the mediating role of memory, where young students may have romanticized their recollections of the effects of travel in light of nationalism, one has to consider the ways the Englandreturned were using their travel abroad for personal and public gain, and the way in which certain representations and generic tropes were grabbed by some of those commenting upon these travels.

Indian ideas of the West Indian students were encouraged by their images and perceptions of British society and British education to travel to Britain. These ideas of Britain and the West were often stereotypes and ‘essentialized’ visions. Therefore, analysis of Indian perceptions of Britain and British education feed into scholarship on ‘Orientalism’ and ‘Occidentalism’. These views of the ‘Occident’ can be compared directly with the reverse – British perceptions and expectations of the Indian sub-continent. Although British images of Indians during the colonial period have been criticized by many academics as perpetuating an essentialist, stereotyped, fixed and unrepresentative ideal, coined by Edward Said as an ‘Orientalist’ viewpoint, Indian ideas of Britain could be criticized and analysed in the same manner, as they were based on select sources and shaped by public opinion that could often highlight certain stereotypes. The students, their parents and communities had visions of British society that informed their relationship with the British, partly influenced by their contact with the British who lived and worked in India and partly influenced by the

Introduction

7

literature they read. Their objectification of Britain and the West influenced Indian identity and their perceptions of India as well. Few historians have explored the issues of Indian ideas and perceptions of the West, as most studies have been more interested in the Western academic discourse about the ‘East’. Those who have studied Indian perceptions of the West have tended to study the earlier encounters in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.18 Historians and social scientists have also looked at other countries and their critiques of the West, but little attention has been placed on Indian agents in this discourse.19 Girija Mookerjee and Tapan Raychaudhuri have explored some aspects of Indian perceptions of Europe in the nineteenth century. Mookerjee has explained that images of the West played an important role in the development of an Indian national identity at the end of the nineteenth century. The disappointment that arose when Indian elites returned from Britain with stories that did not match their images of the West, and when Indians returned with European vices rather than benefits, encouraged the growth of an Indian national creed.20 Indians realized they were not as ‘uncivilized’ as they had been led to believe and Indians were now more capable of assessing their relationship with Britain and the wider world. Raychaudhuri has been critical of many Indians, particularly those who had English education and those who had been to Britain, who did begin to imitate British dress and culture, which further alienated Indian elites from the masses. Yet Raychaudhuri has been keen to point out that not all Indians possessed an unqualified admiration for the West and British civilization.21 Although Indians realized that the West had positive features, they were able to compare their societies with greater ease and assess which Western values to appropriate for Indian society. Indian views of Britain shaped Indian identities. As suggested, their admiration for Britain often played out in the form of an inferiority complex, which was related to issues of race, class and culture. Comparisons between India and Britain led to tensions because of the different values upon which societies can be judged.22 Lakshmi Subramaniam has argued that Western-educated Indians searched for self-esteem but could never be satisfied when they imposed alien, Western standards upon themselves. Subramaniam has highlighted the ‘concealed sense of injury, the need for approval by Englishmen, the yearning to visit England, the craving for recognition and acceptance within white social circles in India’ and ‘the exhausting attempt at imitation’ as signs of an aggressive ‘inferiority complex’ that had arisen from colonial subjugation.23 Britain and the West were also objectified by Indians. Some Hindus had had caste objections to travelling overseas, which remained relevant for some communities into the early twentieth century. Thus, many Indians had exaggerated fears about the effects of going abroad including fears of contamination and dilution of their culture and traditions.24 These ideas accentuated differences, which increased tensions within India and in her relationship with Britain.

8

Introduction

Admiration for British culture was demonstrated by those Indians who adopted British habits and characteristics. However, this created further tensions as they were mocked by both the British and Indians for their mimicry. They had become ‘Brown Englishmen’ as desired by Macaulay in 1835 (see below), but this only served to increase their alienation. Mimicry was pursued by some Indians as a result of the way the colonial power in India had accentuated difference and measured success by British standards.25 This widened divisions within Indian society and entrenched stereotypes about Britain and the West. However, Indians could adopt these manners without travelling to Britain. Western tastes were widely permeated in Indian society and Indian admiration implied an understanding of the superiority of European ways.26 Indian students were involved in this discourse and had to find ways of appreciating both Indian and British cultures. Their encounter with Britain encouraged them to reassess existing ideas and perceptions about British values. Their return to India after their studies was an important contribution to developing Indian ideas about the West and improving lines of knowledge and communication between the societies.

Colonial education The England-returned voyaged to Britain for the specific purpose of formal education. Their involvement in British education was part of a continuation from educational policies implemented in India from the early nineteenth century by the British. Attention is often placed upon British educational directives such as Macaulay’s minute of 1835 or Wood’s dispatch of 1854. Sir Charles Wood, President of the Board of Control, had emphasized the importance of Western education in India because imparting knowledge was one of Britain’s ‘most sacred duties’ giving Indians ‘vast moral and material blessings’.27 Macaulay stated in 1835 that the introduction of English education in India would be instrumental for creating ‘classes of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and intellect’. This statement reveals much about British attitudes towards race and class, but is important for understanding British relations with educated Indians as well. English education created Indian collaborators, but also served to increase resentment and instability in the regime when employment opportunities became limited for educated Indians and their intellectual outlook accentuated the inequalities of colonial rule.28 The Government soon saw the benefits of encouraging Indians to study in British universities to pursue the training they were receiving in India. Hodgson Pratt, a civil servant in Bengal, wrote in 1860 about the need for Indians to qualify for the government services by being educated in Britain, to create ‘a class in India who shall act as “interpreters” between the people and the Government’ and who though tied by ‘birth, language and kindred to India, shall, by education and by intimate association with Englishmen, acquire a hearty sympathy with England’.29

Introduction

9

Education was instrumental in the creation of colonial nationalisms in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The institutional associations of students were vibrant, dynamic groups that were ready to mobilize and were open to new ideas. Students learnt political ideas and ideologies through their readings and classes. Improved communications were another important factor in increasing knowledge and the spread of nationalist thought. Dietmar Rothermund has pointed out how, in India, education created elites that became alienated from the rest of the country and yet were able to articulate the grievances of the people. They were able to communicate with the Government and held positions of power and influence in their societies. Thus, they had their own individual dissatisfactions with the lack of employment opportunities and furthermore understood the general grievances of the colonized people and could tap into those emotions to spearhead nationalist movements.30 The British and Indian Governments had hoped the education of Indians in Britain would give them greater control over these ‘collaborators’ and strengthen ‘divide and rule’ politics. However, this very education that created further alienation from the masses for these new elites was also a basis and precursor for Indians to demand greater representation in government and other public services and, later, to demand independence. This book concentrates on Indians who pursued higher education. They tended to originate from upper-middle-class professional backgrounds and education was an important indicator for class in India. Therefore, this book will raise various questions about the social impact of foreign education on the students and their families. Education opened up opportunities for social mobility and higher incomes, but also gave individuals greater power and control. Tithi Bhattacharya has sought to understand the ‘obsessive importance’ placed upon education at the end of the nineteenth century. English education opened up doors to gainful employment and was part of a growing trend of urbanization and rural-urban migration. Bhattacharya has asserted that education gave Indians more power and created an expanding class, but that Indians were limited by colonial institutions and were not essential members of the economy. Therefore, they remained dependent upon the lower classes and used these ties and grievances to spearhead mobilization.31 Furthermore, Sumit Sarkar has said that colonialism limited all other channels of social mobility except for education, which explains the importance placed upon it.32 English education, in particular, held importance for Indians who wished to relate to and understand their colonial rulers better. Indian princes, for example, were sent to colleges in India that were based on English public schools, and many were, in addition, encouraged to tour Britain and Europe to round off their education. It was hoped that princes would learn English character and British values, which would make them better and more ‘enlightened’ rulers. Satadru Sen has pointed out, however, that there was a divide between those who had been educated in India and those who had been to England. It was not the content of British education that separated

10

Introduction

them, but rather Indian anxiety about British society; some Indian critics condemned English-educated princes for becoming ‘deracinated’ and too distant from India.33 The perceived advantages and disadvantages of British education applied to other Indians as well. Those Indians who wished to join government services were encouraged to pursue a British education and adopt characteristics that had enabled the British to amass their empire. This desire for foreign training exposed Indian elite admiration towards the British but also created further divisions and resentments within Indian society, as we will see through the experiences of these students. Britain was not the only country abroad that Indians went to study in, although the focus of the book is on British education and the imperial relationship. Students from other countries went to Britain for higher education too and underwent similar experiences to the Indians. Jane Starfield has written a detailed analysis of an African medical student at Glasgow from 1914–1921, Modiri Molema, using the metaphor of ‘dance’ to explore the emotions of African students abroad.34 The African student was leading a ‘dance’ by approaching imperial culture but then retreating into the ‘steps’ of their indigenous culture. Starfield clarifies that their ‘exile’ in Britain as students created ambiguity because notions of class, race and education became uncertain and indistinct. As Starfield explains and as can be applied to the case of Indian students, colonial students were engaging with British culture and identifying with elite practices but were also torn by their loyalties to their homelands and the cultures in which they had been brought up in. Hakim Adi has researched, in particular, the political associations generated by West African students in Britain between 1900 and 1960. Their stay in Britain usually heightened their awareness of political issues, racism, and familiarized them with a range of political opinions and organizations. The discrimination they faced in Britain, and their ‘exile’ from their homes, led to increased radicalism amongst West African students, and many were attracted to Marxism.35 This holds similarities with the experiences of Indian students in Britain, many of whom became politically radicalized due to the associations they became involved in and their reactions to the attitudes of British society.

Political identities Various historians of early Indian nationalism and Congress have pointed out that the main protagonists of the Indian National Congress at its inception in 1885 had been educated in Britain.36 Yet, despite this acknowledgement of the common experience of British education, historians have not tended to explore this link further or investigate the features of foreign education that had encouraged Indians to become politically active and often hostile to the Government. Indian nationalism in the twentieth century was spearheaded by individuals who had been educated abroad; their ideologies were influenced by the West and education had given them status to take up leadership positions. Sunil Khilnani’s general history of India conceded that most leading Indian nationalists

Introduction

11

had been trained in Britain and led ‘strikingly cosmopolitan lives’.37 Hunter’s 1962 book on the history of ‘Pakistanis’ in Britain points out that four Pakistani Prime Ministers were educated in Britain before 1947, Khwaja Nazimuddin, Liaquat Ali Khan, Chaudri Mohammad Ali and H. S. Suhrawardy (not mentioning another England-returned Prime Minister, Firoz Khan Noon): ‘Almost without exception the men and women who carried the banner of freedom and led the nation to its ultimate goal, were influenced by their training in Britain’s democratic atmosphere.’38 Thus, it is instructive to examine Indian students in Britain in order to accentuate these links of education and experience that dominated Indian politics in the early twentieth century. The Subaltern Studies group has heavily influenced South Asian historians since the 1980s.39 Historians of the Subaltern School called for an approach that moved away from the emphasis on imperial historiography and the ‘bourgeois-hegemony’ of Indian elites. They recognize ‘subalterns’ who were also agents in South Asian history and have highlighted the great possibilities of reading beyond the archives and using non-traditional sources. The Indians who studied in Britain, however, would probably be classified as elites who dominated the nationalist and imperialist discourse from which Subalternists have tried to move away from. This book relies upon English-language sources, including self-promoting memoirs from these former students which allow for certain nationalist themes to dominate. However, this criticism should not lead us to ignore this important group, who have hardly been researched and who did play an extremely important and pivotal role in Indian politics in the early twentieth century. The category of ‘subaltern’ is rather fluid and unclear; these educated elites could be classified as ‘subaltern’ in their relation to the British elites. This book will not be a state-centred history either, as it will explore social and cultural change through communities that transcended the ‘nation’.

Patterns of globalization Indian students in Britain reveal some of the complexities of the interplay of imperial relationships at the beginning of the twentieth century. Their transnational migration reveal the wider connections beyond the ‘nation’ that were increasingly relevant, despite the rise and articulation of nationalism in colonial societies. Their voyages laid the paths for other travellers and for greater communications and links between societies. Indians were able to network with Indians from other regions whilst abroad, socialize with the British and also create ties with other foreign visitors to Britain. Their encounters were early indicators of ‘globalization’. The networks and migrations of these students can be characterized as part of a recent strand of history known as ‘transnational’ history. As Patricia Seed has stated, this approach ‘has led historians to examine the impact and reasons for migration at both the point of departure and that of arrival’.40 Thus, the movements and circulations of people have been increasingly

12

Introduction

recognized as important for historical study.41 Indian students were part of growing interconnections within the world and were part of wider ‘global’ links beyond national histories.42 The Indians who studied in Britain’s higher institutions have been described as part of a ‘cosmopolitan elite’.43 They were part of an imperial network, moving within a familiar space, and many saw themselves as imperial citizens and British subjects. Ulf Hannerz has examined the term ‘cosmopolitan’ in detail and explained how this term describes people who are willing to engage with the ‘Other’ and have some personal autonomy from their own cultures. It is also important to realize that cultures do not necessarily exist within geographical boundaries, but are overlapping and fluid, and so Indian students were able to engage in this interplay of cultures and create their own international social networks.44 The majority of these students did not intend to settle abroad permanently, but they spent more time in Britain than mere tourists and had to adapt to the host country and settle temporarily. Their early experiences were similar to migrant groups who did eventually settle abroad and they are interesting precursors to the growing South Asian diaspora across the world and in such large numbers in Great Britain today.45 Following this Introduction, Chapter 1 begins with a survey of the students that discusses their regional and religious background, their destinations and subjects they studied in Britain. Chapter 2 tackles the issue of expectations of Britain and British education and the effects travel abroad had on the students’ ideas of home. Chapter 3 discusses the social ramifications of study abroad both in Britain and upon return to India, with respect to prejudices, family life and marriage. Chapter 4 deals with the issue of political identity, with reference to the groups and associations that students were involved in and then the ideologies they transferred back to the subcontinent. Chapter 5 discusses the career paths of the students on their return to India up to 1947 and then the repercussions for India and Pakistan beyond 1947. Finally, a short Conclusion raises questions about the impact of the England-returned and comparisons with South Asian student migrants in the late twentieth century and present day. In the following chapters, the complexities of the groups of Indians who studied in Britain over a forty-year time period will be discussed. Through a range of sources from government reports which projected an official line on the students, to newspaper and journal accounts with political agendas, to letters and diaries written by students at the time to members of their families and friends revealing candid impressions, to memoirs and autobiographies written, often decades, after their return which combine hindsight with various other motives, we will see a wide spectrum of views and response about and from these students. We will gain a sense of the impressions they had of the changing world they were living in and the historical impact of their travels. And we will see in their political and social identities comparisons with students in the present day who face similar issues and struggles in the postcolonial world.

1

Indian students in the UK (1900–1947)

Before 1907 From 1835, the British officially endorsed the use of English education in India. However, only a minority of the Indian population were willing and able to make use of provisions for English education. In 1844, Lord Hardinge’s administration announced that all those educated in English would be preferred in office appointments. Given the new importance placed upon English training, English education began to flourish in India through both government and private schools. The emphasis placed upon English education to further career opportunities and as a means to power under the British encouraged Indians to value British educationists and institutions highly. Yet despite these policies, the number of educated Indians was very small, especially in proportion to the whole population; the 1881 Census found that only one out of every 3600 people belonged to the ‘native intelligentsia’.1 The first Indian universities were founded in 1858 in Bombay, Calcutta and Madras, modelled on the federal college system of London University. The Indians who studied in the universities did not tend to come from the aristocracy or upper classes; they generally came from the middle classes, from small landholding and professional and merchant backgrounds. Indians from the middle classes could not only afford higher education but had the ambition and desire to work in the professional and service sectors that required such qualifications. There were, however, limited job opportunities for educated Indians, as the top levels of government service and the educational service were closed off to ‘natives’. The creation of modern universities opened up a greater choice of educational qualifications and allowed Indians to have higher aspirations. Those Indians who were able to attend the new universities now had greater opportunities to further their studies abroad. A handful of Indians had come for some type of study and training in Britain from the beginning of the nineteenth century.2 Nevertheless, it was the introduction of Open Competitive Exams for the Indian Civil Service (ICS) in London, and the foundation of universities in India in 1858 that really opened the doors for Indians to travel to Britain for higher studies. Paradoxically, the foundation of Indian universities actually encouraged more Indians to study

14

Indian students in the UK (1900–1947)

in British universities. Indians were now qualified to gain admission at British universities and also were given greater incentive to journey to the UK in order to further their careers. The introduction of BA degrees gave Indians formally recognized qualifications that made it easier for them to apply to British universities. As the new Indian universities had limited resources in terms of libraries and laboratory space students became more aware of the limitations of the education system in India; there were minimal opportunities for postgraduate research in India and less traditional subjects such as commerce were not offered until the twentieth century. Until Indian universities were reformed and modernized, students looked to Britain. The ICS was a highly prestigious career choice, known informally as the ‘heaven-born service’. If Indians could gain a post in the ICS they could wield some power over the community and work with the British to have a hand in the control of their country. In the nineteenth century, Indians were able to work in the provincial services under the command of British officers, who had been selected during the time of the East India Company through Haileybury College. As the British Crown formally took over control of India in 1858, the ICS was reformed and superior officers were now selected through an open examination held yearly in London.3 The exams were now also open to Indian candidates, as the Government wished to give the impression of some equality and opportunity for Indians. However, the syllabus of the exams was based upon the British educational system, and the Government did not expect any Indians either to compete or be successful in the competition. Officials were surprised when Satyendranath Tagore became the first Indian to successfully pass through the open ICS exams in 1864.4 In response, the Government changed some of the qualification criteria, reducing the marks available for Indian Classical Languages and decreasing the maximum age, to prevent further Indians from joining the Superior Service. The age restrictions issue came to a head in 1869 when Surendranath Banerjea was not allowed to take up his place in the ICS as he was older than the maximum limit of 21. Banerjea was actually aged 21 at the time, there had been some confusion about his legal age, and was eventually allowed into the ICS only to be dismissed a few years later for a clerical error. In 1878, the Government reduced the maximum age limit for ICS candidates to nineteen years. Banerjea joined forces with Ananda Mohun Bose, a Cambridge Wrangler, to set up the Indian Association of Calcutta, which campaigned to increase the age limits, bringing the issue to the forefront of national politics. Despite these controversies, roughly three Indians passed through the competitive exams each year. In 1892, the age limit was raised to 23 and successful ICS candidates had to follow up their exams with a one-year probationary course in either Oxbridge or London. Other students followed the example of Banerjea and Bose by getting involved in political agitation when they returned to India. The Indian National Congress (INC) was founded in 1885 and its founding members included W. C. Bonnerjee, Pherozeshah Mehta and Badruddin Tyabji, who had all studied in Britain. The Government became increasingly aware of the

Indian students in the UK (1900–1947)

15

link between higher education and growing unrest in the country, but was unable to stop the tide. The Government of India had considered introducing scholarships for Indians to study in Britain in 1867 after the success of Satyendranath Tagore. The Secretary of State, the Duke of Argylle, was opposed to these plans so scholarships were not introduced until the 1880s. Two scholarships were awarded annually on a rotation from the Indian Universities; Madras and Allahabad in one year, Punjab and Patna in the next, and Calcutta and Bombay in the third. Scholars were given £200 a year for expenses and fees, although Oxbridge scholars were awarded £250 a year to account for the extra costs incurred there. In 1904, the Government introduced scholarships for Indians to study technical subjects such as mining, engineering or textiles training. These amounted to £150 a year, as the course fees were paid directly by the India Office, and the Government only allowed for thirty holders at any one time. The introduction of scholarships now eased the passage for Indians to study in Britain. The technical scholarships also marked an important seachange. Now Indians were being encouraged to take up less traditional subjects of which they had no experience in India, to join lesser-known universities and training centres in Britain, and to take up careers in industry upon return to India. As the number of Indians coming to study in Britain increased towards the end of the nineteenth century, the India Office did wonder whether they should devise a policy to control these students. In 1902, Government officials considered building a hostel in London to closely supervise Indian students. Sir Curzon Wyllie, an advisor to the India Office (and who was later to be murdered by an Indian student in 1909), estimated that there were nearly 200 Indian law students in London under no supervision. Indians at the Bar were particularly numerous, and as they did not have much regular contact with lecturers the Government was concerned that these students were liable to be led astray. The Steward of Gray’s Inn wrote to the Government to tell them of cases of gambling, drinking and visiting brothels by Indian students, thus encouraging the India Office to seriously consider managing a hostel to control Indian students. Ultimately the hostel was not built due to fears that this would lead to suspicion and distrust of the Government by Indians, which could exacerbate tensions. The Government also feared that a hostel with only Indian lodgers would encourage insularity which would create further problems rather than alleviating them.5 Before 1907, there were no official reports or figures collated about the presence of Indian students in the United Kingdom. A useful source for this period is the National Indian Association (NIA). This association was set up in Bristol by Mary Carpenter and Keshub Chunder Sen in 1870, with a branch in London that took over control after Carpenter’s death in 1877. Initially interested in the welfare and education of Indians in India, it also became concerned about the welfare of Indian students in Britain as their numbers grew. From 1871, the NIA produced a monthly journal, which often

16

Indian students in the UK (1900–1947)

included articles about or from Indian students. The NIA estimated that there had been over 700 Indian students who had come to Britain in the twenty years before 1885. In that year, 1885, they knew of over 100 Indian students in Britain, thus demonstrating that numbers were on the increase. Out of the students they knew then, 53 were preparing for the legal profession, 38 were studying medicine and 23 were studying science or agricultural subjects. The Bar was the most popular qualification for Indians who came to Britain. They had to apply to one of the four Inns of Court in London and keep term by attending Bar dinners. Once they were called to the Bar and returned to India, they were given higher pay and prestige than Indian-trained lawyers, known as vakils. Famous Indians who were called to the Bar in this period before the twentieth century include Michael Madhusudhan Dutt, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Figures from the NIA Journal in 1885 reveal the provinces from which the Indian students came.6 Bengal and Bombay, with 58 and 54 students respectively, had larger numbers of students going to Britain as they contained successful universities from which the students would have qualified beforehand. However, Madras also had a university and yet there were only 4 students from the South of India. The NW Provinces sent 19, Punjab sent 12 and there were 9 students from the Native States. The predominance of students from Bengal, besides Bombay, for the first wave of Indian students fits in with the perception of the domination of educated Bengali ‘Babus’. It did appear that Bengalis were predominate among Indian ICS members in its early stages and were the most anglicized. The status accorded to education and professional careers among Bengalis encouraged more people from that province to travel and compete in Britain. Within five years though, the numbers had changed. In 1890, there were now 207 known Indians studying in Britain, including 10 women. Punjabis were now increasingly travelling to Britain for their studies (31 students), after the Punjab University was established in 1882, whilst Bombay (63 students) had overtaken Bengal (53 students) as the province sending the most youths to Britain for higher studies.7 By 1900, Britain had 336 Indian men and 31 Indian women as students. More than half were Hindu, nearly 100 were Muslim and nearly 50 Parsi students. The Parsi contingent was extremely large in proportion to their share of the Indian population, but as most lived near Bombay and the University, they were especially attracted to higher education. The majority of Parsi students came from well-off liberal families who encouraged their children to pursue education abroad and take up prestigious careers in the law or medicine in particular.8 More than half of the Indian students were studying law, over 30 studying medicine and nearly 40 were preparing for the ICS exams.9 One clear conclusion from these select figures collected by the National Indian Association is that Indians were coming from all over India, from the largest urbanized provinces to the smaller Princely states in order to take up the opportunities available to them in Britain and to receive qualifications that would enable them to progress and develop as a society and nation.

Indian students in the UK (1900–1947)

17

1907 until the First World War In 1907, the British Government decided to commission a Report into the Position of Indian Students in the UK. Chaired by Sir William Lee-Warner, the Committee consulted British university heads as well as a number of Indian students. The Report placed attention on the political nature and radical tendencies of Indian students in Britain which led to Government fears that they would be perceived as criticizing the Indian student community. The Government was especially concerned not to antagonize the educated classes in India and hence the report was not made public. The Lee-Warner Report was later published as an appendix to a subsequent report into Indian Students in 1922, known as the Lytton Report. The Lee-Warner Report had made a number of recommendations that were heeded even though the report itself was not published. The most significant was the creation of a Bureau of Information in London for Indian students, providing them with advice about all aspects of their stay. This Bureau was linked up with Provincial Advisory Committees in India which could liaise to advise Indians before they travelled about necessary procedures, applications and precautions about travel and study in Britain. These Provincial Advisory Committees liaised with principals of colleges and headmasters of schools in their district in order to spread information throughout India about education abroad.10 The Bureau of Information in London was subsequently transformed into the Indian Students’ Department in 1913. This Office was part of the Education Department of the India Office, but was then transferred to the Office of the High Commissioner in London in 1920 after which annual reports were published about the work of the department and the numbers of students in Britain.11 The Lee-Warner Committee estimated that there were 700 Indian students in the UK at the time of their Report. Out of these 700 students, over half (380) were found in London, 150 at Edinburgh, 85 at Cambridge, 32 at Oxford.12 London had the largest number of students for a number of reasons. First, it was the capital city and the natural port of call for most visitors; many students were attracted to the metropolitan character of London and the many opportunities available. For those Indians who wished to be called to the Bar, London was the only place to gain admission to an Inn, and London was the place where the Open ICS exams were held, although students could study elsewhere and then commute into the capital for the exam. There were many associations that helped Indian students in London, the NIA has already been mentioned but there was also the Northbrook Society (originally a sub-society of the NIA) that was run by British people interested in the welfare of Indians. The Bureau of Information for Indian Students and the India Office were also located in London and so even if Indians did not study in institutions in London, nearly all would visit the city at some point during their stay in the United Kingdom. Of the 150 Indians in Edinburgh recorded in the Lee-Warner Report, 80 were studying medicine.13 The Edinburgh Indian Association was a large organization for Indians in the city and also

18

Indian students in the UK (1900–1947)

supplied their membership figures to the Government committee. Of their 84 members, 74 were medical students. They came from a range of provinces and with a range of religious backgrounds: Indians were spreading themselves out and that they did not merely stick to universities where other Indians of the same regional backgrounds went to.14 The majority of Indian students in the UK were Hindu. A number did come from the smaller religious communities of Parsis, Sikhs and Christians but the most significant comparison is the very small proportion of Muslim Indian students. This is the more interesting as Muslims had no cultural or religious restrictions or objections to travelling abroad, whereas within the Hindu community there were many deep-set objections to crossing the seas; some Hindus believed that they would lose their caste if they either went abroad or ate with those who had been abroad unless a caste purification ceremony was observed upon return. Despite these reservations, it was mainly Hindus who did study abroad. The caste objections gradually diminished as the first pioneers returned from Britain and as the benefits of studying abroad were realized, and by 1907 most prejudices had been removed. Ambitious middle-class Hindus were keen for their sons to compete at the highest level and return to prestigious careers upon their return. They sought to encourage their young to study abroad. An example is the Industrial and Scientific Association set up by J. C. Ghosh in Calcutta 1903; in March 1906, the Association sent 44 students abroad through scholarships and they were given a reception in Kalighat Temple thus demonstrating how far religious opposition had diminished.15 Many Muslims did desire higher education as well; the geographical and financial position for many Muslims hindered their access to higher education in India thus making it more difficult for them to then go abroad. Further information from the Lee-Warner Report came about the technical students. Scholarships had only been introduced in 1904 but in 1907 there were 21 scholars in Britain. They could be found at Birmingham, Manchester, Cambridge, Leeds and Liverpool training in the mining, engineering, textiles, agriculture and leather industries.16 The Industrial and Scientific Association of Calcutta sent 99 scholars of their own abroad for technical training. However, only 12 were sent to Britain, 48 were sent to the USA, 36 to Japan and 2 to France. Coming from Calcutta, they were mainly Bengali Hindus but 2 of the scholars were Muslim.17 The Government soon became concerned that if Indians were studying abroad that at least they should be going to Britain to ensure that future economic links remained strong and that Indians did not become allied with their competitors. India Office notes in 1909 reveal these concerns that emphasis be made upon technical provision for Indian students, as Technical and Industrial Education bulks largely in the eyes of Indians at present, and is likely to receive from them more and more attention as time goes on, and as it is of the utmost importance that young Indians seeking for Technical and Industrial training abroad (i.e. outside of India)

Indian students in the UK (1900–1947)

19

should not feel that their wants are being more fully or more carefully or sympathetically supplied in other countries than in England.18 In 1912, the Government commissioned a report into the system of the Technical Scholarships for Indians, chaired by Sir Theodore Morison. (Morison had been Principal of Aligarh College in 1899, and had also written on India’s industrial organization in 1906, which gave him expertise to lead this Committee.)19 66 men had won scholarships between 1904 and 1912, and had studied diverse aspects of technical studies from 24 studying textiles at Manchester School of Technology to 16 mining students at Birmingham University to a lone student of alkali manufacture at Liverpool University.20 Indians were eager to attend educational institutions in Britain and so were willing to apply to smaller and unknown places. This implies that their studies were not merely motivated by the desire for prestige, although they would have gained some status from having been to Britain, no matter which particular institution. The Morison’s committee’s main concern that was drawn from their interviews was that Indian technical students found it very difficult to secure practical training and apprenticeships in the UK during and after their courses, which were such an essential part of their industrial education. Many British firms did not want to take on Indians who would not be permanent employees and who they feared might take away trade secrets and skills to their competitors in India. The Committee considered producing a list of firms that were known to take on Indians as a suggestion to force British firms to take on Indian apprentices, but this option was not pursued. Of course, Government money was being spent on these scholarships so it was of mutual benefit to both the Government and the Indians that these students should succeed in order that the economic and industrial development of India could progress and aid both countries. The Scholarships Committee concluded that ‘for some time to come it may be necessary for the Indian student who desires to get the highest possible training, to come to this country’, and so they had to ensure that the benefits were being accrued from the venture.21 Industrial skills such as electrical engineering and mining were valuable assets if Indians wished to contribute to the industrial development of India, although they also had to contend with competition from British and European firms when they returned. The murder of Sir Curzon Wyllie in July 1909 by an Indian student, Madan Lal Dhingra, in London sent shockwaves through Government circles, British society and among Indian students. Suspicion of the Indian student community grew and students became increasingly concerned that they were being spied upon by the India Office. In 1915, Sir Charles Mallet, Secretary for Indian Students at the India Office, admitted that Indian applications had been on the increase but that British universities were regarding these applications with increasing alarm since 1909. There were also a very few cases of Indians who behaved badly, leaving large debts or failed affairs with British women, or generally having poor intellectual standards, which reflected badly

20

Indian students in the UK (1900–1947)

on the whole community. Mallet admitted in confidence that Cambridge and some London hospitals in particular were prejudiced against Indian students despite the large number of members at each.22 There was some confusion, however, about whose responsibility it was to supervise the Indian students – the India Office or university authorities? When Mr Hirtzel of King’s College, Cambridge, wrote to the India Office in 1907 for advice and assistance with a new Indian student, the reply stated that there were nearly 80 Indian students at Cambridge who were not scholars and hence under no supervision as such. The majority of the latter are in no way distinguished either by birth, position, or educational attainments. Many of them are the sons of poor men, who come to England, with insufficient means, for the purpose of being called to the Bar (which is easier than passing the ordinary Pleader’s examination), and thus raising themselves in social scale. As a body, the Indian students are equally out of favour with the Dons and with the Undergraduates. Many of the Colleges will not admit them. They take little or no part with the English undergraduates in athletic exercises, but herd together and find their chief amusement in political discussions of a more or less disloyal character.23 Tensions clearly did exist between the Indian students and the Government and British society. The students were becoming increasingly politically aware and active, and as their numbers grew they were no longer a novelty but a liability. The murder of Sir Curzon Wyllie, however, did not deter or prevent Indians to continue to gain admission to universities in Britain. Charles Mallet disclosed to The Times that there were at least 1000 (and possibly as many as 1700) Indian students in Britain in 1913.24 The attraction of the ICS remained high for Indian students, irrespective of their political loyalties. Table 1.1 shows that, up until the war, the Indians

Table 1.1 Indians selected for the ICS, 1911–1920

1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920

No. of successful candidates

No. of Indians selected

53 47 44 53 14 9 6 9 6 6

3 7 2 7 3 5 5 (inc. 1 Ceylonese) 9 5 (inc. 1 Ceylonese) 5 (inc. 1 Ceylonese)

Source: Oxford University Archives: LHD/SF/1/5, Papers of the Delegacy for Oriental Students.

Indian students in the UK (1900–1947)

21

selected were small in proportion to the British candidates. The high competition for places gave those who did succeed even more prestige and respect from other Indians. The table reveals the sharp decline in British numbers due to the war, although did this not lead to an increase of Indians to balance numbers. It did mean that after the war, the Government would have to reassess some of their policies towards Indian students and their admission into services in India.

The inter-war period The onset of the First World War led to restrictions in travel and therefore an obstacle to the influx of Indian students. During the war years, most British undergraduates were called up, as were many tutors, so the universities were very quiet. Indians were not permanently deterred away from Britain and by 1920 their numbers were once again on the rise. In 1921, the Government commissioned another report into the status of Indian students in Britain, this time chaired by Lord Lytton.25 The Lytton Report stated that there were 1301 Indian students in the UK in 1922, a large increase from the 700 of the Lee-Warner Report 15 years earlier. The Lytton Report gave detailed breakdowns of these numbers, in terms of regional backgrounds, university destinations and the subjects they were studying. The Indian students were now very diverse in terms of regional backgrounds. Bengal, Bombay and Punjab had the highest numbers, but Madras was now sending a very large number of students and Indians were coming from all the states to some degree.26 One criticism against Indians who went to study in Britain was that they were merely after the name of the degree rather than the educational experience in itself. Edward Shils contends that, before the 1920s, the majority of students came from rich families who only wanted to go to Oxbridge. Shils states that ‘they went because it was becoming “the thing” for the offspring of prosperous Indian families with a sense of their own dignity to send their children to Oxford and Cambridge’.27 This stereotype of Indian students may have had some precedence but was not the case for all students. The 1913 Technical Scholarships Report concluded that, although Indian students had been accused of desiring ‘letters after their names’, technical students were all very keen to acquire some practical training in Britain, indicating the high value they placed on British experience.28 These young students expected to learn a great deal from their travels to Britain, not only through the British education system, but, in addition, through their physical presence within and among British society. Although, as we will see, despite aims to learn from British society, many students faced difficulties in interacting with the British or learning much about the British way of life. The British Government had concerns about Indians who were not fully prepared emotionally or financially for higher studies in Britain and only wished to encourage those who were educationally capable. Many students took advantage of their freedom to spend extravagantly, picking up bad

22

Indian students in the UK (1900–1947)

habits such as gambling or drinking, and ending up in serious debt, whom the Government then had to repatriate.29 Many Indians did not make educational successes of themselves; many were unprepared for the intellectual rigours of university life, but they all had high expectations of the value of the degree they hoped to get and of the value of the experience of British society. Young Indians were not deterred by the examples of previous failures; they were more determined to prove that they had the strength and ability to succeed in a foreign environment even if others before them had not. The British Government felt that they had large responsibilities towards Indian students and government actions in turn often encouraged more Indians to study in Britain. The 1922 Lytton Report stated that the three main reasons for Indians coming to Britain were: first, they had a better chance of employment, especially in the Public Services; second, British educational facilities were much more extensive as many subjects were absent in Indian universities, and third, that they came to be called to the Bar. The Lytton Report therefore publicly stated that there was a ‘corresponding obligation on the Government’ to help Indian students ‘secure admission to British Universities in order to obtain the education they require’.30 In the Indian Students’ Department report published in the same year, the concept of an ‘Imperial obligation’ was again expressed, but this time the report stated that it was British universities who had this obligation to encourage Indian students in their studies.31 Oxford and Cambridge held the greatest prestige for Indian students due to their ancient traditions, their college system and famous alumni. Admission to Cambridge University was much easier for Indian students than to Oxford University. Before 1906, all applicants to Oxford had to sit Responsions, examinations that included Greek or Latin as compulsory subjects. Most Indians had not been educated in these Classical languages and therefore had difficulties in gaining admission, until in 1906 when the statutes were changed to allow ‘Oriental’ students to take English instead of Greek or Latin in these preliminary exams. Oxford colleges also had a system of limiting the number of Indian students with a quota system to ensure that they were evenly spread out across the university and not all herded in one college. Cambridge, on the other hand, did not have such restrictions, hence it was easier for Indians to gain admission, and as initially more Indians studied there Cambridge continued to hold more Indian students than Oxford during this whole period, as seen in Table 1.2. Most ICS men spent their probationary years in Oxford or Cambridge, with an almost equal number at both. In 1922, simultaneous Open Examinations were introduced in Delhi, thus reducing the need for Indians to come to Britain to study. However, successful ICS applicants were still required to undertake their probationary training in Britain, even if they had not taken their exams in London. David Potter has explored some of the social backgrounds of ICS recruits. In 1914, 3 of the 4 Indians selected in London were sons of Government officials and the fourth was a son of a Barrister, hence they all came from professional service families. In 1928, the ICS had 19

Indian students in the UK (1900–1947)

23

Table 1.2 Indians at Oxford and Cambridge Universities

1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938

Indians at Cambridge

Indians at Oxford

121 139 151 130 117 116 113 106 95 105 111 100 101 100 134 131 122 139 139

53 112 149 118 86 68 54 55 57 52 42 51 47 70 63 61 83 72 67

Source: Lytton Report.

Indian recruits, of which 8 had fathers in Government Service, 4 in teaching, 2 in medicine, 2 in law, 2 had landowner fathers and one had a father in business.32 The demonstration of professional middle-class backgrounds for these recruits reveals that social mobility was not radical and that Indian officials were coming from the educated and upwardly mobile classes who were already benefiting from the opening up of professions for Indians. Indians were now increasingly able to enter other Government Services as well. After the First World War, the Indian Forestry Service began to attract Indian candidates who generally had to be qualified in natural sciences and then take two years probationary training in Oxbridge or Edinburgh. The Indian Army was also now open to Indians at officer level. After the exemplary role played by Indians in the First World War, it was decided that Indians would be eligible to receive the King’s Commission into the Indian Army. In 1918, 10 vacancies a year were opened up at Sandhurst for Indian candidates. The Report of the Indian Sandhurst Committee was chaired by Sir Andrew Skeen in 1926 and published interesting figures about the Indian applicants. 243 Indians had competed for places at Sandhurst from 1918 to 1926 and 83 of those had been admitted. 16 of these 83 Indians had been educated as boys in England before their admission. The Committee also noted that 30 per cent of Indians had failed after admission at Sandhurst which compared unfavourably to the failure rate of 3 per cent for British boys. 44 Indians had passed through Sandhurst by 1926, 18 were still at Sandhurst and 2 had unfortunately died, while the other 19 had failed. 35 of

24

Indian students in the UK (1900–1947)

the Indian members had come from the Punjab, which had a strong military tradition, but the Indian Army recruits came in small numbers from all of the regions of India apart from the South.33 The Indians at Sandhurst were a small number but so were the successful ICS recruits. Their experiences are also an important facet of this study of Indians who studied at the various types of higher educational and training institutes in Britain. In 1925, the Colonial Office gathered figures about all students from the colonies and dominions in Britain. The pie chart (Figure 1.1) represents these numbers. The Indians were by far the largest foreign student contingent in the UK, and the India Office even provided a clearer breakdown of their figures between Scotland, the rest of the mainland and Ireland. In total, there were 1421 Indians studying in some form of post-secondary education. The next largest group was the African students who numbered 793. A large number of students did come from Egypt totalling 351, and then the white dominions had far fewer students coming to the UK.34 The high proportion of Indians compared with other colonial and dominion students explains in part why they had their own government department. Indian students held particular political significance that affected the relationship between India and Britain. This relationship and migration will be explored further through the course of this book, but the presence of the Indian Students’ Department appeared to give formal approval for Indians to come to study in the UK and thus encourage the numbers to rise.

Figure 1.1 Indian and Dominion students in Britain, October 1925. Source: PRO: ED 24/1994, Information on Dominion and Indian Students at British Universities.

Indian students in the UK (1900–1947)

25

The International Student Service produced a Swiss quarterly, called the Vox Studentium. The issue of September 1931 produced some information about Indian students in Europe and elsewhere. Out of a total of 2500 Indian students abroad, a clear majority of 2000 were in Britain. After Britain, the USA attracted the largest number of Indian students (300) and this can be partly explained by the use of English which made it easier for Indians to stay there rather than in European countries with other foreign languages. A large number of Indians studied in the USA and Germany (125), although the numbers do not reach the heights of students in Britain, and they were attracted to the economic and industrial development and dominance of these two countries alongside Britain during this period. The Vox Studentium also gave information about the subjects that these Indians studied abroad. The three most popular subjects were law, engineering and medicine; these three subjects, in particular law and medicine, are vocational subjects and led to clear career options for Indians if they wished to pursue them.35 The Indian Students’ Department had responsibility for all Government scholars as well as technical scholars but was open to advise and provide information for and about all Indian students in the UK. (See Table 1.3 for the diverse university destinations of Indians from 1930 to 1940.) Their yearly reports gave details about how many people they interviewed, overviews of some of the numbers of students and also highlighted exceptional students. In 1927–8, for example, there were over 1600 Indian students in Britain during that year. These included 195 Government scholars, of which 69 were technical scholars and 21 female scholars. Over 350 Indians were in engineeringtype courses and there were about 70 female Indian students in the country. Indians constituted over two-thirds of the total number of overseas students in the UK.36 The facilities for female students were still limited in Britain, so Indian women were impeded by the lack of courses or available qualifications for them as well as attitudes and other restrictions from back home in India. Women largely came to study vocational subjects such as teaching or medicine and other healthcare related skills. To look towards the end of this period, female students nearly numbered 100, and so were less than 10 per cent of the total Indian student population. Numbers did rise every year; in 1935–6 there were 78 women, which rose to 101 in the next year and in 1937–8 there were 128 female students in Britain.37 The presence of the Indian Students’ Department did not inspire confidence in many Indians, who were suspicious of the India Office and of Government motives. The INC made a number of resolutions, especially between 1915 and 1916, where they expressed their disapproval of the existence of the Department.38 Following the murder of Sir Curzon Wyllie in 1909, in particular, some Indians believed that they were being spied upon by the Government. Although the Government strenuously denied that they conducted any surveillance on Indian students, they did in fact employ Indian students as spies and also commissioned New Scotland Yard to conduct surveillance on Indian student groups and societies. There was further discontent

26

Indian students in the UK (1900–1947)

Table 1.3 Indian students at British universities, 1930–1940

Birmingham Bristol Cambridge Armstrong College, Newcastle Medicine College, Newcastle Exeter Leeds Liverpool London University University College London King’s College London Imperial College London School of Economics School of Oriental Studies Battersea Polytechnic Chelsea Polytechnic Northampton Polytechnic Northern Polytechnic Sir John Cass Technical Institute London School of Printing Faraday House Maria Grey Training College St Mary's College Royal Academy of Music Architectural Association Royal College of Art Royal Veterinary College Loughborough Manchester Nottingham Oxford Reading Sheffield Aberystwyth Edinburgh Glasgow St Andrews

1930–1

1931–2

1935–6

1937–8

21 28 111 16

18 22 100 15

13 14 131 4

14 19 139 8

17 19 92

12

10

5

7

19

2 54 30 795 144 74 109 132 93 37 17 12 2 1 4 48 7 1 6 3 3 38 5 60 13 42 11 74 15 138 83 9

3 55 28 850 135 81 113 106 108 33 15 11 2

2 45 19 702 180 65 45 114 55 16 9 1 2 1 1 18 8

47 23 847 206 92 98 89 52 16 19

22 25 381 59 20 54 52 10 13 11

3 30 9 2 2 2 2 34 7 68 7 51 8 50 13 150 71 5

1 1 7 4 58 1 61 4 14 12 138 32 2

2 3 2 31 20

1939–40

2 20 2 2

3 2 12 9 67 7 72 7 27 9 119 24 2

1 16 2 43 9 50 6 26 10 66 39 2

Source: ISD Reports.

in India when it was announced that Lord Lytton would be chairing a commission into Indian students. By this time, the Legislative Assembly in India had been set up with elected Indian representatives. They were concerned about the costs of the Lytton Committee as well as the unnecessary attention and suspicion being directed only to Indian students in Britain.39 During the 1930s, the civil disobedience movement in India was becoming very popular;

Indian students in the UK (1900–1947)

27

Gandhi’s calls for boycotts of Western institutions had made some Indians wonder if they should stop going to Britain for studies. Some nationalists claimed that Westernization and ‘de-nationalization’ was occurring from education in foreign countries and more attention should be placed on developing Indian education.40 Yet, even nationalists continued to send their own sons and daughters to Britain for education; for example Jawaharlal Nehru sent his daughter Indira to Oxford in 1936. The financial costs and burdens upon Indian students influenced the composition of those who came to Britain. Even those who received government scholarships would have had to invest money in their preliminary education in India to get to that stage. These students also had to have the financial security to be able to afford to pursue higher studies rather than to start earning immediately. Almost all students needed the financial and emotional support of their families, and so the majority came from middle-class backgrounds with the financial means and also the social ambition for their children to gain foreign qualifications. The Committee on Distressed Colonial and Indian Subjects had met in 1909 for the India Office and reported in 1910 that the Government would not bear the burden of repatriating Indian students if they became destitute in Britain. However, with the establishment of the Indian Students’ Department, there was more involvement and help for students who had run out of money. In 1931–2, 24 Indian students were repatriated by the India Office. Of these, 5 had been in serious financial difficulties, 4 had become seriously ill and 2 were mentally ill.41 The financial failure experienced by many students was partly owing to their underestimation of the costs of living in Britain but also because the freedom they received in Britain encouraged some to become extravagant with their spending. The breakdown of the health of many students was not something that could have been envisaged or necessarily prevented, and there were many extreme cases that did not reflect the average Indian student.

The Second World War and independence The Second World War began in Europe in 1939 and caused another disruption to Indians studying or intending to study in Britain. Once again travel between India and Europe was restricted and many British undergraduates were called up. During the war years, events in India were also affecting attitudes as nationalist demands dominated the political agenda, culminating in the Quit India movement in 1942. By 1945, at the end of the war, the British government had assured Indians that they would receive independence in the near future. As it became clear that the Raj was nearing its end, students were not deterred from coming to Britain but were naturally preoccupied with the expectations of independence. The British Government was also directing attention to rebuilding after the war and to developments in India and hence was less concerned with the Indian student community in Britain during these years.

28

Indian students in the UK (1900–1947)

The Indian Students’ Department produced its last report in 1940. There were 829 Indian students in that year, a drop of around 600 from the previous year. The numbers included 71 female full-time students. Indian visitors continued to study a wide range of subjects; the majority continuing to study medicine, but many were studying the arts, engineering, science, commerce or agriculture.42 During World War Two, Ernest Bevin set up a scheme to pay for young Indians to come to Britain for technical training in order to encourage India’s industrial development which would be of mutual benefit to Britain.43 Despite war-time production, British firms were still able to provide practical training for Indian students. Assistance was also given to those who wished to return to India during the war, although there could be no guarantee of their safety. The High Commissioner produced a report in 1943 on the Indian students in Britain for the India Office. He recommended that provisional committees in India be encouraged to provide more advice and to organize the influx of Indian students into the country much better. He envisaged a reorganization of the Indian Students’ Department with more permanent staff to look into the welfare of Indian students in Britain and he also recommended that an Indian Institute be built in London to provide a meeting place for students and to include a fully equipped library which would educate visitors about India.44 Therefore, the Government still had some concerns about Indian students. It was expected that, after the war, Indians would return to Britain for studies and there would still be some need to control them especially as political negotiations developed in India. By 1944, attitudes towards Indian students and the Indian political situation were changing, leading to demands that Indian students be treated differently. The Indian High Commissioner in London, S. E. Runganadha, wrote a letter to the Oxford University Vice-Chancellor asking that Indian students now be treated and admitted on equal terms to all other overseas students. I feel sure that you realize that the reasons which may have existed 30 years or so ago for special arrangements for the admission of Indian students as a class by themselves, are scarcely applicable in present-day conditions and especially having regard to the constitutional developments which have taken place and are now pending in India.45 The Oxford delegacy noted in response to the High Commissioner’s letter that Indian students had always been treated the same as other overseas students. In 1944, there were only 8 Indian students in Oxford, a large drop compared with 66 members in 1938 just before the war. Independence came for Pakistan and India on 14 and 15 August 1947. Many former Indian students were involved in the negotiations and had influenced this political change. Later chapters will explore the role Indians who had studied in Britain played in this transfer of power. Despite receiving independence from Britain and the inevitable changes in the relationship

Indian students in the UK (1900–1947)

29

between the Indian sub-continent and Britain, links remained strong and the importance of a Western and particularly British education did not diminish in the eyes of the majority of Indians or Pakistanis. The decades before 1947 were a period of dynamic change for the economy and employment opportunities were expanding for Indians. British desire to work in India was decreasing and many British personnel began to leave India. ‘Indianization’ of the services and of the private sector had been gradual but opportunities were increasing for educated Indians. The need for British qualifications was not essential anymore as jobs were no longer dependent on exams taken in London. The prestige of a British qualification remained important, however, and the wide range of educational opportunities as found in Britain was not yet fully available throughout India or Pakistan. At the time of independence in 1947, there were 19 universities in India with increasing emphasis being placed on scientific and technical education. Pakistan only had two universities in 1947: the Universities of Punjab and Dacca. Although the Pakistani government sought to strengthen the educational infrastructure and build more universities as soon as possible, the demand for higher education outpaced the development of institutions in Pakistan, and so wealthy Pakistanis looked to education in Britain and increasingly in the United States and other countries. Young Indians continued to find ways to come to the UK for study, and after independence the numbers of Indian students increased rapidly beyond the numbers who had come before the war. In 1952, there were 3250 Indians enrolled in British higher educational institutions, a marked increase from the period when India was part of the British Empire when Indian student numbers did not exceed 2000.46 English and Western education in India from the nineteenth century had created a new class of Indians who were to be ‘collaborators’ and intermediaries between the British regime and the Indian masses. The emphasis placed upon the English language and Western qualifications was designed to support the Government rather than to meet the needs of the Indian ‘nation’. However, Indians, and especially middle-class Indians, took up these opportunities and the educated elites were often at the forefront of nationalist politics during the twentieth century, envisaging further political and social changes for their country. During this period of educational development and social change in India, a large number of students were travelling thousands of miles to further their education in Britain. These numbers increased rapidly during this time as the subjects they studied and their destinations also broadened. The following chapters will explore in further detail how these privileged men and women benefited from their studies in Britain and the impact it had on their careers and lives upon return to India. These students had strengthened a tie between Britain and India that already existed because of empire, but was now an educational relationship whereby South Asians for many generations to come would continue to travel to Britain for higher education for both personal gains and in the hope of emulating the successes of their forefathers.

2

Images of Britain, India and the England-returned

Indian expectations of the West I had thought that the island of England was so small and the inhabitants so dedicated to learning that, before I arrived here, I expected that the country from one end to other would echo and re-echo with the lyrical songs of Tennyson; and I had also thought that wherever I might be in this narrow island, I would hear constantly Gladstone’s oratory, the explanation of the Vedas by Max Mueller, the scientific truth of Tindall, the profound thoughts of Carlyle and the philosophy of Bain. I was under the impression that wherever I would go I would find the old and young drunk with the pleasure of ‘intellectual’ enjoyment. But I have been very disappointed in this.1

Indian middle-class impressions of the many benefits of British education and of participating in British society had been developed well before a significant number of Indians were actually taking part in the opportunity to study in Britain. In the passage above, Rabindranath Tagore had recalled in 1881 some of his images and ideas of Britain before he went to study there in 1878. The United Kingdom held a special attraction for students who were familiar with British ideals, British officials and British educators in India. Of course, the opportunities for entry into the higher government services and higher levels of law could only be exploited if young Indians went to London to compete. This in turn added to the prestige and desire of many Indians to study abroad because they realized the benefits that could be accrued from taking this voyage. Many held high expectations of the country they were about to visit and the educational experience they would receive. As we have seen in the previous chapter, education in India was designed and adapted by the British along the lines of British education where English language was particularly important and beneficial for careers. It is worth noting that English literature in the curriculum was a study of ‘English’ culture as well as language and produced an image of the ‘English’ as producers of knowledge.2 This inculcated Anglophilia among these educated middle-class elites, and the syllabi allowed Indians to form many hegemonic representations of England and Britain. However, the practice of sending young Indians to Britain also

Images of Britain, India and England-returned

31

played a part in shaping and perpetuating some of these representations of the West. More recognition and attention appeared to be focused on those students who went to Britain rather than other foreign countries. This can be seen by the relative lack of caste opposition to those who went to other countries. With so much depending on Britain in India, ‘abroad’ generally meant Britain; B. K. Nehru remembers that ‘the only country the Indians were aware of outside India was Britain’.3 Having been taught British history in schools in India, students were attracted to images of the British Parliament (the House of Commons) and the British Crown. As the British Crown ruled over India during this period and Indians were technically British subjects, many had a natural desire to see the buildings and the country from where they were governed and where such important decisions relating to India took place. Vallabhbhai Patel, nationalist leader and deputy Prime Minister of independent India, joined the Middle Temple in 1910, having saved up during the previous five years by walking 14 kilometres a day to work. Patel has explained his desire to study in Britain because, ‘I was anxious to go overseas to see the people of England who, living 5000 miles away, were able to rule us for so long’.4 By going to Britain, Indians could compete directly with the British to demonstrate their own self-worth and furthermore accrue the perceived benefits from British education that had created such a successful and powerful society. Although Indians did go abroad in growing numbers in the twentieth century, there was still considerable opposition to travel and study in the Britain. Caste opposition among some Hindu communities against crossing the ‘black seas’ had been fairly strong in the nineteenth century. The case of Mohandas Gandhi is a well-known example. His caste elders in the Modh Bania community were opposed to his travelling to Britain in 1888, explaining that their religion forbade foreign travel. Despite these obstructions, Gandhi proceeded to Britain and upon his return the community was divided over whether he should be welcomed back. Gandhi bathed in the sacred Godavari River in Nasik and gave a caste dinner in Rajkot in order to appease the caste community.5 The Hindu England-returned were often required to perform a purification ceremony, known as the prayaschitta ceremony, to be accepted back into their castes. Refusal could result in exclusion for the student and their immediate family, although the amount of penance depended on the demands made by specific caste councils. Gradually, as the number of Indians studying abroad increased, orthodox Hindus came to realize that those who had returned had not lost all their religious values and that they could not prevent young students from trying to go to Britain if Hindus wanted to compete with other communities in India. The Bharat Bandhu said as much in 1881. It is only the Hindus who are afraid to send their sons to England for education for fear of the loss of their religion. But they should remember

32

Images of Britain, India and England-returned that if they do not get over this difficulty in some way or other, they will not be able to keep pace with the Bengalis and the Musalmans in the matter of progress.6

However, sea-travel continued to create controversy. In 1892, a meeting was held in Calcutta in order to create some public consensus on Hindu attitudes towards voyage abroad. At the meeting Suresh Chunder Dutt, a headmaster, pointed out that Hindus had travelled abroad to as many places as far apart as Persia, Greece and Ceylon for thousands of years but it was only in the nineteenth century that sea-voyage appeared to be such a problem for religious elders. Moreover, thousands of Hindus had needed and been allowed to cross the seas to take pilgrimages and therefore Hindu textual opposition to sea-voyage could be adapted. Hindus were now keen to take advantage of improved communications to travel to Britain to study and to explore and learn more about the world in which they lived. The president of the meeting, Sir Narendra Krishna, pointed out how essential many Indians now felt it was to travel to Britain for further studies in order to have a say in social and political developments in India and compete successfully with Englishmen.7 The majority of members at this Calcutta meeting agreed that they should support sea voyage and residence abroad as long as Hindu customs continued to be observed and upheld. A general consensus was reached that the potential benefits of travel abroad were so great that this diminished such outright opposition to crossing the ‘black seas’. Despite the liberalization of values, some Hindu communities still had concerns into the twentieth century about maintaining the purity of caste if young men travelled abroad. Lucy Carroll has made a study of the Kayasthas of North India in the period 1901–1909 who continued to harbour reservations about travel for study abroad. The issue would come to a head when the student returned back to India because the local community could then refuse to readmit the returnee. Carroll has demonstrated that it was the power struggle between local factions that determined caste opposition rather than any dictates from the shastras. The opposition also appeared only to surface against those who had been to Britain; for example Carroll cites the case of Ambika Charan who went to Japan in 1907 for technical education but faced no controversy or demand for penance upon his return.8 Even in the twentieth century, by which time communications had vastly improved and the migration of peoples between the two continents had increased, knowledge of the other was not totally complete. Dilip Kumar Roy, a Bengali musician, joined Cambridge in 1919 and his letters reveal another example of excessive idealization of Britain, and the disappointments the reality brought. He wrote a letter to his mentor, Pramatha Chowdhury, lamenting that ‘here I see in reality, “England is not a land of gold or silver, but of earth”’. Roy explained that, ‘I had held dear this notion for a long time that this could be a fairyland or something similar, but now having come here I see that this it is very much prosaic to its core’.9

Images of Britain, India and England-returned

33

Many young Indians made promises to their families and caste elders that they would refrain from meat and alcohol during their time in Britain, a gesture of orthodoxy to gain permission to go abroad. Due to limited knowledge, some believed that it would be impossible to be vegetarian in Britain due to the cold weather, thus creating concerns about maintaining religious integrity whilst abroad.10 Vegetarian Indians had many opportunities to maintain their vegetarianism whilst in Britain; for example there were vegetarian restaurants in London and also the London Vegetarian Society, and therefore fears about maintaining religious purity in terms of food were unfounded.11 Some young Indians enjoyed the freedom away from home to defy religious customs whilst in Britain. Shankarlal Banker went to London in 1911 and stayed there for four years to study the leather trade; upon his return he became involved in trade union organization and was a follower of Gandhi. Banker came from a strict Vaishnavite background and had been brought up vegetarian but whilst he was in Britain he ate meat. He refused to undergo the prayaschitta ceremony demanded by his community upon his return and therefore the caste council excommunicated him and his whole family. Despite the severe punishment, Banker’s family were still accepted by most families within their community and so the excommunication made little effect on their lives.12 Parents who sent their sons, and sometimes daughters, to Britain for education often had little idea of what the experience would entail. The main purpose to send their offspring, for which many sacrifices were deemed necessary and deserved, was to acquire a British qualification. J. N. C. Ganguly, an arts student at Birmingham University, told the Lytton committee in 1922 that he thought that ‘there was a feeling in India that unless a man became known in England he was not worthy of consideration’.13 Ganguly told the committee that there was a popular perception in India that Rabindranath Tagore had not found fame until he was recognized in Britain, and therefore Indians had deep respect for British opinion and regard.14 Only those from well-off families could afford to send their children to Britain for education, unless their offspring also received some kind of scholarships. M. Hidayatullah was born in Nagpur in 1905. His father was a civil servant and his mother was barely literate, but she realized that education was the key to success. She had three sons; after the first son was born she gave up wearing silk and only wore cotton in order to save money to send her sons to England for their education. Her ambition was fulfilled as all three went to Cambridge and her youngest, M. Hidayatullah, was a barrister who became Chief Justice of India in 1968 and acting President for a month in 1969.15 We can also see the sacrifices made for N. G. Ranga from Tamilnad. His parents were not well educated but placed huge importance on their children’s education. His father bore the expenses of his son’s Oxford education, from 1920, with the help of other relatives and was always careful not to let his son know of the hardship they were going through while he was abroad. His father hoped that Ranga would join the ICS and had high aspirations that education

34

Images of Britain, India and England-returned

abroad would not only help the family but the whole local community.16 The increase in the size of the ‘intellectual’ class in India was coupled with an expansion in the aspiration for education, encouraged by the desire to compete and negotiate directly with the British. This was demonstrated in the increasing numbers of Indian students in Britain and their changing composition as it was not only sons of rich landlords and lawyers who were going abroad, but a wider range of men and women from different social backgrounds, often undertaking the ‘duty’ of education abroad under great expense for their families. Eventually caste councils could no longer prevent young Indians from going abroad. Councils could demand some sort of penance from students upon their return, but the impetus was too strong to restrain the majority of ambitious students. The case of V. K. R. V. Rao, founder of the Delhi School of Economics, who was admitted to Cambridge in 1933, however, reveals the diversity in attitudes across the sub-continent. Even in the 1930s, the Madhwa Brahmin community required that Rao undertake the purification ceremony when he returned, which he refused to do. Rao organized and paid for his younger brother’s sacred thread ceremony upon his return to India but was not allowed to attend the occasion for fear of ‘pollution’.17 The Englandreturned were able to use their own examples of success and interact with their local Hindu communities to demonstrate that little harm came from travelling abroad and that the benefits could be immense, and so caste opposition became largely relaxed. Despite certain Hindu caste concerns about travel abroad, the large majority of Indian students in Britain in the twentieth century came from a Hindu background. Muslim students were in a minority despite no apparent community aversion to travelling abroad; in their cases it may have been the nature of the education available abroad that caused concerns or indeed a lack of opportunities for Muslims to study abroad although many elite Muslims studied in Turkey, Iran and the Middle East instead. Apart from Government scholarships, another means for Indians to raise the funds to study in Britain was by pooling together community funds and scholarships from local associations; it appeared that Hindu communities in the twentieth century took a much more active role in promoting and encouraging their bright offspring to cross the ‘black seas’. As parents made sacrifices for their children’s educations, the students were equally aware of the ‘duty’ they had. The correspondence between M. R. Jayakar and his son, Jayapal, in the 1930s as Jayapal studied in Oxford seeking admission to one of the colleges is indicative of the high expectations held of Indian students in Britain. ‘Dear father’, wrote Jayapal from the P&O ship on 5 October 1932, ‘I will tell you on my word of honour that I will make the best of the opportunity which is given by you. I know very few people must be getting such opportunity and I am very proud that I am one of those few.’18 Jayakar, who had been at the Bar in London from 1901 to 1905, responded to his son once he reached Oxford, ‘I must once more remind you of your great responsibilities in this matter [ … ] Everyone is

Images of Britain, India and England-returned

35

expecting you to make the best of your opportunity and return home after reaping the completest [sic] fruit of your endeavour.’19 Jayapal found it difficult to pass the Oxford entrance examinations and made continual promises to his father that he was studying hard and taking his responsibilities seriously. In December 1932, Jayapal wrote of his homesickness, ‘I wish I could be with [our people] but I am bound by duty and hence I must work hard and get through my exam.’20 He continued to express his understanding of the opportunities he had received: ‘I am doing my level best to avail myself of this golden opportunity, which very few Indian students can get in their life.’21 When Jayapal requested that he might come home during the summer holidays, his father responded with disappointment: You forget that you have had holidays enough in India, and that you have come to this country, not for holidays, but for study. A sentence like the above shows the complete misconception of your duties while you are away from your home and your affectionate relatives.22 Although Jayapal enjoyed his time in Oxford immensely, the pressures of his parents’ and community’s expectations upon him are clear. The journey to Britain for Indian students was not just about the experience but also about the results and the degrees that they had to bring back for the prestige of their families and for the advancement of their future careers.

Reactions to the England-returned I can frankly tell you that people here in India give preference to those persons who had crossed the seas and had been educated in England or in Scotland. They do not give that much value to men or women who had been all throughout in India and although they have done well in an Indian career but still there is just that lurking admiration and love for those persons who had been there, probably their outlook in life had broadened and they were much wider than ourselves.23

The interest and admiration for young men and women who returned from Britain with university qualifications extended beyond their immediate family. The use of the term ‘England-returned’ to describe Indians who had studied abroad indicates that these youngsters were deemed to be a separate social phenomenon. They were objects of prestige and difference thus warranting a new descriptive term. The uses of the expression ‘England-returned’ in both English and the vernacular illustrates that the term had become part of the language, especially of the educated elites, but we can suppose that a large proportion of the Indian population were aware that people were going abroad, and that these people who returned were considered important and distinct.

36

Images of Britain, India and England-returned

In the early part of the twentieth century, Indians were gradually gaining more representative political power in the Legislative Assembly, following the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms in 1919, and more posts in the ICS, especially once simultaneous examinations were introduced in Delhi in 1922. After vocal opposition to the all-white Simon Commission on constitutional reform in 1927, Indian politicians were invited to Round Table discussions in London from 1930. Independence was slowly becoming a more realistic goal. Before these changes, in January 1909, Professor Lees-Smith from the LSE came to Bombay and proposed the establishment of six scholarships for Indians to learn commerce in London. Lees-Smith wished to encourage Indians to go to the LSE to learn to adapt to the political reforms which were taking place in India under British direction. Although the Indian Spectator was cynical about the need to study British politics, instead advocating that Indians should be learning Indian history and about Indian land tenures, Rast Goftar was in favour of a LSE education. Both papers were published in Bombay and produced by Parsis and in light of the large proportion of Parsis who studied and travelled abroad, one would expect both papers to support education abroad, but they reflected the growing tensions in Indian political debate from awareness of the benefits of internationalism to a sense of the need to consolidate Indian learning and expertise in their own resources. The Rast Goftar argued that the opportunity to study the social life and political institutions of the English by some of the leading educationists was not to be missed by the Indian youth, calling for an end to apathy and urging parents to recognize the numerous advantages of this type of education abroad.24 It was becoming increasingly apparent that Indians had to learn British practices and approaches in order to compete with the British in all political arenas and thus achieve an independence for India that would paradoxically be based upon British political methods. The freedom of Britain was particularly admired and attractive for young Indians immersed in the political struggle within India in the early twentieth century. In 1911, the Allahabad-based newspaper The Pioneer began a discussion about the status of the Indian student in Britain. The editors were concerned that the rapid increase in the number of Indian students (including many from Allahabad) was affecting their popularity in Britain and thus Indians were not benefiting from their stay abroad. Although it had been believed that ‘a few years of English life were an education in themselves’, The Pioneer now urged that more educational provisions be developed within India as the large number of Indians in Britain were creating inward-looking communities unable to interact and learn from the British.25 The Pioneer, famous for employing Rudyard Kipling in the 1880s, was noted for its conservative outlook and yet the urge to develop education in India could also be seen as positively nationalistic. The Bengalee responded to The Pioneer by agreeing that Indian students might be less popular in Britain than 15 or 20 years before but wished to continue to encourage the best young Indians to visit Britain to complete their education. The Bengalee referred to the freedom

Images of Britain, India and England-returned

37

and self-reliance that young Indians came in contact with in Britain and ‘the broader, the more inspiring and the more energetic life of the West’. Although The Bengalee, edited from Calcutta, was seen as the mouthpiece of Indian nationalists and critical of the British in India, it began to take a more moderate stance after 1907 and this piece demonstrates the support of moderate nationalists for education abroad. The article explains in detail how Indian students could hope to play an important role in learning the tools and methods from western civilizations for India to develop and compete with other nations: Deeply saturated with the ethical conception of which India is the cradle, they must imbibe the spirit of work peculiar to the West and learn the value of organised effort which has secured to Western nations the place which they occupy to-day in the history of the world. A visit to Europe we regard as an essential part of the education of our young men.26 Therefore, interest in the education of Indians abroad was not only confined to relatives and local communities, but held national relevance as well, as many Indians held high expectations about the wider benefits of foreign education. The debates of the Indian Legislative Assembly, established in 1921 and made up of a large number of elected Indians, show how politically minded Indians held British education in high esteem. In only their second session, the Assembly held a debate on whether they should grant 2 lakhs of rupees to the Lytton Committee to travel to India to explore Indian conditions and add to their findings on Indian students in Britain. The Assembly voted against the grant having decided that there was no need to study Indian conditions; however, a British member, H. Sharp, who was Secretary to the Government of India, spoke in favour of the grant, explaining the ambition of the Government to see Indians become Fellows of their Colleges and the Royal Society, referring to the successes of Jagadish Chandra Bose and Ramanujan in the Sciences and Mathematics. Sharp’s comments demonstrate Government support of Indians studying overseas and the great admiration they had for Indian successes. Sharp went on to contend that ‘those students are going to form a very large and important proportion of the educated class in the next mature generation in India, a generation which, I think, is going to be an exceedingly important one’. Indian members of the Assembly also conceded to the important role that these Indian students would play in the future. Abru Kasem said that the returned students came back ‘if not better educated at least better cultured and refined’, and Mr Shafi argued that these students play an important ‘part in the national affairs of this country’.27 These public affirmations all added to the prestige and allure of British education for Indians, which was gaining in ‘national’ importance.28 Indians realized the importance of a British degree in India due to the structure of British rule, even Subhas Chandra Bose, an ardent nationalist, understood the need for a British qualification. Bose’s letters to

38

Images of Britain, India and England-returned

his friend Hemanta Kumar Sarkar when on his way to Cambridge in 1919 reveal how important Bose felt a British degree was: ‘My primary desire is to obtain a university degree in England; otherwise I cannot make headway in the educational line.’29 ‘I must take a degree here’, wrote Bose in his next letter, ‘because that will stand me in very good stead in the future.’30 Surrya Kumar Bhuyan explained how he felt as a young child at school in Assam in 1902: A visit to England formed part of the future plans of ambitious children and youths of those days; and a man returned from abroad, known generally as ‘Bilat-pherat’ (England-returned), commanded considerable distinction in society whatever might be his actual achievement.31 Bhuyan was writing in the 1970s once he had benefited from a British education. S. K. Kirpalani, an ICS man in the Punjab, wrote his memoirs in the 1950s and described the attention his family received in 1909 for having an elder brother studying in England. Both men, writing many years after the events, were working with recollection and hindsight and reveal much about the times that they were writing in as well as the time they were talking about. Their ability to express how admired the England-returned were demonstrate that these were key impressions that lasted and in addition that these may have been attitudes that continued to the times in which they were writing. The whole Kirpalani family, Sikhs in Hyderabad, gained some distinction as people ‘would whisper and say, “These are the boys whose brother has gone overseas – Vilayat – to become a Collector.”’.32 Kirpalani’s brother, Hira, was the second child of eight; Santdas Khushiram was the seventh and born in 1889. Hira studied history at Merton College, Oxford, was called to the Bar at Lincoln’s Inn and returned a successful ICS candidate in 1912. Hira was met by a crowd of 2,000 people on the platform of the train station when he returned from England, especially lauded for being the first Sikh to be recruited into the ICS, and for four continuous days attended receptions organized by the Hyderabadi community, also receiving personal felicitations from the British collector. (Unfortunately Kirpalani has not described the reception he received when he returned as an ICS officer in 1922, although by that time his father had died and he was posted to the Punjab rather than his home province.) K. P. S. Menon describes the similar curiosity received when his brother returned from England having studied been called to the Bar in 1908: This was the first time the people of Kottayam had seen an ‘Englandreturned’ man. They had strange ideas as to how he would look and behave. They expected him to have become much fairer; they also expected him to speak with an English accent.33 Menon’s brother, Gopi Chettan, had acquired some British habits. He now held his watch in his pocket instead of on his wrist and shaved with a safety

Images of Britain, India and England-returned

39

razor instead of a cut-throat. Gopi Chettan returned with a slight stoop, which boys copied for a while thinking that it was a fashionable Western affectation only to realize later that it was just an injury. This imitation was an indication of the admiration people felt for the British. Menon’s father was a lawyer, but now Gopi Chettan moved to Madras to set up his own practice with the benefits of his British qualification. The inhabitants of Travancore State would probably have been curious about British visitors to their town as well, but the hybrid England-returned was a new phenomenon and more approachable. He could demonstrate to them the opportunities and possibilities that travel abroad could give an Indian. These reminiscences of huge crowds and community interest in the England-returned reveal that, although they could be lauded or criticized, there appeared to be wide awareness of the travelling abroad of young Indians; they were making a social impact beyond their immediate families or social group. K. P. S. Menon believed that there were two extremes to a broad spectrum of England-returned men. The first and rare type returned to India with contempt for his countrymen who now appeared servile and unmannered. This type was even contemptuous of his parents, and his ‘old sweetheart’ appeared dull, plain and uneducated. The more common type rushed into revolution as soon as they returned to India, every day in Britain having increased their loathing for Britain and Western civilization. Menon, however, stated that the average undergraduate would adopt a combination of both, trying to find a compromise to their attraction to Britain and their attachments to India.34 When Menon returned from Oxford as an ICS man in 1923, the community in Travancore still sensed the novelty of having an England-returned man amongst them, nearly 15 years after the interest in the return of his brother. Menon attracted much attention this time because he was going to enter the ICS and be part of the very bureaucracy that was part of the British establishment. I had to be on exhibition from morning to evening. The people were surprised to see that I still dressed like them and did not go about in trousers, as my brother had done when he returned from England. [ … ] Some were pleased to see that I retained my native habits. Others were disappointed; to them an ICS officer in a loin-cloth was an incongruous position.35 He was awarded a first in history which garnered him much acclaim, his brother took him around Madras as a ‘prize exhibit’, and even in 1950 his colleague from Oxford, Liaquat Ali Khan, was still mentioning and praising his scholastic achievements in England to other politicians. Torick Ameer Ali joined the Calcutta High Court in 1917 after returning from London as a barrister. His memoirs reveal in detail the varied responses and attitudes of and towards England-returned barristers in Bengal. Ali, whose father has also been at the Bar, in his own words, lived a rather anglicized life and married an Englishwoman in 1924. However, after the Baqur-Id

40

Images of Britain, India and England-returned

riots in 1926, Ali became more involved in the Muslim community and built up a large group of Muslim friends. ‘It disposed of the assumption so dear to the Anglo-Indians of all kinds, that the “Real Indian” (Kipling’s term) rejected contact with the England-returned, or English educated native.’36 Upon his initial return to India, Ali went to visit the Governor of Bengal, Lord Ronaldshay, and was met by clear contempt from one of the Governor’s officers. Ali was aware that it was apparent that he had recently returned from studies in England through his manner and appearance and thus the Indian Jemadar who met him assumed that he had imbibed subversive notions.37 Curzon and Ronaldshay were suspicious and concerned about young men returning from England. They were worried about seditionists and anarchists, but Curzon also feared that the success of Indians in the ICS would weaken the government. Ali provides an amusing explanation of the interest society took in the England-returned, quoted in length below: To its Hindustani equivalent Vilayati, I prefer the Anglo-Bengali ‘England-returned’ as having about it something mildly derisive, employing perhaps returned-empty, which I hope was not always the case. In our early days we provided our stay-at-home elders with much harmless amusement and many were the stories circulated of the strange habits we had acquired on our travels. By my day these stories had become legends. We were also a godsend to the Anglo-Indian novelist of providing him, or us as was more often the case, with a theme, that of disillusionment on return with or without mixed marriage.38 Ali contended that by 1917 the England-returned were so numerous that they were no longer entertaining or novel. However, he was living in Calcutta in Bengal, the province which had sent one of the largest numbers of students to Britain, and so they may have lost their charm and excitement for Bengali observers. For others, the interest in the men and women returning from Britain continued well into the 1920s and 1930s. For Brij Kumar Nehru, his brother’s return as a successful ICS man in 1925 elicited a great deal of interest, but by this time admiration was mixed up with cynicism. His brother, Ratan, had been to Exeter College, Oxford, and stood first in the ICS exam and so his return was noted with considerable attention in their home town of Allahabad: Every movement of his, every gesture and every word was noted and commented upon, often, I fear unfavourably. This criticism was to a certain extent a reaction reflecting the difference between those he had left behind and who remained as they were and what he had become, which was something beyond their reach. There had also inevitably developed a gap between the ‘England returned’ and us poor natives; the former had quite naturally adopted many of the ways of the country in which he had lived for five years but this adoption was regarded as an affectation. This

Images of Britain, India and England-returned

41

was not something confined to poor Ratan; it used to be fairly common for those who adopted foreign ways to be so censured. Members of the ICS were put through a specially rigorous microscopic scrutiny to discover whether their access to power had gone to their heads.39 The Nehru family in Allahabad are a clear example of continuity in a family tradition of being educated in Britain and the status this conferred. B. K. Nehru, the grand-nephew of Motilal Nehru, went to the LSE in 1929 and he remarked that ‘there was no family debate at all because at that stage of the game the upper class Indian was supposed to go to England for further education’.40 It was taken for granted that he would go to England as his grandparents, father, uncles and cousins had all gone to study in Britain. The Nehrus were a very wealthy and Westernized family, but education and a British qualification remained important to maintain their social status throughout the early twentieth century. The criticisms attracted by Ratan Nehru reveal the changing attitudes towards the England-returned; they were no longer novel in the large cities and towns by the late 1920s. Nationalists had been successful in attracting a large proportion of Indians to support movements such as Swadeshi, Khadi and non-cooperation that fostered an animosity to British goods and attitudes and encouraged Indians to become more self-sufficient such as through spinning their own cotton, and so many Indians were becoming critical of Indians who adopted Western manners. However, Motilal and Jawaharlal, who both served as Congress Presidents, led highly Westernized lives and were able to reconcile those habits with their political ideologies and yet retain public support. Therefore, there was no clear-cut strategy for Westernized Indians, nor was criticism widespread or consistent. From a young age, B. K. Nehru had the ambition to be a member of the ICS and thus be a part of the ruling class, even though Motilal and Jawaharlal were not enthusiastic about the ICS as a career choice by the 1920s. B. K. Nehru’s father, Brijlal, had been sent to Oxford in 1905 to compete for the ICS by Motilal Nehru. His son explained that the ICS ‘was the highest ambition that any Indian could think of for his son. By this entry he became automatically a member of the ruling class and his material affluence was assured.’41 In a letter from Motilal to Brijlal, the prestige of the ICS was made clear; ‘Just one year of really hard work and you can make yourself a hero’.42 It was natural that B. K. Nehru should study in Britain, but he did not go to Oxford as his father had done, because his father suggested he attend the LSE instead to learn political science. The Nehru family was aware of the elitism of Oxford, and so although they allowed Brij Kumar to compete for the ICS, he was encouraged to study at an institution that was seen as more socially diverse. He was able to make British friends in London and was pleasantly surprised by the way British people were more polite and friendly than they had been in India. Yet serious issues did arise out of his Westernized upbringing, which became more apparent when he returned to India:

42

Images of Britain, India and England-returned The English-educated person started apeing western manners, he wore western clothes, he lived in the western style, he even ate western food which is to most Indians indigestible what he did to be part of the establishment. And in short there arose a class which was not only denationalised but which could not get into intimate contact with the people. I speak of this very feeling because I am, I do belong to that class and my father belonged to that class and my children belong to that class, three generations of de-nationalised Indians.43

Nehru had imbibed many British manners, due to his family background and his education in London. However, he also became politically attached to India through his student experiences in London. Nehru was a nationalist at heart even though he was loyal to the ICS. When he joined the ICS in the Punjab, he not only became aware of how his Western manners alienated him from others, but also realized that his idea of Indian nationality formed whilst abroad was not necessarily representative of the Indian masses. It became clear to Nehru that ‘there was not this Indian consciousness, the totality of Indian consciousness which I had been led to believe, and that in particular the Moslem regarded himself as different’. Indian students had many conflicting loyalties, from particular loyalties to their castes and religious communities, to their home country to their broader loyalties to the British Crown. In a small community in Britain, Indians could become alienated from their traditions and their countrymen, and forget about the many simmering political divisions within the sub-continent. The return of educated Indians who had adopted British manners and forged successful careers influenced and impressed younger Indians. The appeal of studying abroad for young Indians was tied into the prestige given to the England-returned. Mohammed Said Khan went to Britain in 1930 to study engineering. His father was a small landlord and Khan had been inspired by the return of a man to their town from Britain; Khan describes how the returned man was ‘treated just like European and treated good pay [sic], good living and all that while we were sort of lower status’.44 To go to Britain and return with a degree was a means to improve one’s status and social standing. The prestige accorded to the England-returned was related to the prevalence of the English language among elites in Indian society already discussed and implied both anglicized and superior habits to certain sections of society. Thus, they were separated by both economic advantages and perceived social superiority, and as we will consider in the next chapter, they created their own supra-elite within Indian society. The prestige awarded to the England-returned is demonstrated in the manner in which their marriages were arranged. The Malik family from Delhi visited Britain in 1935 to find a suitable match for their daughter. They wanted to find a Sikh studying at a British university. Khushwant Singh, studying Law in King’s College, London, eventually became engaged to their daughter, Kaval. When Khushwant had come home in at the end of his first year for

Images of Britain, India and England-returned

43

the summer holidays, his family had been disappointed that he looked and sounded the same. In 1939, after five years abroad, Khushwant returned again but now with the added disappointment that he had passed his exams poorly. When my father’s friends came to congratulate him on the return of his son and asked him, ‘kaka kee pass kar key ayahai?’ – What has your son passed? – he would reply, ‘Hor tay patta nahin time bahut pass kar aya hai’ – I don’t really know what he has passed except that he has passed a lot of time.45 Expectations had been high and his father’s disappointment in him was obvious, although Singh did go on to have a successful career as a lawyer and then novelist. He married Kaval in October 1939, who had been to England too and taken a teaching course there. The accounts above refer to specific attitudes towards the England-returned and have concentrated on the professionals who joined the government services and the Bar. They have demonstrated that wonder and awe was expressed in all parts of India, from the capital of Calcutta to a small town in the South. The interest shown by members of the close community was not in the qualification or the educational experience that these young men had received, but more concern was about Western culture and habits. Observers were interested to see some material success from stay and education abroad. For example, D. F. Karaka’s failure in the ICS and Bar finals was a cause of severe disappointment for his family. Friends in India criticized Karaka for wasting his father’s money and wondered if he had spent his time in Britain merely drinking and cavorting with women.46 These examples have demonstrated not only the wide gulf perceived between the British and Indian cultures but how important social customs and habits were to Indian people. If one could imitate British culture, then one would appear to have socially ascended even though Westernized Indians were criticized for losing touch with their roots. Hence, there were contradictions in the interest into the England-returned, which encouraged others to aspire to such prestige but also created internal divisions within society throughout India.

Ideas of India Indians had been travelling abroad for thousands of years. Their journeys had allowed them to gain more knowledge about other societies, but were also a means to view India from a distance. By the beginning of the twentieth century the relaxation in Hindu caste opposition and improved national and international communication links facilitated travel even more. Indians took great interest in all of their emigrants and in 1940 the nationalist leader Jawaharlal Nehru acknowledged that ‘it is perfectly true to say that if you would know India well, you must go out of India’.47 Images and ideas of

44

Images of Britain, India and England-returned

India from the perspective of her own inhabitants were developed when Indians were abroad and had the opportunity to assess their own society from a distance. The Indian student community in Britain was a distinct migrant group with specific purposes and expectations who differed greatly from other Indian migrants such as indentured labourers and seamen who travelled in large numbers during this period too. These students were now able to engage in a physical encounter with Britain and had an education which informed many of their ideas about their selves and their homes. Travellers often notice the differences between their home and their destination more sharply; there would have been many similarities between Indian and British societies, but it was likely that the students would accentuate the novelties of stay in Britain. M. R. Jayakar was called to the Bar in 1905 and wrote his autobiography in 1958, quoting from his diary of 1905 on his impressions of Britain when he returned to India. Jayakar noted upon the difference between ‘a nation that is free’ (Britain) and one that is ‘just beginning to feel the faint throb of national unity’ (India).48 Jayakar’s experiences in Britain highlighted the contrasts with India for him and encouraged him to become heavily involved in India’s political scene as a member of the Bombay Legislative Council and member of the Legislative Assembly as well as High Court Judge. The noticeable political differences between India and Britain spurred many students into public life when they returned. The distance away from India made many students homesick. Homesickness was a common emotion for young students, many of whom were away from their families for the first time and in an unfamiliar country. These heightened emotions encouraged them to think about their identities and to reassess their feelings for their own country. Jawaharlal Nehru joined Harrow School in 1905, aged 15, and Britain and British society became very familiar to him. However, on his return to England from India after the summer in October 1908, he wrote to his father that he missed his family, explaining that ‘in spite of the homelike feeling I am consistently reminded of the fact that I am a foreigner, an intruder here.’49 Indian students were British subjects and moving within empire, but time in Britain allowed them to reassess their position within the imperial hierarchy. Harindranath Chattopadhyay remembers going to Calcutta in 1912, where his family lived amongst many England-returned friends: ‘In those days anybody who had either returned from “home” (!) or spoke fluent English was looked upon as second to the Divine creator himself!’50 Chattopadhayay had been brought up in Hyderabad by his Bengali Brahmin family. His father, Aghorenath, had studied at Edinburgh in the nineteenth century; his elder sister, Sarojini, a poet, had studied at Cambridge and London in the 1890s and then became a prominent member of Congress (presiding in 1925); and his elder brother, Virendranath, had studied in London and been part of the India House organization at Highgate. Virendranath went into exile in Paris in 1910, to avoid arrest owing to his links with V. D. Savarkar, who had managed India House and was at the time jailed in Brixton for his advocacy

Images of Britain, India and England-returned

45

of violence against the British. Chattopadhyay’s recollections reveal the predominance of Britain in the discourse among Indian elites, and why so many young Indians were compelled to travel to and study in the United Kingdom. Harindranath, a student of English, was intensely homesick during his time in Cambridge from 1918, despite loving his time in Britain. He missed and craved India during this period, explaining, ‘most Indians re-discover India and begin to want her, love her, long for her intensely, once they have left her and moved, breathed and felt for a short while on “foreign soil”’.51 His wife, Kamaladevi, eventually joined him, but Harindranath did not finish his initial plans to complete a PhD on Blake. Perhaps it was the predominance of English as a child that had encouraged him to pursue studies in English literature, but after returning to India, Harindranath pursued a career as poet, actor and playwright in the English language. Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay was a member of the All-India Women’s Conference (AIWC) and social worker who had been educated in Britain. Born in 1903 in Mangalore, in South India, her father was a senior civil servant and her mother was friends with Sri Aurobindo. Kamaladevi visited Sri Aurobindo, who had been educated in Cambridge from 1890 to 1893 and then become a political revolutionary upon his return, and realized the need to broaden her education and observe societies outside India. She decided that she would study social work and gained admission to Bedford College for a course in sociology combining theory and practical training in social work in London, which allowed her access to slums and the lower classes of British society. Upon her return to India, Kamaladevi became involved in the spinning movement and was an active reformer, and was jailed six times. She did not credit her time in England as influencing her outlook much, as she had pledged herself to Gandhi’s work before she went to Britain and had been very much influenced by her mother’s political consciousness rather than any influences in Britain. She did, however, acknowledge that she had learnt about the discipline of social work from her education in Britain.52 Students in Britain could see India as a whole from abroad and also gain a better idea of the wider world and India’s place in it. As Harindranath Chattopadhyay admitted, ‘It is necessary for one to experience the wide world alone. One begins to know that one is not the only one in it, and that one’s country is not the only country either.’53 By realizing that human life was similar in other countries, one could gain a better perspective on Indian affairs and develop one’s philosophical outlook. Prejudices could be dispelled and students could realize that Indians were not so different from Europeans. The historian, David Arnold, has written about Indian scientists at the turn of the century, attributing Western education as one of the main factors in their development. He also attributes training abroad as important in fostering in the scientists the sense ‘of belonging to an international scientific community’, being able to mix on more equal terms with leading scientists and gaining access to a much wider scientific domain beyond Britain to people in Europe and the USA.54 Study abroad for Indians gave them a better feel for the

46

Images of Britain, India and England-returned

international situation and encouraged them to give more credit to India as a player on the world stage. Students could learn more about India through their distance and through their freedom to find information. Abroad, it seemed as if ‘India’ was the first thing on students’ minds and the main topic of conversation. Subhas Chandra Bose was able to find out about India through letters from his family and newspapers. Bose had been involved in political agitation in India before he came to study at Cambridge in 1919. He enjoyed the freedom he was given in Britain and, despite his political resentment of the British, especially after the 1919 Amritsar Massacre, Bose was willing and able to make some British friends. Within the Indian student community, young Indians would pass on information and could discuss matters freely. Bose wrote to his friend in March 1920, ‘We get all news about India here – and there is also a lot of discussion on India. Even one who had never thought of his own country cannot help doing so after coming here.’55 Students became more aware of other provinces of India whilst abroad; the limited number of Indian students and the close association amongst them broadened their horizons. India was such a large and diverse country that many inhabitants were unaware of the features and traditions of other provinces. Coming from closed communities, it was once they were abroad that they were able to find out more about their home and other communities that lived in their country. Dr R. P. Paranjpye, a member of the Indian Council, remarked about this issue succinctly in an article for The Indus, the publication of the Indian Students’ Union and Hostel in Gower Street, London. One of the peculiar advantages that Indian students are able to obtain by a stay in this country, is the opportunity of knowing their own country better. India is such a vast land that a young man in India is able to see only a very little bit of it. When he comes here he sees men from different parts of his country and learns that the things which he used to consider as essential in his own part are regarded as of no importance at all in other parts. He also learns to grow out of his narrow, provincial outlook and to conceive India as one whole.56 Therefore, coming to Britain was an educational experience for students not only through their prescribed courses, but through their social education about India as well. This imagery of the Indian ‘nation’ that was formulated by looking at the country from abroad and with distant eyes, fed into ideas of nationalism and hopes for the future of India. Indian students saw ‘India’ in a new light and became more informed about their homeland, which gave them a voice that could then educate Indians when they returned home. Indian students realized the benefits of their close association with other Indians in Britain. K. D. Ghosh, a student at Oriel College, Oxford, commented on the benefits of the Indian Students’ Union and Hostel, which had been founded in 1919, with the remark that ‘England turns us into the

Images of Britain, India and England-returned

47

greatest patriots, that we are far better Indians here than at home’ because Indians from different parts of India meet.57 Ghosh believed that the spread of national consciousness among students had overpowered previous petty provincial differences and caste prejudices. Their stay abroad had unified them in a far better way than any rhetoric could do. The influence of foreign education and the perspective it gave on India was discussed by another student for The Indus in 1926: The essentials of Indian nationality are better realized when people from different provinces meet together and particularly so in a foreign land. We understand each other. We merge our provincialism into a higher and comprehensive unity. We realize where we stand today and what we have to attain in future.58 These students were unified by the common experience of being away from India, which had positive effects on their outlook on India and had repercussions on their sense of ‘Indian’ identities. Not all students from the Indian sub-continent felt united whilst in Britain. Distance was not always going to dispel prejudices. One Cambridge student was adamantly opposed to the sense of unity among Indians. He was Choudhary Rahmat Ali and in 1933 he produced the ‘Now or Never’ declaration stating plans for creating a separate Muslim nation, and founded the Pakistan National Movement. Rahmat Ali wrote about these demands in 1935 and explained his difficulties in finding people to sign the declaration with him. He complained that it ‘proved to be a long and laborious search for so firm was the grip of “Indianism” on our young intellectuals at English Universities’ that only after a month did he find three students in London to sign the declaration.59 Rahmat Ali implies that a sense of unity was strong among Indians in Britain, and that this idea of ‘India’ and an Indian character was fostered in the climate of British society. There were Muslims in Britain who supported the idea of Pakistan; indeed Mohammad Iqbal, the philosopher-poet who is often credited for formulating the idea of ‘Pakistan’, although not necessarily as a separate nation-state, graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge in 1907 and was called to the Bar in 1908. The ease of meeting other Indians in Britain should not be underestimated; it was much easier for many to converse with other Indians whilst abroad than in India. Among Indian students in Britain, and away from India, ideas and policies of national unity and separatism were discussed and strengthened because they had to realize and contemplate the idea of the nation; an idea that was new for many of these students as the idea was also novel for many Indians at this time, living as they did in such a diverse country with disparate provinces and princely states and a wide range of religious backgrounds and vernacular languages. George Bernard Shaw wrote a letter for the inaugural issue of the Indian Student, a journal produced by the Federation of Indian Student Societies in Great Britain and Ireland, in 1937. Shaw urged that the students should not

48

Images of Britain, India and England-returned

just mix with other Indians but also seek British company. Shaw explained that, ‘what he comes here for is Anglicization; and the more complete it is the more useful he will be when he resumes his nationality’. Jawaharlal Nehru was invited to respond to Shaw’s comments, and he agreed that Indian students should socialize with non-Indians and try to understand European culture, ‘for only thus can he widen his horizon and understand to some extent the modern world, and thus make himself fit for the future service of the Indian people and humanity’. Nehru also emphasized the need, when abroad, for Indian students to meet with each other and to co-operate in joint action. Nehru stated that if ‘Indian students do not give thought to these larger problems during their studies abroad, they do not learn much, and they return to their mother country with vacant minds, or minds which are full of useless lumber, for which there is no demand in this country’.60 Thus it was becoming politically important that students should be more aware of other cultures and world events. Students, however, did not only gain an international outlook or better understanding of other cultures when they were abroad, they gained a better understanding of what ‘India’ was or could be.

Conclusions Within certain circles, a huge amount of prestige was associated with the England-returned. Simultaneously there was pressure on middle-class families to send their children to Britain, if they wanted them to succeed, as it was perceived that the experience of stay in the UK would be of immense benefit for their future careers and hence financial security and social status. Such Indians had faith in the influence that the British environment would have on their youth. Although sons and daughters would be separated from their families by thousands of miles, these parents were willing to send them away to an unfamiliar place. They trusted their image of the West as a liberal society that would allow Indians to prosper. Indian students were expected to earn educational qualifications but also to learn about Western society and politics. When expectations of British society were not met, disappointments were natural, but the worth of the British education and experience tended to outweigh the shocks of the reality of British life for Indian students. The best way to confirm that Indians still valued British education is by the fact that numbers of Indian students continued to rise in the years leading up to independence despite changes in political relations in India. The Indian middle classes and social leaders continued to hold British education in high esteem even as the majority of the population was in support of a British withdrawal from India. British education was not seen as a British tool of domination over Indians; rather it was seen as a means for Indians to compete on the same level as other Western societies. These students, on the one hand, allowed fixed ideas of Britain and the prestige associated with a British education to perpetuate throughout the early twentieth century and beyond independence. On the other hand, their

Images of Britain, India and England-returned

49

interactions with many elements of British society allowed them to reconsider their ideas of Britain and the West. Despite changing imperial relations and hardening nationalist sentiments in India, Indian admiration for British values and education did not appear to abate. Nationalists tried to explain this by seeing Britain as two countries – the imperial power and the democratic, libertarian social community. These justifications were problematic in themselves but give us an indication as to why the numbers of Indians coming to study in Britain rose throughout this period (apart from during the wars) and how the England-returned were able to wield such powerful roles in Indian and Pakistani society in the lead-up and aftermath to independence. The experience of travelling abroad to Britain had many repercussions for Indian students. In an alien country, many were forced to rely on other Indians and foster a new sense of Indian unity and identity. The first-hand experience of British society and institutions brought the Anglo-Indian relationship closer to the fore and allowed a reassessment of this relationship. The distance away from India encouraged students to look at their country in a new light and think of new futures for India and Pakistan. Many other Indians visited Britain during this period of the early twentieth century, particularly those with political purpose to petition the Government or attend round-table meetings. They were able to broaden their horizons and take new ideas from their distance and specifically from British society. However, the Indian student community had a much more marked experience. The length of their stay, their youth, their engagement with intellectual society and the educational atmosphere and their ambition were all characteristics that allowed them to willingly receive new ideas, to realize in many different ways the differences between Britain and India more fully, and to contemplate their position within the world in more depth. It was through these considered reflections that many of these students saw ways to implement British ideas of nationhood and democracy to the Indian sub-continent, and upon return they were able to seize intellectual control over society to propose these rather conservative methods for independence. There were many who were ambivalent and cynical towards the England-returned and their methods of imposing Western ideals to the subcontinent, but the moderates won out with the formation of two nation-states that preserved the power of these middle-class elites.

3

The social interactions of the England-returned

A social elite? Social historians of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century India have commented on the rise of the educated elite in India. They were distinct in their use of the English language, in their university education, in their urban locations and their professional careers. The upper and middle classes had an almost exclusive access to higher education, their demands were easy to meet as they were so few in number, whereas primary education for the masses was lacking. In many ways they modelled themselves upon the British gentleman, although David Potter has questioned whether this class of professional Indians could really be compared to the British equivalent, because British values were based on Protestant morals, whereas Indians had to refer to different social traditions.1 Indians who had studied abroad were more distinct than other educated Indians and yet they had to return and integrate into some type of society. This chapter will explore the varied social interactions of the students in Britain and India and see the associations and networks they forged in light of gender, race and class relations. In Bengal, these often derided babus were known as the bhadralok class. J. H. Broomfield has explained how education became the hallmark of bhadralok status.2 Education was the means for social mobility and the demonstration of status for many middle-class Indians, which was explained by the prestige awarded to British higher education and British degree qualifications. However, Rabindranath Tagore observed how alienated these educated Indians were: ‘Outside the bhadralogue class, pathetic in their struggle for fixing a university label on their name, there is a vast obscure multitude who cannot even dream of such a costly ambition.’3 Many were joining the government services and other high-flying careers, traditionally the preserve of British migrants, which was increasing the social divide within Indian society. British education was irresistible for so many of the Indian upper middle classes and the emphasis on higher education distracted resources from the provision of primary education for the masses. T. V. Satyamurthy has been particularly scathing about this ‘English-educated middle class’ and described them as lacking an ‘authentically Indian character’

Social interactions of the England-returned

51

and being a ‘poor imitation of its metropolitan opposite’. Satyamurthy has criticized this ‘deracinated’ fraction of Indian society for lacking originality and for not encouraging or enacting any development of the Indian economy or society as would be appropriate from their privileged education.4 A journalist, Tarzie Vittachi, wrote a book in 1962 deriding the ‘Brown Sahib’ in India for sharing the same values and attitudes as the British and for not being fluent in the language of the masses. Although these ‘Brown Sahibs’ acted as intermediaries between the British and those below, they were running their homes on Western lines with British food, tables and speech and thus had very little in common with the rest of the population.5 However, it was this adoption of Western values that appeared to elevate Indians socially. Concerns also came from Indian voices about the divide emerging in society and their anxiety about the influence of British values.6 The mimicry of Western attributes appeared to put the Indian identity under threat and the use of the English language among elites as their preferred method of communication was a clear illustration of their alienation from the masses.7 Amrita Lal Roy studied in Edinburgh for two years and then spent time in America in 1882; he wrote about his experiences in the West in 1888 and explained that Indians who went to study in Britain were convinced of British superiority and thus were determined to go to Britain in order to get the opportunities to compete on the same level. However, Roy pointed out that imitation was not necessarily the most productive method of achieving individual success or political independence.8 Tapan Raychaudhuri has explained that the admiration for the West and in particular English literature and education diverted attention from the ‘unacceptable face of conquest and colonial rule’. Underlying this discourse was a concession at the superiority of British and Western civilization. It was not only Bengalis who appropriated Western understandings of racial hierarchies and unconsciously felt that mimicking the British would elevate them racially and socially. Raychaudhuri has been keen to qualify this admiration and admit that educated Indians were able to appreciate many facets of Indian life and rejected many Western values.9 Interaction with elements of British society allowed for greater comparison and understanding of ‘Indian’ values as well. Hence, they were forging a new outlook that was unique to their experiences and upbringing through dichotomous influences. Edward Shils, an anthropologist, made a study of the Indian ‘intelligentsia’ in the 1950s and refuted the criticisms that these ‘intellectuals’ were uprooted or lost contact with Indian society. According to Shils, they had strong ties to India and, even if they had Westernized parents, were mostly brought up in an Indian household with a strong attachment to their country and home. Some may have felt guilty about thinking and speaking in English and losing touch with the masses but the nature of British rule in India had made them dependent upon British institutions and British intellectual values. Shils has explained how returned students formed rose-tinted memories of Britain especially those who faced hardship when they returned to unemployment

52

Social interactions of the England-returned

with the ‘pressure of the extended family’ or ‘the reappearance of an unchosen young wife after years of separation’ and thus for these former students ‘life could never again be the same’.10 Looking as we have at the written memoirs of former students, these rose-tinted spectacles may be evident in their memories of their student days. The vast majority did return to India, had close attachments to their families and homes, but had also been given new opportunities and advantages from their education abroad that opened up many new possibilities. Indian women had been coming to study in Britain in small numbers from the late nineteenth century, but they gradually increased to 70 in 1927 and 128 in 1938.11 Not only were they a small proportion of the Indian student population in Britain, but they were hardly representative of Indian women at this time. In India, in 1901, only 7 females per every 10,000 were literate in English, by 1931 this ratio had increased to 23 females per every 10,000.12 Cornelia Sorabji was one of the first Indian women to come to study in Britain. She had faced considerable opposition to her higher education in India; having gained first place in her final degree exams in the Deccan College of Poona, she was not granted the Government scholarship that was usually automatically awarded to the highest placed student in the Presidency because she was a woman. Her friends Lord and Lady Hobhouse helped to raise funds for her to eventually join Oxford in 1889.13 Sorabji was an exception in many ways: she was friends with Benjamin Jowett, the Master of Balliol College (Cornelia’s brother was also a student at Balliol), and moved amongst the university elite. She was the first woman allowed to study law at Oxford although she was not allowed to officially accept her degree or be called to the Bar until 1922. Sorabji came from a Parsee Christian background and therefore her family had already been ostracized in India. She relied heavily on British friends and networks both in Britain and when she returned to India and set up her law practice focusing on purdahnashin (secluded women) cases.14 Education in Britain had been hugely influential for Sorabji in learning about the law, in gaining friends and contacts, and in shaping her outlook. British people showed interest in Indian female students. The Victoria League in London, run by British women, offered hospitality and friendship to Indian women after 1907.15 Cornelia Sorabji had remembered how British ladies would come up to her in the streets of London and try and convert her to Christianity, drawn to her because she wore a sari and without realizing that she was already of Christian faith.16 The Birmingham newspaper Evening Despatch remarked with wonder in 1935 at the presence of an Indian female student in the Birmingham Settlement. Dr Alemkaram had come to Birmingham to study public medical services. She came from South India and wore brightly coloured saris; the Evening Despatch described in detail the rose-coloured with gold-bordered silk sari she wore at the annual meeting, which made her stand out as a ‘picturesque’ figure.17 Indian women were particularly ‘exoticized’ through descriptions of their dress and were as much as or even more of a novelty as male students at the time.

Social interactions of the England-returned

53

Indian female students were part of a more distinct elite than male students. They tended to come from liberal backgrounds where their families had allowed them to pursue higher education, and then been allowed to leave home to study in a foreign land. For that reason, most female students came to Britain with their parents or their husbands who were also coming to study in the UK. The Government did not appear to encourage Indian women to study abroad; they were not eligible to join the Government Services or Bar and it was unlikely they would have careers when they returned to India. The Director of Public Instruction revealed to the Bengal Government in 1908 that he did not think female candidates should be eligible for the State Scholarships unless they had relatives or friends to look after them in Britain. The Governor of Bengal agreed that it would be unwise to spend Government money on female candidates because they were not likely to ‘give any return in public advantage commensurate with the cost to public funds’.18 This was, however, indicative of attitudes towards women in both Britain and India as during this period there were few opportunities for women in the professional employment sector, although many were creating careers for themselves as doctors, teachers or social workers especially catering for other women in India.19 Indian society was changing during the twentieth century. There had been a growth in the professional class as the number of government servants, lawyers and doctors increased. These middle-class Indians traditionally came from higher caste backgrounds and perpetuated a cycle of privilege for uppercaste Hindus.20 However, education and employment opportunities did slowly break the intellectual monopoly of the higher castes, and there was a great deal of social movement in the twentieth century.21 ‘Westernization’ and social mobility were influences throughout India and did not exclusively affect those who had been educated abroad; yet returned students were prominent individuals who epitomized this fluidity within Indian society.22 Indians from lower-caste backgrounds were increasingly able to study abroad through the opening up of scholarships; two prominent examples are B. R. Ambedkar who studied in New York and London before becoming an ‘Untouchable’ leader after his return to India in 1923, and K. R. Narayan who won a Tata scholarship to study at the LSE in 1944 and became India’s first Dalit President in 1997.23 However, there were also new divisions within Indian society through the influence of capitalism; working-class movements were emerging and becoming politically active. Nationalist politicians were attempting to unify the country along wider lines; they tried to speak for the whole nation rather than specific regions or castes, and so the rhetoric was encouraging a new social order. This is not to say that caste was disregarded or that returned Indian students rejected their caste loyalties. The caste opposition to travel had retained some importance throughout this period, and for many returned students caste remained a significant factor in their subsequent marriages. Nevertheless, there were new social markers through which Indians were able to identify themselves and unite. Those Indians who had been educated in Britain, for example, had undergone a transforming experience that differentiated

54

Social interactions of the England-returned

them from other Indians and elevated many socially. Despite criticisms of ‘deracination’, the vast majority of students returned to India and were keen to play substantial roles in key areas of society, politics and the economy. India was transforming in the early twentieth century, nationalists were trying to create a unified ‘Indian identity’, but the England-returned were indicators of the plurality of Indian society.

Challenging social prejudices Most Indians had very little contact with British society in India. They were aware of the British presence in India and many had dealings with British Government officials, lawyers or teachers, but hardly socialized with them. The British in India were a distinct, insular society. They kept their social distance from Indians and also maintained a strict hierarchy within themselves. British officials in the Government services were at the top of this hierarchy and had little contact with British officers in the Army or the British businessmen in India. The British in India were generally aloof from Indians because they tended to believe they were racially and socially superior. The vehement British opposition to the Ilbert Bill of 1883, which had allowed Indian judges and magistrates to preside over cases involving British offenders, was a key indication of strained relations between the two ‘races’. The British presence in India from the end of the nineteenth century was partly justified by the belief that the British were morally superior to Indians and thus needed to ‘civilize them’; ideas of caste purity and purdah were inimical to British ideas about society and thus they preferred to maintain a social distance.24 The British in India had a specific background and identity that set them apart not only from Indians and domiciled Europeans, but from the British in the United Kingdom as well. Having forged their careers in India, they had undergone experiences that alienated them from their British counterparts. In many ways they had the converse experiences to Indian students who had spent time in Britain and found it difficult to relate to Indians upon their return. There were few elderly British people amongst them and they tried to maintain a sense of ‘Britishness’ in India that was adapted to the Indian environment; they lost contact with the changing Britain of this era and so continued to be insular when they returned to the United Kingdom.25 The Club was the social highlight for the British in their stations in India. These were places for the British to gather and to escape from Indians and thus the majority excluded Indians. As we shall see, Indians did not join these Clubs in significant numbers until the ‘Indianization’ of the 1930s. Many of these Clubs excluded the lower ranks of the British who lived in India too, thus perpetuating the social hierarchies within British Indian society. There were other types of British migrants in India – missionaries, social workers and many from the lower classes – but few Indians had contact with them either or equated them with their image of the archetypal British gentlemen. Although those Indians

Social interactions of the England-returned

55

who came to study abroad came from educated and relatively wealthy backgrounds, very few were immersed or accepted into the exclusive British society sets in India, and even for those elites who did have more regular contact with British people in India, they were unable to gain a sense of the diversity of British society and attitudes from their experiences in India. Although they were interested and informed about Western values, it was only in living in Britain that they were able to play an active role in understanding British society. Coming to Britain, Indian students were faced with unfamiliar members of British society of which they had little idea in India. Indians were now encouraged to socialize with British people and immerse themselves in British society. Britain in the early twentieth century was a diverse country, divided by regional lines and class. Indians attended universities across the country, from the major university centres in London, Oxford and Cambridge to smaller Northern centres, to institutions in Wales and cities in Scotland. Therefore, they had varied experiences and confrontations with British society; they were also able to travel across the British Isles during their holidays and gain a better sense of the diversity of British society. Britain was very different from India; Britain was highly industrialized and urbanized, although she maintained an important agricultural population. The First World War and subsequent depression had major repercussions for the economy and society, and the political nature of British society differed from India, including a vibrant press, the growth of the Labour Party from 1900, and a reformed democracy after 1918 that allowed women over 30 to vote and then universal suffrage for women over 21 from 1928. Indian students were able to meet British students, their teachers, their landlords and former British officials from India. Although primary education was compulsory for British children (until the age of fourteen after the 1918 Reform Act), university students tended to be socially select. In 1931, there were just under 30,000 undergraduates in English universities; one-third of these came from grant-aided schools while the majority came from public schools drawn from the governing classes in Britain.26 Only one in a hundred students at Oxford and Cambridge, for example, came from a working-class family in 1927.27 Thus education strongly demarcated class lines within British society, and Indian students were likely to spend most of their time in Britain with this select social group. Many students were struck by the differences between British people in Britain and those in India. Manomohun Ghose came to London with Satyendranath Tagore in 1862 to study for the Bar. Ghose corresponded with Ganendranath Tagore during this time and explained that visiting Britain had given him a new insight into English life. Ghose told Tagore that he could easily tell if a British person had been in India or not by their attitude and manner; whereas those who had been to India regarded Indian students as ‘conquered slaves’, those who had never been there regarded them as ‘fellow-subjects’.28 Sixty years later, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed also became aware of the differences between the British in India and people in Britain. Ahmed had grown up resenting the

56

Social interactions of the England-returned

British because his father, who had earned a medical degree from Edinburgh University in 1871, had faced racial prejudice in the Indian Medical Services as revealed through segregation and a lack of promotion. Despite his family’s antagonism towards the British, Ahmed was sent to Cambridge in 1924 where he took the history tripos and was called to the Bar in 1928. His resentment towards the British was abated by his time in England where he made many British friends and where he was not treated as a colonial subject but as a ‘human being’ with a ‘warmth of humanity’ and with ‘basic human dignity’.29 Although many Indian students had negative experiences in encountering British society, they were aware that there were very different attitudes within society in Great Britain in comparison to those they faced in India. Students had varying degrees of success in forging close relationships with British people, but they were given more respect and not merely treated as colonial subjects when studying in Britain. The difference and change in attitudes between the British at home and in India was noticeable on the ship journeys between the two countries throughout this period. Indians commented on how British people changed ‘after Suez’. Govind Swaminathan went to public school and university in England and qualified as a Barrister. On the boat back he made friends with a young Englishman. Swaminathan remembers how relations soon became tense between the two of them: After Port Said, he had a very worried look, so I said to him: ‘Something seems to be troubling you.’ He said: ‘Yes, last night those senior chaps got hold of me, and they said: “Look, we’re just telling you for your own good, that when you get to Calcutta and take up this job, you mustn’t be very friendly with Indians. And we notice you’re very friendly with this young Indian. Now, he might have been at Oxford and the rest of it, but still you had better be careful.”’30 Susheela Srivastava had a similar experience. She had been educated at Cambridge in the 1930s and had an English female friend from Cambridge who was married to an ICS officer. They travelled back to India together but once they arrived, Srivastava’s friend stopped keeping any contact with her.31 Sir Ian Scott, who became Deputy Private Secretary to Wavell and Mountbatten, told Granada interviewers in 1982 about the pressure he faced to cut off ties with his Indian friends from his ICS training once he travelled to India. On the ship to Bombay having passed his ICS exams, Scott wished to include his friend, De, on a table with British passengers on the boat who were initially very hesitant. Scott and De had studied at Oxford together and shared a flat in London when they were taking their final ICS exams. He was then told by the Home Member of the Central Government, who was also on board, that he should be ‘careful’ about maintaining relations with De, although Scott did not heed these warnings and retained this friendship during his service in India.32 In Britain, Indian students were visitors. They were a small

Social interactions of the England-returned

57

minority who had little effect on British society. However, when British people went to India, their relationship with Indians was affected by political concerns and the nature of British society in India and therefore there was less ease in the social interaction between the two groups. Indian students were the victims of racial discrimination during their time in Britain. Many felt alienated from British society due to British expressions of political superiority over Indians, and due to the reserved, isolated nature of British society that had prevented students from easily making British friends. These experiences created resentment and encouraged Indian insularity. However, Indians also faced more obvious and apparent exclusion on the basis of their skin colour and ‘race’. Racial ordering had been a feature of late nineteenth-century British scientific ideas. Ideas of race were fluid, flexible ideas that incorporated impressions of ethnic origin and cultural heritage.33 The majority of the British population had not had contact with people of different skin colours before they encountered Indian students and so in one sense they were a novelty that elicited great interest but on the other hand they generated fears and hostility.34 Indians in India were aware of racial prejudices, but it was once they were transplanted to British society that their skin colour and background became more obvious because they were in a minority. Hence, many Indian students had negative experiences and impressions of British society caused by being subject to new prejudices that they were not expecting. In 1901, the Cambridge student paper The Granta illustrated some British student prejudices against Indian students. In an article about the Cambridge Union, ‘Jehu Pryde’ bemoaned the increase in Indian participation in the audiences to nearly 50 per cent, stating ‘it is not only a black peril which threatens this University, but a yellow peril and a brown peril to boot’. Pryde was reflecting upon foreign participation in Cambridge at a time when the British press was discussing ‘alien’ immigrants, with particularly ferocious condemnation of Jewish settlers from Eastern Europe. Pryde complained that the Indians spoke about tedious matters and could not be understood and so should not be allowed to speak. Pryde protested that any visitor to the Union would feel that ‘this must be the National Congress of India and the place not Cambridge but Calcutta’. Thus, Pryde said that British people would stop sending their sons to Cambridge because ‘Oxford is still the white man’s university, Cambridge is rapidly becoming the property of the black man’.35 Antagonism towards Indians could and did come from educated quarters and was influenced by fears of the increasing number of Indians coming to study and compete with their resources. As students, Indians encountered new classes of British society. They learnt about class distinctions and class snobbery, and were at the receiving end of class prejudice. Sir Herbert Risley, Secretary to the Government of India, gave a statement to the Lee-Warner Committee in 1907: In England, the young Indian was received into lower middle class society on equal terms; on his return to India he found himself debarred

58

Social interactions of the England-returned from all European society and excluded from the Club at his station. The result was that he became thoroughly discontented and formed a centre of ill-feeling. [ … ] The men who had been to England were certainly more bitter than other Indians.36

Risley believed that Indian students were not mixing with the ‘right’ class of British people and that these ‘undesirables’ encouraged disaffection amongst the Indian student community. Despite coming from what would be deemed professional upper-middle-class backgrounds in India, once in Britain many were relegated to the company of lower classes. Indians found it easier to meet the families of their landlords and British people who had no experience or few preconceptions of Indians. The Lee-Warner Report had concluded that although racial prejudice existed, class prejudice was more noticeable in the universities against Indians who were deemed to have adopted the characteristics of the lower classes.37 Indian students had not arrived with a defined sense of the class distinctions in Britain and so were initially unaware of the prejudices that would arise out of their company with the lower middle and working classes. By meeting British people of the lower classes, Indians gained a better understanding of British society and British history. Indians learnt that poverty and exploitation also existed in Britain and understood her dependence on the working classes. Babu Lal Sud wrote a series of articles for The Tribune in Lahore in 1916, which were published into a book in 1917 as a guide for young Indians who wished to study in Britain. Sud had been a member of Lincoln’s Inn; he stated without anger that at the Bar dinners the English students sat on one side of the hall and the Indians on the other. Sud praised the freedom of Oxbridge life compared with Indian universities, because there was a wider circle of people at British universities coming from different backgrounds with a wide range of opinions which encouraged free discussion. However, he pointed out that, especially in London, it was difficult for Indians to make friends with British students. Living in apartments, he meets nobody except his own Indian friends, who come to see him and whom he goes to see in their ‘diggings’; living in a cheap boarding house, he usually comes across shop-assistants; and living in a cheap family, he meets persons of the lower middle-class.38 Babu Lal Sud told his readers that it was better to live in lodgings with an English family, even if they were of a lower class, because they were ‘decent’ people and students would be able to see real ‘English life’. There were cases of racial exclusion against Indian students in Scottish university centres.39 The Glasgow Athletic Club had a private debate about whether they should allow Indian members to represent the university. The Principal, Sir Donald MacAllister, told the Government in 1913 that he had asked the club if they would have admitted Ranjitsinhji if he had applied to

Social interactions of the England-returned

59

be a member. (Ranjitsinhji was the legendary Indian cricketer who had played for England.) The students agreed that they would have had no qualms to allow Ranjitsinhji to play and therefore they agreed that on the same principles Indians could join their club.40 However, the Glasgow tennis club still had some concerns about male Indian students playing with female students. This is an example of the reaction to the influx of Indian students, which appealed to the base prejudices about Indian men as savages and predators from whom British women had to be protected. These prejudices were projected by many British officials in the aftermath of the 1857 Rising, as seen in the continued propagation of stories of the rape and torture of European women in 1857. The prejudices evident among these British university students may have also risen from concerns about miscegenation; sexual relations between Indian men and British women were actively discouraged in India by the British Government who officially saw the children of these relations as socially (and racially) inferior. Despite these fears of the aggression of Indians, prejudices in India also existed about the effeminacy of certain Indian males; British imperialism had been seen as an ‘adventure’ in which British men could assert their masculinity and strength over effeminate colonials. Therefore, the introduction of Indian students to athletics clubs at British universities was a challenge to such preconceived notions, and so it was easier to ban Indians rather than to confront and adapt these ideas.41 A decade after the Glasgow Athletic Club was antagonistic towards the Indian influx, another Scottish city was projecting fears about Indian students. A colour ban in dance halls and restaurants in Edinburgh became a political issue in 1927 when Shapurji Saklatvala, the Communist MP for Battersea and of Indian Parsee descent, brought up the issue in the House of Commons. S. A. Rahman, the secretary of the Edinburgh Indian Association, told the Edinburgh Evening News that he had received insulting letters from dance halls and a restaurant asking Indians not to approach them in the future. A reader wrote in to explain the underlying issue, which was that ‘whites’ did not want ‘coloureds’ dancing with white women and hence the ban.42 A few days later, a Scottish reader calling himself ‘Pertinax’ wrote into the newspaper defending the ban, explaining that in India the ‘white’ residents do not mix with Indians in any social functions ‘where the sex element exists’ and, since Indians did not protest against that status quo there, they should not complain in Britain.43 The ban in Edinburgh illustrates that the Scottish community in the city were concerned about Indians living amongst them and felt threatened by the number of Indian students. A public ban reveals that racial exclusion was condoned but the Indian response reveals that they were not willing to accept these types of prejudices. The conclusion should not arise, however, that Scotland was more opposed to Indian migrants than England or Wales as racial prejudices were apparent in isolated cases throughout the British Isles. Not only did many Indian students mix with lower classes of British society, but many engaged in relationships with British and European women. Shompa

60

Social interactions of the England-returned

Lahiri’s work on Indians in Britain from 1880 to 1939 concentrates on the British perceptions and reactions to Indian visitors. Lahiri has revealed British fears about Indian princes and students having relations with and marrying British girls. In 1913, the India Office produced a circular for registry offices in Britain to explain the risks to British women ‘contemplating marriage with Hindus, Mohamedans and other subjects or citizens of countries where polygamy is legal’.44 The Daily Mail reproduced the circular reiterating the (inaccurate) fear that Indian laws encouraged polygamy and thus British women who married Indian students would be eventually discarded and deserted. A number of British novels written during this period about Indians dwelt on the theme of mixed marriages whereby Indian husbands appeared Westernized at first but were soon revealed to be violent barbarians.45 The India Office continued to propagate the idea that the both Hindu and Muslim students were polygamous, thus adding to British elite distrust about Indian students in Britain well into the 1940s. From 1934 to 1947, the India Office received a number of letters from English wives of Indian students enquiring about the legal status of their marriages, with cases of husbands who were already married in India. The India Office response to these women stated that marriages in India operated under ‘personal law’ and so the Government could not intervene to annul bigamous marriages. The Daily Record published an article on 12 December 1936 about a Scottish girl, Isobel Macdougall, who had married a student at Edinburgh, Anand Shanker Rao Chitnavis, and then they had both returned to India in 1929. In India, the couple lived in apartments in his father’s house, separate from the rest of the family, and when the wife refused to convert to Hinduism in 1932, her husband left to live with the rest of the family. The wife returned to Scotland and tried to declare the marriage null without success. However, in 1945, the Evening Standard reported a case where a marriage between a Hindu student and English woman had been declared null because it had been found out that the husband already had a wife in India. With this case, the India Office considered whether they should reconsider their view about the lack of support they could give to wives deserted by their husbands either in Britain or India.46 There was a perception that Indian students tended to have relationships with British women from the lower classes. Many Indian students found it easier to meet and tended to have more contact with British people from the lower middle classes. It may have been that in the case of relationships, lowerclass British women were more attracted to Indian students than their upper class counterparts as there was less social pressure upon them to marry within their own race and they had fewer preconceptions or prejudices against Indians. Indian students have remembered in their autobiographies how other Indians frequented local dance halls (such as those from which they were barred from in Edinburgh) and attracted lower-class women who were persuaded by the wealth and novelty of young Indians. Justice P. Jaganmohan Reddy commented on how Indian students met young English girls:

Social interactions of the England-returned

61

Some would attend social functions held at the beginning and at the end of term but most of them would spend their free time going to dance halls for recreation, associating with shop girls or bar maids whose education and social status was nowhere near theirs. This perhaps was due to the fact that though they may not even be of equal status, due to colour prejudice they would not be entertained in English homes.47 In an article printed in Answers in 1936, ‘Jane Doe’ explained about the dangers for British girls, but especially the daughters of landladies in boarding houses, who were ensnared by Indian students. Jane Doe mentioned that recent Sunday papers had been commenting on ‘scores’ of Indian students who had been marrying British girls when the ‘majority’ were already married to Hindu girls. She then discusses a specific case in which she visited a landlady whose daughter was conducting a romance with one of the Indian lodgers. When the loving young pair came in to tea I understood Sylvia’s infatuation. The man was a particularly handsome, velvet-eyed Indian, with that melodious, highly bred speaking voice which is peculiar to better-class Hindus. But what for Sylvia was much more devastating was the youth’s sex appeal! It was a brand of that perilously deadly form of animal magnetism which so easily ensnares impressionable female adolescents and is generally responsible for tragic disillusionment and lifelong sorrow.48 It appeared that there were many incidents where Indian students had relations with susceptible British girls – in England and in Scotland. These cases, or at least negative reactions to these cases, appeared to increase over time. However, there had been many successful instances of relationships and marriages between Indians and Europeans for many centuries prior to the successful marriages in the twentieth century between mainly male Indian students and British women.49 On the other hand, Indian men often felt that they were in fact the victims of the sexually predatory nature of British women. Travellers and students in the nineteenth century had remarked on the manner in which English girls solicited them.50 Many students were already married and were disturbed by the sexual temptations when they came to Britain.51 Antoinette Burton has argued that Indian visitors to Britain tried to assert their masculinity by mastery over English women. They had been noticed and singled out by British men and women because of their skin colour and novelty, but Indians did not wish to be seen as objects and fought to demonstrate their masculine power.52 Thus a power struggle through the medium of sex was being carried out between male Indian students and British women. In 1907, Josiah Oldfield wrote an article for parents of Indian students in Indian Opinion where he explained that he had realized that the Indians sent to Britain were often inferior to the ones that stayed in India. Oldfield revealed that many parents felt that their sons returned from Britain ‘less honest, less sober, less God-fearing, less

62

Social interactions of the England-returned

parent reverencing’ and that English life was injurious to their characters. Oldfield felt that although most Indian students were married before they went to Britain the temptations were far greater for married students than for unmarried ones. He explained that the sudden freedom of British life was not beneficial and as many mixed with the young daughters of boarding-house keepers they returned with the ‘vain’ idea that they were equal or better than the Englishman.53 Indian parents also had reservations about mixed marriages and provocative British women. Many male students were warned by their fathers to refrain from interacting with British girls. K. P. S. Menon’s brother was sent to London to study for the Bar in 1905. Menon recalled that although his brother was the first from their town to go abroad there were no objections except that ‘my father was told: English girls were vampires and would gobble up any young foreigner and my brother would not be unwilling to be gobbled up’.54 Therefore, Menon’s brother was married to a 14year-old girl before he left for Britain. Apa B. Pant’s father, the Rajasaheb of Aundh, warned his son to refrain from wine, smoking and women when he went to Oxford in 1933. Pant kept his promise and assured his father that although he had been able to make friends with women due to the laxity of society, he had not fallen for any of them because he was ‘too good’ for them.55 Pant criticized the Indian students in Oxford as the ‘dirty, girl-hunting type’ who picked up ‘girls of the gutter’ because their female social equals would have nothing to do with them.56 K. L. Mehta had also been warned by his father to refrain from drinking, smoking and ‘consorting with white women, which could apart from other complications result in my contracting illness’. Despite these warnings, Mehta met Gisela, a German girl who was the cousin of a colleague in London, whom he married upon his return to India in 1938. His father had accepted the engagement and Gisela had sought advice from Fori, the Hungarian wife of B. K. Nehru, on being married to an Indian and living in India.57 Although we are concentrating on those students who returned to India, there were a few students who remained in Britain after their studies, either because they married in Britain or they found jobs that allowed them to remain. As is becoming clear, there was not one general trend in terms of relationships or family lifestyle that can be applied to all the students. However, intimate personal and sexual relationships were a key part of the development for students in Britain, be it through their perceptions of women in British society, which influenced their ideas of women in Indian society, or be it through actual relationships with British women. Many Indians faced barriers when they tried to gain admission to educational institutions in Britain, the very reason why they had travelled abroad. Morley, the Secretary of State, told colleges in Cambridge and Oxford in 1909 that it would be better to have a quota of one or two Indians to create a more even distribution.58 The Secretary of State appointed a London Advisory Committee in 1915 to inquire into the grievances of Indian students. The committee included Indian members N. P. Sinha, C. A. Latif and M. M. Bhownaggree,

Social interactions of the England-returned

63

who had been Conservative MP for Bethnal Green from 1895 to 1906.59 Of course, the election of Bhownaggree as a Conservative MP in a London working-class constituency, three years after the election of Dadabhai Naoroji, the Liberal MP for Central Finsbury, speaks volumes about the different degrees of racial prejudice apparent within British society. The Committee noticed that medical schools in London were unwilling to admit Indians as freely as they did in the past and often put limits on all ‘Eastern’ students. Indians were particularly aggrieved because it was only in India that British qualifications were necessary for admission into specific professions such as the Bar, Indian Medical Service and Indian Civil Service. The Committee brought up the quotas at Oxbridge colleges as a proof of ‘prejudice’ and stated that exclusion from the Officer Training Corps had made Indians feel ‘a slur upon their loyalty’ and ‘a humiliating differentiation from other British subjects’.60 The Committee’s acknowledgement that Indians had been more freely admitted in the past points to the understanding that earlier South Asian visitors were admitted into Britain with greater ease – partly because they were novel and partly because they were smaller in number. British institutions had not geared themselves up to realize that the influx of Indian students would continue and increase and that they would have to acknowledge their presence as visible parts of the universities, who were now asserting their individual rights. Indian students faced racial prejudices in their everyday lives in Britain as well as barriers from institutions and clubs. B. K. Sarkar came to Cambridge in 1911 but was not admitted to his first choice of King’s College because the quota for Indians was already full. During his time in Cambridge, Sarkar became quite defensive about his cultural background; he told his mentor, J. M. Keynes, that he heard mutterings of ‘black man’ when he walked in the streets of Cambridge. On the other hand, he complained about the expectation that he should give a Christmas card and present to his landlord and landlady; ‘I am a Hindu – I am not bound to observe any formalities of the Christian religion.’61 (Pant also had issues about celebrating Christmas: ‘why should we rejoice at it – because we are linked with a nation who rejoices in it? No – we shouldn’t.’62) D. F. Karaka was the first Indian President of the Oxford Union but always felt that there was a ‘colour problem’ in Britain and talked about it in his farewell speech at the Union. He explained in his autobiography that the ‘cold aloofness which is ladled out with spoonfuls of condescension to those like me who do not belong to a pure white race’ had bothered him since he arrived in the country. Unfortunately, some Indian students agreed that the whites were superior to them and would try to hide their dark features by wearing hats and gloves.63 Students became conscious that British elites felt that they were not only politically but also culturally and racially superior to Indians. Rajeshwar Dayal went to New College Oxford in 1931 as an ICS Probationer. He found that the students in New College were snobbish because they tended to come from Winchester and Eton.

64

Social interactions of the England-returned The natural shyness and insularity of the British could hardly explain the absence of any attempt on their part to make the few Indians and students of other nationalities, understandably diffident at finding themselves amongst unfamiliar faces and surroundings, feel more at ease and not unwelcome. Even in the dining hall or common room, those who were ‘not one of us’ would be ignored, which created a feeling of neglect and, among the subjects of the British empire, a consciousness of their subject status.64

Hence Indians became more insular and resentful as a result of their treatment by other students. They explained the difficulties they faced to make British friends by British xenophobia and racism. Apa B. Pant joined Brasenose College in Oxford in 1933. He corresponded regularly with his father and discussed his belief that English children were taught to despise and look down on Indians as servants and barbarians.65 Indians faced varying degrees of discrimination. They were not always treated equally to British students, but they would expect their novel educational and cultural backgrounds to attract some sort of attention. Pant’s tutor told him in his end of term report that he was one of the three most interesting students he had, but as Pant told his father, ‘I do not write as good English as other Oxford undergraduates write, and secondly that, my Eastern way of thinking does not fit in with the Western philosophical problems.’66 Pant did not agree and took some offence at the implication that his way of thinking could not adapt to Western ideas. On the other hand, Pant set up a ‘Namaskar’ club in Brasenose for performing morning meditative rituals, and all nine other student members were English. Indian students may have highlighted cases where they experienced racial hostility and thus placed less emphasis on their very friendly relations with many British people or the many cases where they received no prejudices at all. Indian students often had no recourse but to join Indian societies, as we shall see in the next chapter, as many were excluded from other societies. One of the long-standing exclusions for Indians was from the Officer Training Corps (OTC). The Corps were designed to provide a reserve of officers for the Territorial Army and thus the British Government decided that Indians should not be allowed in. The Territorial Army was exclusively white and the Government did not want to cause complications or resentments by including Indians, although overseas ‘white’ students (i.e. from Australia) were admitted. The India Office had no qualms about Indians joining Sandhurst after 1918 to train as officers or for the involvement of the Indian Army in British campaigns, such as in France during World War One, but did not wish Indians to join the British Army that was based in Britain. Subhas Chandra Bose, when a student at Cambridge, was vocal in his discontent at this exclusion; Indian students merely wished to join in with the training and camaraderie aspect of the society and did not have ambitions to join the Army. The National Union of Students took up the issue in 1935 and petitioned Lord Halifax at the War Office.67 The War Office produced a paper in response explaining firstly that it

Social interactions of the England-returned

65

would be a waste of resources to allow Indians into the OTC as they returned to India and would not be available for the reserves. The report also stated that the majority of Indian undergraduates did not come from the ‘martial races’ further propagating a prejudice that only certain Indians (generally from the Punjab region) were genetically strong enough to fight (and that students came from the effeminate races). The War Office explained that ‘the majority are lacking in courage and initiative and are unlikely ever to be of the slightest use as officers’.68 The War Office ultimately decided that reforms would not be necessary as the political repercussions of allowing Indians and other races in would be far worse than the continuing resentment of a few Indian students.

Anglicization and ‘deracination’ After education abroad and entry into high-flying careers that competed with British officials in India, the England-returned became more aware of the nature of British society in India. Some were still excluded from British circles and their clubs; others socialized in highly anglicized circles. Their friendships with British students and their heightened understanding of certain British customs gave them an added advantage upon their return, but they used these skills in different ways. Students had to decide whether they should return to their previous customs in India, whether they should try and change Indian society with their acquired knowledge, or to adopt a separate elite Westernized existence. Of those writing after 1947, Indians and Pakistanis may not wish to admit how much they admired and adopted Western characteristics when they were students. They may also over-emphasize their nationalist feelings in hindsight. Yet former students could not hide from their years in Britain; Indians were proud of their British qualifications even if the political relationship with Britain has changed since. The combination of these sources with contemporary recollections and letters illustrate together the internal turmoil that Indian students went through. They had to combine their experiences and loyalties to forge new identities and roles for themselves. Did the experience of living in Britain change Indian attitudes towards marriage and their families? Child-marriage and arranged marriages were common features of Indian society in the early twentieth century. However, the family was changing. The age of marriage was increasing, especially after the 1929 Sarda Act, which legally set the minimum age of marriage for girls at 14. In fact, the age of consent for girls had been raised to 13 in 1925 as a result of a bill proposed by Hari Singh Gour, a member of the Legislative Assembly for the Central Provinces, who had graduated from Cambridge University in 1892. Economic and educational developments were leading to changes in the structure of the family, with an increase in nuclear families in urban centres as opposed to the large joint family. Wives were increasingly chosen as companions for educated young men.69 But was this the case for the returned students? Some were married before they went to Britain and

66

Social interactions of the England-returned

others when they came back. They can be used as a case study for some of the changes in Indian society and in the Indian family in the twentieth century. Dr John Pollen addressed the East India Association in London in November 1908 on ‘The Indian Student in England’ and urged that one of the most important ways to improve relations was to introduce students to English people without the impression that they were being officially exhorted to meet. He told the audience, ‘No true friend desires to “Anglify” or “Englishize” him, but it is most desirable that such care should be taken of him that he may return to India a broader-minded man and a better citizen in consequence of his stay amongst us.’70 From the late nineteenth century, many Indian students had been criticized for their ‘mixed’ characters. Edmund Chandler, a British teacher in India, recalled, with contempt, the ‘hybrid mimetic product of the English University’. Chandler had studied at Cambridge and knew one Indian member of his college. He remembered that this Indian, Asghar Ali, ‘was pathetically eager to be received among us as one of ourselves’ and would latch onto him and his British friends. Ali had an album of photos of himself in cap and gown almost as if ‘testifying to the completeness of Asghar Ali’s assimilation’, inscribed with the suffix of his degree qualification ‘B.A. Cantab.’, which would further his prestige.71 Indians who adopted Western characteristics did so through imitation without always understanding the traits they were adopting. However, terms of abuse such as ‘WOGS’ (Western Orientalized Gentlemen) could only increase their resentments and insecurities.72 Indians were criticized for their exclusiveness on one hand but were mocked in their attempts to integrate with the British on the other. Indians could feel more British by wearing Western suits, eating Continental food with knives and forks and socializing with British people. They were influenced by the environment they were in and the need to adapt. Most Indian students tried to learn British habits before they came to the country. They were taught to eat with a knife and fork by those who had returned from Britain, or sometimes they had to learn on the ship coming into Europe. Even Gandhi, who came to London for the Bar in the 1880s, fastidiously adopted a British dress sense. In his autobiography he recalls buying a chimney-pot hat and an evening suit from Bond Street, and how his brother had to send him a gold double watch chain.73 Another Congress member, Saifuddin Kitchlew, who was to be jailed in India for 17 years for his part in the civil disobedience movement, was highly fashionable when he was a student at Cambridge and at the Bar from 1907 to 1911. Kitchlew was known to wear a high silk top hat with a stiff suit and flashy tie, with leather gloves, a silver mounted stick and he wore a monocle.74 Adoption of British traits was not incompatible with consequent mobilization and understanding of the need to rid India of British rule. India was so closely tied to British institutions, and colonial rule had been so entrenched, that Indians were able to appreciate and admire Britain even if they were angry at the manner of British political rule and dominance in India. The Bar community was described as a distinctive, anglicized set by Mahua Sarkar in her study of the Calcutta High Court in the colonial period. Sarkar

Social interactions of the England-returned

67

writes that they all adopted a British style of living, embracing British manners and customs, and were held in high prestige and amassed great wealth.75 Her observations are supported by the experience and memories of the Tyabji family. Badruddin Tyabji had been called to the Bar in 1867 and gained fame as the first Indian barrister in Bombay. From a Muslim background, Tyabji became a successful barrister and was renowned for holding parties for Europeans and Indians of all communities. Tyabji sent his daughters to the first girls’ school in Bombay where they were the first Muslim pupils and all his sons were highly educated too.76 His grandson Badr-ud-din Tyabji went to Balliol College, Oxford, in 1930 and joined the Punjab ICS. Badr-ud-din’s sister, Kamila, studied law at St Hugh’s College in 1937 and forged a career in law and social work in London. The family had old ties with the British community in India due to the links their grandfather had made. Badr-ud-din admitted that once he joined the Punjab service he became so embroiled in his work that he found it difficult to maintain friendships with either his Indian or British colleagues.77 He did, however, get on well with the British, enjoyed working with them and felt ‘well qualified’ to understand the British mentality, as he admitted ‘I am in some ways an Anglo!’78 On the other hand, Torick Ameer Ali has explained that Indian barristers were quite separate from the European lawyers in the Calcutta Bar. Although relations were relatively harmonious and the Europeans did try and entertain their Indian colleagues occasionally, the different ethnic groups maintained some distance.79 Experiences and relations with their British counterparts varied greatly for professional Indians, and could differ in cities across India. Sayyid Karamat Husain studied for the Bar in London from 1886 to 1889, and came from a Muslim background. In 1888, Husain was involved in the formation of the Anjuman-i-Islam of London, a debating society for Muslims. In Britain, Husain had experienced for the first time a society in which women played an accepted public role and he became convinced of the need for female education in India, like Tyabji. In 1896, he set up a women’s education section of the Muhammadan Educational Conference and raised money with his friends to found a girls’ school in Allahabad in the late 1890s.80 The reformist attitudes of many of the England-returned demonstrated some of the benefits they had transferred from their times in Britain. Reform was not a field that was only dominated by those who had been to Britain, but did again set certain sections of society apart from others. There were a few families, similar to the Tyabjis, who had long-standing links with England and British society. J. N. Chaudhuri was the grandson of W. C. Bonnerjee, who had been called to the Bar in England in 1868 and whose children had all been brought up in Croydon. Chaudhuri’s mother, one of Bonnerjee’s daughters, had studied at Newnham College, Cambridge, and the Sorbonne and his father had also studied at Cambridge. His father was a barrister and Chaudhuri remembered that he hardly saw him because he was always busy in the Calcutta High Court. Despite their anglicized background, his parents had very few British friends in India and instead tended to socialize

68

Social interactions of the England-returned

with their close family in Calcutta. Chaudhuri went to Sandhurst in 1926 after three years at Highgate School and returned to India in 1927. His own experiences at Sandhurst had confirmed that the British and non-British cadets did not mix with each other. Chaudhuri was allowed to join the Garrison Club in Bombay upon his return but when he joined the cavalry regiment in Jubbulpore, which was a ‘non-Indianized’ unit, he was not allowed to join their members’ club. Despite his mother’s anglicized background, she arranged his marriage to a Hindu girl in 1938.81 Zareer Masani’s maternal grandfather had studied textile engineering at Manchester and then worked for the British-owned New Victoria Textile Mill in Kanpur before buying out the British owner within ten years and establishing a chain of companies across North India. Masani explained: ‘my mother’s parents dined and danced with the British and organized grand tiger-shoots for them; and the children graduated from a British governess to British schools and universities.’ Yet Masani remembered that the family ‘still seemed strongly rooted in a feudal, north Indian culture – equally at home in Urdu and English, connoisseurs of Indian classical music and dance, though fond of Western theatre and ballet’.82 They were practising Hindus who attempted to mix both lifestyles: ‘Their meals seemed to sum up their eclecticism – rich Muglai food at lunch, eaten with the hands off traditional silver thalis, and Anglo-Indian roasts and soufflés for dinner.’83 The recollections of Masani further point to the diversity of social traditions present within Indian society and perhaps the ease in which some families were able to adapt their customs, because Indians had been adapting and adopting various aspects of different cultures for many centuries. Let us look in more detail now at the memories of the students and begin with those Indians who came during and immediately after the First World War. Indian Christians such as Kuruvila Zachariah were able to find similar interests to British people due to their Christian faith. Indian Christians did not form separate groups; they could mix with Indians of other faiths in Indian societies quite easily without any apparent prejudices, and meet with British Christians too. Kuruvila Zachariah was at Merton College in Oxford and did not attend the Indian Majlis society although he did have a number of Indian friends. Zachariah explained that he did not want to be part of an exclusively all-Indian club and preferred to take advantage of collegiate life in Oxford.84 Zachariah wrote an article for The Student Movement in 1920 in which he explained that Indians could not make friends beyond their own acquaintances because the English were reticent and only superficially friendly. Zachariah had been able to make many English friends through his church, but felt that other Indians did not get the same benefits as himself because religion in British society was being sidelined in favour of politics.85 Indians certainly came to learn about British society but many felt that they needed some introduction before they could feel comfortable conversing with British people. Friendships with the British did not mean that Indians had to lose their ‘national’ loyalties. Firoz Khan Noon joined Wadham College in Oxford in

Social interactions of the England-returned

69

1913. His father had arranged for him to lodge with an English family and so Firoz lived with the Reverend Mr Lloyd at Ticknall Vicarage. ‘My father had told me not to mix with Indian students and I am sorry to say I took him at his words’, recalled Firoz in 1958. ‘His idea was that I could see a lot of Indians in my own country; but when I was abroad I must learn something about foreign people.’86 Firoz Khan Noon retained friendships with British people when he returned to India, helped by the contacts of his family, as his grandfather had been Governor in Mianwali and his father had been in government service. He returned to India in 1917 and was elected to the Lahore Legislative Council in 1920, became a member of the Unionist Party, held various cabinet positions before independence, returning as High Commissioner of India to the UK from 1930 to 1941, and then was Prime Minister of Pakistan from 1957 to 1958. Therefore, he had become politicized and held positions in which he was representing the Indian sub-continent despite his anglicized experiences as a student in Britain. Adoption of Western habits or friendships with other British students did not mean that these Indian students were sympathetic to British Imperialism. Their friendships with British people demonstrated their liberal attitudes and an understanding that the vast majority of British society could not be blamed or punished for their political agendas. Mohammad Said Khan studied engineering at Nottingham University College, and although his English was not very good, he managed to adapt quickly and make many English friends. Khan recalled the honour Indians felt to belong to the British Empire. ‘We took pride in those days being British’, Khan told an interviewer in 1975, ‘when we went abroad to Europe we also got those ideas for looking down upon the continental people.’87 The same interviewer talked to Colonel Zaidi in 1974. Zaidi studied history at Cambridge from 1919 and was called to the Bar at Lincoln’s Inn. When asked about his opinions of the British Raj, Zaidi answered that it was difficult to say ‘because in the matters of education I am a product of British institutions and capabilities’. Although Zaidi hoped for Indian independence, he had many British friends and had a high affection for British people in general.88 Many Indians believed that anglicization was necessary if they wanted to be friends with British officials when they returned to India. Indian students in Britain naturally acquired Western habits and gained a deeper understanding of British society, but upon return it was generally a conscious decision to either maintain these habits or to forgo them. Some Indians had been educated at schools in the UK before proceeding to British universities. Their experiences were very different from those who came as young adults, especially as they had spent time in schools where they were usually either the only or one of very few foreign students. Nari Rustomji was admitted to Bedford School Prep in 1927 along with his elder brother, and his sister was sent to Bedford Girls’ School.89 Rustomji gained a place at Christ’s College, Cambridge, on a choral scholarship and was appointed to the ICS, returning to India in 1942.

70

Social interactions of the England-returned Looking back, I am myself amazed at the extent to which I had become ‘de-tribalized’ during my sixteen years stay abroad. In the course of my twelve years at Bedford, I had had no opportunity of meeting Indians, except for our Parsee relatives who visited us from time to time. There were, of course, a considerable number of Indian students at Cambridge, but apart from the two in my own College, I saw practically none of them. Not that I deliberately avoided them – our paths just did not cross.90

Rustomji joined a variety of clubs from gymnastics to orchestra and his college debating society, and thus he did not actively seek out the company of Indian students. Despite his anglicized upbringing, Rustomji’s family had influenced his social outlook and so he did not make any female friends when he was in Britain.91 Rustomji was posted to Assam with the ICS but realized he knew little about India when he arrived. In 1948, he became Government Advisor for the Tribal Areas in the North-East Frontier Agency, a post he held for ten years, in an environment which was a stark contrast from the urbanized Britain of his childhood. Educated Indians did acknowledge their isolation and divisions upon their return. At first Nari Rustomji was idealistic and felt ‘indignant’ about the gap between the rich and poor in India and wished to enact social improvement. However, Indians could not mix freely in British clubs and felt separate from their British colleagues and so did not feel that they had much power. Rustomji acknowledged that there were better chances of promotion within the ICS if Indians were more ‘anglicized’, even though they were still excluded from British activities.92 It was these recognitions of the benefits of ‘anglicization’ within certain sectors that encouraged professionals among the England-returned to consolidate their own social group and elite. G. D. Khosla realized that education abroad did not alter the fact that he would have to live the rest of his life in India among a community that had not had the opportunity of observing British society. Hence, features such as arranged marriages and dowries continued to appear in the lives of the England-returned, despite increased exposure to alternative ideas in Britain. Khosla was sent to England in 1919 from the Punjab and joined Emmanuel College, Cambridge, in October 1920 to study Mathematics. He also took the ICS exams and passed in 1926. He returned home after seven years abroad to join the ICS but was slightly concerned that his marriage would be arranged and that he would have to accept a wife he did not know. However, upon his return to India he ‘realised that England and Europe had made insidious inroads into my native value system and cultural inheritance’. Khosla explained in his autobiography, written in 1985, that ‘I was seeing India through Western eyes, using wrong instruments of perception and confusing the object with the subject’. He acknowledged that his experiences in Britain had altered his outlook but he stated that ‘I was measuring my future life in India with a yardstick temporarily borrowed for a wholly different purpose’ as his foreign education should not affect his ideas about marriage and the

Social interactions of the England-returned

71

family. Finally, ‘my introspection now led me to look upon myself as an Indian, born and brought up in a milieu in which arranged marriages were normal and universally accepted’.93 Khosla was married in 1927 to a girl chosen by his mother who he was very happy with; his marriage was ‘arranged’ but was not forced or rushed, and so nearly 60 years later could recall the decision as a success. Khosla sent all three of their sons to Emmanuel College, Cambridge, for their education after independence and so still had high regard for British higher education despite the shocks that he had received to his value system and the dilemmas he had faced after his exposure to Western practices. On the other hand, some students returned with altered views about marriage and faced family and community opposition to their new ideas. Indian concerns about marriage were not merely about racially mixed marriages but also about inter-caste or religiously-mixed marriages. K. L. Gauba finished his degree in Mathematics at Cambridge in 1921 and was called to the Bar in 1922 and returned to India in the same year. In July 1923, Gauba married the daughter of Aziz Ahmed, a fellow barrister. His father, Lala Harkishen Lal, who had been educated at Cambridge from 1887 to 1890, had not given permission for this marriage because the bride was Muslim but Gauba had gone ahead anyway.94 Education and stay abroad did not necessarily change individual attitudes to such an important facet of life as marriage. Duleepsinhji, the nephew of the cricketer Ranjitsinhji, had been in England since 1921. He played cricket for Cambridge from 1925 to 1927 but was resentful that he was not made captain and believed this was because he was Indian. Duleepsinhji then gained fame playing cricket for Sussex and England. He was to return to India in 1933 and gave an interview to the Daily Express: ‘I shall return to India in six months’ time and marry an Indian girl – who will never go out unveiled – and settle down to an administrative life in my brother’s Government of Jamnagar State.’95 Duleepsinhji’s tone was defiant and shocking for an English audience. In 1936 he married Rani Jayaraj Kumari from the princely state of Rajpipla and so was married to a girl of similar status. Despite his long stay in Britain, Duleepsinhji still had family responsibilities and marrying a ‘suitable’ wife was an expected component of his future life. The large age gap between husband and wife continued to be a feature of the marriages of many educated young Indians in the 1930s, although the average age of marriage had risen after the 1929 Sarda Act. Justice P. Jaganmohan Reddy had been born in Hyderabad in 1910. He went to England in 1928 with his brother, Madhusudan, who had returned for a vacation from Leeds University. His brother taught him how to use a knife and fork on the ship over. Reddy did a commerce degree at Leeds University and then joined Trinity Hall in Cambridge in 1933 to study law. In the summer of 1935 he returned to Hyderabad for his marriage to a girl that had been arranged by his father whilst he had been abroad. His wife, Sita, was sixteen years old and nine years younger than him. Reddy returned to England in September 1935

72

Social interactions of the England-returned

with his wife who was admitted to West Hill Training College in Birmingham to learn English and other practical courses while he remained in Cambridge.96 In this case, Reddy’s wife was above the legal age for marriage and educated, and so could provide suitable companionship and understanding of Reddy’s experiences in Britain. Indians had to overcome the difficulties and their shyness to make friends with British people, but were often rewarded for their efforts. Frank Moraes was brought up in Bombay in a Christian household. When Moraes came to Oxford in 1927, he at first kept to the Indian student circles, but slowly made English friends. In his biography written in 1973, Moraes, a successful journalist and editor of The Times of India, explained that his seven years spent being educated in Britain were the most formative years of his life. He acknowledged that the distance had allowed him to see India in a new light. The difference in educational methods also deeply impressed him, as he was now encouraged to think for himself rather than memorize by rote: In a sense England more than India has moulded me, for, though my first love and loyalties have always been with the country of my birth, England is the land of my adoption. England brought a new dimension to my way of life and thinking.97 Moraes enjoyed the company of his British friends, impressed with their ‘frankness’ and ‘open-mindedness’, which encouraged him to feel less intensely about political matters in India. Moraes maintained links with Indian students as well; he was president of the Oxford Majlis for one term and president of the Indian Students’ Association in London. Moraes was in Britain during a period of upheaval, he experienced the aftermath of the 1926 General Strike and the Depression; he visited Germany and saw Hitler’s improvements to the country and was affected by both the spread of Communism and the wave of pacifism in Britain. Having seen so much, Moraes attributed England as having shaped his character most profoundly, for giving him a ‘sense of tolerance combined with a habit of evaluation’, for recognizing ‘democracy’ and for giving him a ‘sense of proportion’.98 Despite his love and sympathies for the British, Moraes returned to India and made a career for himself there, although in joining a British newspaper he was happy to maintain links with both cultures. Dom Moraes, the son of Frank Moraes, remembered the anglicized lifestyle his parents led with many parties and memories of his father sipping beers on the verandah with English officers. His mother was the daughter of a Roman Catholic doctor and she had met Frank Moraes when she was 16 and he was 21 before he went to England to study at Oxford. Dom Moraes was born in 1938 and recollects that before his father went to Burma to cover the war his parents were ‘one of the bright young couples of Bombay’. ‘They gave and attended expensive cocktail parties’, he recalled and ‘both drank and smoked, and unusual in Indian Christians, held nationalist views.’99

Social interactions of the England-returned

73

Indian students returned to a society that was constantly changing in the early twentieth century. It was not only their anglicization that alienated them but the time they had spent away from India. Frank Moraes returned to India in 1934 after seven years in Britain and felt like a stranger to his family and the country. Moraes was aware that Bombay had changed in the previous seven years in tempo and had become more outgoing and responsive.100 Moraes began his career as a barrister in Bombay, but did not enjoy the restricted atmosphere and found the work boring. Thus, Moraes began to write articles on law for the local Evening News and then joined The Times of India as a journalist. He became junior assistant editor in 1936. The Times of India was a British newspaper, the senior editorial and production staff were all British, and Moraes was the only Indian assistant editor. He was not allowed to use the senior staff canteen, which was restricted only for the British, nor was he allowed to use their lavatory.101 Moraes took these setbacks in his stride and remained with the newspaper for the next 19 years, continuing on after independence. Anglicization had disadvantages for young Indians as they were never to be equal with the British. Moraes’ friend M. R. A. Baig came to London in 1910, aged five, and boarded at Clifton from 1917. At school, Baig had been treated as an equal by the other British boys. He joined Sandhurst in 1922 and for the first time encountered racial prejudice. At Sandhurst, Baig realized that he did not ‘belong’ to the British race and that the British had been ‘paternalistic’ rather than ‘fraternalistic’. An added disadvantage for Baig was that he found it difficult to get to know the other Indian cadets at Sandhurst because he had been brought up in England and they appeared to have little in common.102 He was further shocked by the difference in British people in India when he returned with the Indian Army in 1927. He did not get on with the British officers and resigned in 1930 after three years in the army to join Tata Iron and Steel Company.103 He had resented the way he was looked down on by his British colleagues in the Army and now he was happy to work in an Indian firm, especially as he was aware that his British equivalents in British commercial firms in India did not mix with Indian businessmen at all.104 The British in India did not tend to treat the England-returned with any more regard socially than other Indians. Therefore Indian students faced even more disappointment and anger, for having had friendships and seen the positive aspects of British society it was all the more disillusioning to find that British attitudes in India had not changed. Baig came from a Muslim family but married a Hindu woman, Tara, in 1935 when he returned to India. Baig’s marriage to a Hindu despite his Muslim background raised no objections with his parents who had lived abroad for so long; Tara was a suitable companion because of her understanding of Westernized living and her education (she had spent two years schooling in Switzerland). Tara Ali Baig’s father had studied in the USA and his two brothers had studied in England. Her grandfather, Sir Krishna Gupta, had been politically active and had many European and Brahmo Samaj friends. Tara remembers how the family was brought up in a Westernized

74

Social interactions of the England-returned

manner, with liberal views, and many European visitors. Her father had married an American woman he had met whilst as a student in Massachusetts, and this was not seen as a disadvantage in politics as he became Mayor of Calcutta.105 Baig led an extremely Westernized life with Tara in Bombay. Baig believed that he was cosmopolitan, largely following an ‘English culture’, but acknowledged that he was unique. Baig stated that ‘99.9% of Indians’ did not think of England ‘at all’ and that the average Indian was very insular and did not think of society or their outlook in terms of a relationship between India and Britain.106 Baig is probably exaggerating the lack of awareness of Britain amongst Indians society. During this period, the relationship between India and Britain was under constant scrutiny and pressure; parallel to the increase in Indians studying abroad and Indianization of the employment sector, nationalism and anti-British feelings were on the rise. Attitudes towards the England-returned are indicative of the inconsistencies and conflicts within Indian nationalism as activists demanded independence but often were willing to negotiate compromises whereby Britain continued to have an influence over Indian affairs.107 Baig explained how it was difficult for other ‘Anglicised’ Indians on their return back because there were few ‘Anglicised Indian women’ to wed and so there were social gaps within marriages. Baig admitted that England had left a huge impression upon him and his beliefs. ‘My culture was agnostic, my culture was cosmopolitan. I did not have a Hindu culture or a Moslem culture, if anything I have an English culture.’108 Yet, despite his long-standing ties and links with British society and customs, and although he lived a highly Westernized life with Tara in Bombay, he did not appreciate manifestations of British superiority and his change of career reveals his sympathy and fraternity with his Indian neighbours. By the 1930s, despite increasing political tensions and separate associations for Indians, many students did cultivate British friendships and continued to imitate Western habits. D. F. Karaka was a Parsee from Bombay who came to Oxford in 1930 to read law at Lincoln College. His father scraped together enough money to send his son to Britain, but Karaka soon developed a gambling habit. Within a few months of arriving in Britain, he found a prostitute in Bond Street and lost his virginity. Karaka then grabbed headlines when he was made the first Indian President of the Oxford Union in 1934. When he failed his Bar exams in 1935, his family cut off his allowance and ordered him to come home immediately. Karaka decided to stay on in London to retake his exams and got a job at a men’s clothing store. After successfully passing the Bar, he returned to India in 1938. Karaka was a writer; he wrote for the Daily Herald, published his book I Go West in 1938 in London and then joined The Bombay Chronicle on his return. In 1972, Karaka wrote his autobiography and described his younger self in 1938. Oxford educated, a writer of books, a journalist who was just beginning to make his mark in his country, a sophisticated young man fond of wearing

Social interactions of the England-returned

75

an expensive Saville Row suit, a competent snake-hips dancer who had prowled the night clubs of Paris, a bachelor with an eye for an attractive woman whether she was married or unmarried, fond of horse racing, owning at that time a half-share in a good race horse, fond of playing cards for high stakes – bridge, poker, chemin de fer – till late hours of the night in the toughest gambling schools in town, fond of good living and invited out almost all of the seven days of the week, able easily to hold his drink irrespective of how long the party lasted.109 Karaka had adopted many British attributes, most of them seen as negative, but he was proud to remember these exploits. Despite his anglicization, Karaka did not neglect or reject his Indian identity. He always wanted to return to India, partly because he felt he would be more successful as a writer there, but also because he admitted that ‘while we adored mooching around England, India was home for us’.110 Karaka’s pride in his Western habits, when writing in 1972, contrasts with his words in 1938. Although he admits his admiration and intense desire to go to the ‘West’, he then explains some of the disappointments he faced as a student in Britain. I would try to visualise London and Paris and New York and places where I had never been and wonder why they were so far away. There was something in the West that always called me to it – and I felt that someday somewhere in these far-off lands I would find the true expression of my energies.111 Young middle-class Indians were surrounded by references and allusions to Western culture, increasing their desires to visit the West and also creating illusions about life in Western society. Karaka began to abhor the Indian idealization and dependence upon the West. He faced racial prejudice in Britain and expressed his disillusionment with the whole process of sending so many young Indians to study in the UK. I often wish that when we came to England for the first time we would not be so naïve, so full of hope, so believing. But every P. and O. liner brings more and more of those who like me stepped out of the smugness of our homes to be battered about in our effort to acquire an English education. It is the contrast that is a bit too much for us, and I often wonder why our parents who are willing to send us on our own all these thousands of miles don’t allow us to go round the corner when living at home.112 Large numbers of Indians idealized the West, particularly Britain and education in Britain. This idealization could not be a product of actual experience as few had been abroad. Therefore, Karaka is criticizing the development of these images and expectations and the pressure from within their communities

76

Social interactions of the England-returned

that encouraged Indians to believe that a British education would not just be beneficial but would totally transform their lives and elevate their social standing; and yet 34 years later, he remembered his time in Britain fondly. Karaka became anglicized in many of his habits and made many British friends especially through his tenure as President of the Oxford Union. However, he resented the cliques that British boys made at University from their public school connections. He resented the racial prejudice he was made aware of and the condescension from British people who felt that they were superior. Karaka tried to work out some of the contradictions he was facing in his book I Go West: ‘Intellectually I felt I belonged to the West’, he wrote, ‘emotionally to the East’.113 Many Indians who had been educated in Britain were contemptuously described as ‘WOGS’, and Karaka realized that he deserved that label. Yet, Karaka was torn in rejecting the orthodoxy of his community and rejecting the prejudices of Western society. He remarked that upon return to India, his sympathies were divided and ‘our little world appears to have become half-caste – made up of the East and the West, with neither half wanting to claim us as its own’.114 Karaka felt that he benefited from his Oxford education immensely. He enjoyed British society and valued Western ideals of democracy and the freedom he was given, and yet had often been dissatisfied. This dissatisfaction was aimed at himself due to his failures, at Britain for never accepting him fully and at India as he realized how far she still had to go to become truly independent. T. N. Kaul came from a middle-class Kashmiri Brahmin family and registered at King’s College London in 1934. He joined the International Society, Youth Hostel Association and College Debating Society, and was elected secretary of the Union debating society in London. Although aware of some implicit racial prejudice, Kaul found British students friendly on a personal level and actively cultivated the friendship of British students in order to ‘understand Britain and the West a little better’.115 Kaul was especially friendly with young British men who were also going to join the ICS. In 1937, he returned to India by car over land through Europe with three of his English friends. As a student in London, Kaul had lived in the International Guest House, which included British, Jewish and German lodgers who all lived peacefully amongst each other. He proclaimed (in 1982), ‘I developed from a nationalist to an internationalist during my student days in Britain.’116 As students came to the end of their stay in Britain, they knew they would have to return to India and build their careers (although there were a few who did settle in Britain as mentioned). Students had enjoyed new experiences and a period of freedom but now they would have to return to responsibilities. They had missed India whilst abroad but would be sad to leave Britain behind too. T. N. Kaul had many English friends in London yet he always had India on his mind; as he was training for the ICS, Indian affairs had been part of his education abroad. Kaul recalls some of his concerns before he returned: ‘Having imbibed something of European culture, habits and ideas, I wondered whether it would be possible to fit these into the Indian background.’117

Social interactions of the England-returned

77

Students imitated the British in some of their manners and learnt new ideas but ultimately they had to assess where their loyalties lay. Prakash Tandon was asked in 1975 whether Anglicization gave him a feeling of ‘schizophrenia, having adopted some of England’s standards and then coming back’ to India. Tandon had been away from the Punjab for eight years for his studies in England but felt he was able to adapt almost as soon as he returned home. In answer to the question, Tandon replied that ‘most Indians who have been abroad, educated abroad or gone into modern business in India, they may appear international, European or call them Anglicised, but I think in their, at heart, they’re still very Indian’.118 In fact, Tandon recalls that sitting or eating with English boys led to accusation of ‘going over to the other side’ and ‘attempts at fraternisation dubbed you as one of them and ashamed of your own people’.119 This jealousy and indignation was an obstacle for many Indians to meet students of other nationalities, but there were those who were determined to associate with their host society. Indian students were dismayed after forming friendships with British people in the UK to find that attitudes had not changed among the British in India. Prakash Tandon had been in Manchester and London for eight years and upon his return in 1937 with his Swedish wife realized that he would not be accepted equally in British society in India despite leading a Westernized life because ‘there were rarely social contacts of any significant kind’ between educated Indians and the British.120 Tandon recalled the concerns about mixed marriages between Indian students and English girls. They lived in a society where social contacts among the sexes were normal and easy, but denied such contacts among their natural equals they found them lower down, not at the college socials but at the local palais de dance. They went out with shop girls who were impressed by their superior education and liberal pocket money, and many of the boys laid it on thick about back home, the large houses and hordes of servants.121 Tandon explained that there were many difficulties for mixed marriages. If they stayed in Britain, it was hard for the Indian to get a job and support his wife. If they returned to India, the wife found it difficult to adapt and so many marriages collapsed. Tandon returned to India in 1937 when ‘Indianization’ was actively occurring in the services and industry. However, the stark contrast in the friendliness of the British made him very unhappy and stuck with him always: On my arrival at Bombay by a P & O ship after an absence of eight years, I had shared the belief of each generation of Indians returning from England that the attitudes of the British had changed; that having lived among them for some years as an equal one had acquired respectability; that during one’s long absence things had moved forward at home to equality between the races. Yet one soon found the same wall, the same gulf.122

78

Social interactions of the England-returned

A number of intense years abroad shaped and influenced the Indian students, but could not erase the influence of their families and early childhood. Indians tried to assimilate into European culture but as General Nathu Singh explained, referring to the British cadets at Sandhurt in 1919, ‘they also felt and I felt that I was not quite one of them’.123

Conclusions Indians who studied in Britain generally only stayed for a few years before they returned to India. A few had studied for longer by going to British schools, but the majority came to the UK after some education in India. Again, a few stayed for longer and some settled in Britain and their experiences and social interactions differed from those who returned and with whom we are concerned here. The students’ experiences of education and society in Britain were highly influential in their character formation. As we have seen, the England-returned were placing a great deal of emphasis and prestige upon British degrees; they had been encouraged to do so by the structure of employment in India that favoured British qualifications and the necessity of passing exams in London for specific jobs. This now meant that these Indians were competing and seeing themselves in reference to the official British community in India. Many were now imitating British habits as a means to fit in but also as an unconscious result of their time abroad. The students adopted outward habits such as dress and lifestyle which were modelled on the British middle and upper classes, and did not appear to reflect the developments in British society and habits over the times that they were in Britain, nor did their desire for ‘anglicization’ abate over the period. However, students had different experiences of which sections of British society they interacted with; apart from their educated British teachers and fellow-students, some socialized with the working-class families in their lodgings and in other social situations. There were many though who either avoided or did not get the opportunity to interact much with any sections of British society, as we will see in more detail in the next chapter. Despite the disparities in experiences what therefore emerges is the evidence of diverse instances where Indians were able to see more of British society than they could in India. Relations with British people varied and depended on the changing political situation in India. At the beginning of the twentieth century, when Indian students were a relatively small number and independence was not foreseen for India, there were more opportunities for Indians to meet and mix with the British because there were fewer organizations designed exclusively for Indians. However, many of the British were aloof as they knew little about Indians and therefore their own prejudices came to the fore. As we will see in the next chapter, over time, Indians began to organize themselves in Britain and create their own associations so that they were less reliant on the British. On the other hand, with the spread of socialism and pacifism among many British students, British people were increasingly more willing to be friends

Social interactions of the England-returned

79

with Indian students. Therefore, Indians had the choice by the end of the 1930s to either join the entrenched Indian student society within Britain to take comfort from familiarity, or to find friendly British people to learn about an unfamiliar society. It is difficult to equate the ‘class’ of Indian students with their British counterparts. Indian and British ideas of economic prosperity and wealth were different as were their social markers and dividers. By adopting ‘anglicized’ customs and placing their attention on how to integrate into British society rather than uplift Indian society, they were widening the social gap among Indians. With so much regard placed upon British education and the power of the British Empire, many students imbibed Western characteristics to prove that they had learnt from their experiences. Some wished to elevate their social status and hoped to be regarded as equals by the British in India. They were imbibing British ideas of racial superiority and hoped that ‘anglicization’ would make them ‘superior’ to the ‘inferior Indian masses’ as well. The majority of these students were at a formative age where many were malleable and could adopt British habits, consciously and unconsciously. However, ‘anglicization’ could not change Indians’ skin colour or their attachment to their homes and families. As Bal Gangadhar Tilak remarked to a Britain and India Association meeting in 1920: We can unlearn our history, we can forget our traditions, we can learn the English language and literature, imbibe English culture, adopt English manners and customs, we may anglicize our minds, but we cannot change our colour.124 Therefore Indian students returned with uncertainty and confusion about their loyalties and the roles they should play in their country. Criticized for ‘deracination’ and attempting to become ‘hybrids’, some of the England-returned were able to weather these attacks and forge successful careers by keeping links with both British and Indian cultures – there were many successful mixed marriages for instance, despite the tendency of nationalist discourse to obscure these narratives. As the focus in this chapter has been on those who did adopt anglicized habits and interact with the British, we should not forget that there were many who were reluctant to change their lifestyles and returned to India after education with almost little noticeable difference. Indians who had been abroad had broadened their horizons and in many ways reassessed their identities and perceptions of Britain and India, but had to return to a society where the vast majority had little contact with British people or Western ideas. These educated Indians now had a greater range of employment opportunities that further increased the distance between them and other Indians. They now had greater opportunities to socialize and liaise with the British governing classes in India and thus become part of the colonial establishment. There is no doubt that their British education had conferred a new status upon them, but there were individual degrees to which

80

Social interactions of the England-returned

they exploited this. They were a social elite but possibly too few in numbers to be distinguished as a separate ‘class’ in themselves. They integrated into both British and middle-class Indian society with varying degrees of success, and despite some alienation continued to encourage their descendants to take advantage of British education. They illustrate the close relationship and dependency upon British institutions and education that had conferred prestige and status and thus perpetuated an admiration for Western values and ideals. The next chapter will reveal how some educated Indians began to reject British rule in India and turn to political action. In the social arena, these educated Indians enacted very little social change and were an isolated, introspective group who allowed a social division based upon education to widen. Although some returned students did become active social workers, especially many of the female students, there was little noticeable correlation between social reform and the return of Indians from Britain. Despite some greater awareness of the agency of women and promotion of female education within their families, the England-returned did not coalesce into organized social reform movements in the same way that they became political leaders. In this sphere, they were not too different from other educated Indians who had received benefits from higher education in India and the privileges of careers in British service. The main difference being that many of the England-returned tried to consolidate a more distinct elite within what was an expanding Indian middle class in the early twentieth century.

4

The political identities of the England-returned

The practice of sending young men and women to Britain for education had significant repercussions for the development of political thought in India and in shaping individuals who were to become prominent leaders. Indian students tended to come to Britain at a formative age (in their late teens and early twenties) when their ideas about their selves, their futures and the world were changing. Their images of Britain and India as states and societies were influenced by their years as students in the UK. For some, the distance and perspective away from India encouraged them to love and appreciate their own country and society more. They sought the company of other Indian students and fostered an Indian identity that was based on their experiences and relations with British society and institutions. Having been exposed to new ideologies and having learnt new political methods, Indian students grew in confidence. Upon their return to India, many became actively involved in the public political arena and utilized their foreign experiences to further their careers and enact political change. Indians had the opportunity to meet people of many different nationalities because the UK attracted so many foreign visitors, and thus they could learn about many new societies and political options for India. They were well educated and hence able to reflect upon their experiences. In fact, it was not only Indian leaders who had been educated in Britain, but many other individuals who led their countries to independence such as Jomo Kenyatta and Kwame Nkrumah, in Kenya and Ghana respectively. The comparison bears resonance in that they reveal how these individuals who had taken up opportunities of British education and engaged with British society were then able and willing to react and find the means to challenge British authority in their respective countries. They highlight the fact that many nationalist leaders in Britain’s former colonies came from elite backgrounds in terms of their wealth and social status, but were still able to lead mass-political movements. Many Indian students had developed their ideas of nationalism in Britain. Although Western education and ideas had influenced Indian nationalists without the need to travel to Britain for further higher education, the high proportion of leaders that were educated in Britain points to a link between education abroad and the development of nationalist ideas or leadership

82

Political identities of the England-returned

skills. In fact it was probably their leadership and organisational experience that were the most important tools they brought back from Britain. The INC was initially dominated by English-educated elites. A change in leadership and authority occurred from 1920, when the INC began to adopt Khadi dress; more delegates from the lower middle classes began to become involved in the Congress and there was an increasing use of Hindi and other vernaculars instead of English.1 Non-cooperation was involving more mass participation in the Indian nationalist movement. Despite these changes, those who had been educated in Britain continued to return with great prestige and influence. Education in Britain had been useful in teaching students how to adapt political concepts to India. Thus, many Indians from privileged backgrounds, having been educated in British institutions of higher education, returned to India with an authority that helped them to assume key roles in the development of the Indian political outlook in the years leading up to 1947.

Student societies Having had high expectations of Britain and British society, Indian students were disappointed by the class and racial prejudices seen in the last chapter that made it difficult to socialize freely with many elements of British society. The strange environment of Western society and Western institutions were alien to these Indians, no matter how much they had read about Britain or mixed with British officials in India. In this new country, many of these Indians were either forced to or willingly decided to associate with other Indian students. They socialized informally with other Indians who were in the same situation and also created formal societies to nurture their relations with each other. These interactions with other Indian men and women were influential in making students understand what it meant to be ‘Indian’ at that time and what their roles in the future development of India would be. Many Indian students felt compelled to join exclusively Indian societies for friendship and familiarity. University life in Britain offered many opportunities for extra-curricular activities and students were able to become involved in other university clubs with students of all nationalities. Yet it was away from home and away from their families that other Indian students offered comfort. Students did not have to feel embarrassed by their accents, their eating habits or their ideas. It was much easier to seek the company of other Indians and easier to join Indian societies where there was little question about their acceptability. In some cases, these associations led to extremism as student gatherings allowed for radical fervour to ferment. British universities prided themselves on their extra-curricular opportunities that were designed to enhance their students’ education and create well-rounded individuals. Indian students were able to take an active part in British university life by joining various societies, even if they were Indian societies, and they learned useful skills. They formed new friendships with students coming from different

Political identities of the England-returned

83

communities from India, which informed and developed their ideas about India and their futures. British people were aware of the Indian student community and had concerns about the way Indians tended to stick together. A meeting was held at Caxton Hall, Westminster, in November 1908, in which Dr John Pollen gave a paper on the ‘Indian Student in England’. Pollen had passed the ICS in 1869 at the same time as Bihari Lal Gupta and Romesh Chunder Dutt, two Bengalis who were some of the earliest Indians to pass into the superior services. Pollen remarked to the East India Association: Formerly these Indians used to mix freely with students of all nationalities, but latterly, I regret to say, I have noticed a certain constraint and aloofness, and this aloofness, I fear is growing more marked on the side of the Indians than on that of the Europeans, so that is has almost become necessary to half-apologize for one’s colour.2 As the number of Indians was increasing they had less need to socialize with Britons, but it was also difficult for them to mix with a race of people that were governing them back home. The criticism of Indians being aloof towards the British in the UK was similar to the criticism of Britons who were aloof towards Indians in India. Their insecurities of being in a foreign country and their lack of knowledge about the host country’s society and customs encouraged them to keep their distance. Although perceived as coldness, in more cases it can be assumed that the students were shy and insecure about socializing with Britons, finding it difficult to take up the limited opportunities to meet British people outside the universities. Concerns about Indian students filtered through to the press. The Times realized that the appointment of the Lee-Warner committee in 1907 was an indication of how serious the issue of Indian students had become and thus welcomed the creation of the advisory bureau for Indian students in 1908. The newspaper explained that the increase in the number of students had changed conditions and Indians had begun to form their ‘own social circle’ and ‘cut themselves adrift in large measure from the beneficial influence of contact with English life’.3 In response to this article, The Times published a letter from an observer who explained how difficult it was for Indian students to make friends because they lived in apartments where there was little chance of meeting non-Indians. The reader pointed out that there were no opportunities of access to British society for many students and so often they could return to India with an unfavourable opinion of the British.4 Although societies such as the Northbrook Society and National Indian Association did exist to foster relations between Indians and the British in London, very few students were interested in attending these types of gatherings. Indians did not tend to socialize freely with British people in India so it was difficult for them to be at ease within British society.5 It was particularly hard for students who were not on campus-universities. Outside of the university environment, they

84

Political identities of the England-returned

were isolated and unable to gain access to Western society, which naturally drew them closer together and increased their resentment towards the ‘unwelcoming’ British. The experience of homesickness encouraged many Indian students to stick together and rely on other Indians in Britain to foster a sense of familiarity and community. Students could take comfort from others who were in the same situation and who reminded them of home. Their youth also made them more impressionable and adaptable to new ideas and views. B. K. Sarkar was a student at Cambridge in 1911, but when he was ill had gone to stay with other Indians in London; he explained to John Maynard Keynes, the economist and tutor at Cambridge: Only one who is thousands of miles away from his near and dear ones, whose age is not twenty yet, who remembers the anxiety that the slightest headache caused in the midst of a family of forty or fifty would be able to say what consolation it is to be in the midst of one’s distant friends even when one becomes ill in a strange land.6 Reliance on other Indians in Britain encouraged students to appreciate their fellow-countrymen better. Most were used to living in joint families in India and hence felt even more isolated in Britain where they had less company. They turned to other Indian students for comfort. This would have repercussions for a sense of unity and for the creation of networks which they were to utilize in India upon their return. British universities had on offer a wide range of societies from athletics clubs to cultural societies to debating groups. Debating societies were popular in Indian universities having modelled themselves on their British counterparts. However, the freedom given to young students in Britain to form their own clubs and particularly to debate freely about political issues, including the nature and validity of British rule in India, allowed Indian students to mature and create new ideas about their own identities and relationships. The Majlis societies in Oxford and Cambridge are examples where Indians were able to express their political opinions openly and foster relations with other Indian students. Named after the Persian word meaning assembly, the Cambridge Majlis was founded in 1891 and the Oxford counterpart five years later. The Majlis societies were debating groups, modelled on the University Unions, which focused on Indian affairs, but they provided social entertainment and hosted inter-university debates as well. Despite their serious intentions, these societies were reassuring places for young Indians to meet other Indians and provided a fixed point of contact for them. G. K. Chettur was particularly grateful for the support of the Majlis network. It offers a meeting place for, and thus exerts an unifying influence upon the Indian population which would otherwise be scattered and lost in the whirl of University life. It serves to make its members feel less lonely in a

Political identities of the England-returned

85

foreign land. It helps to strengthen national sentiment and acts as a spur on individual ambition.7 Chettur did concede that the Majlis could encourage Indian exclusivity but they were not prevented from joining other clubs if they wanted. G. D. Khosla remembers that his five years at Cambridge were the most enjoyable period in his life and the Majlis was a great opportunity to bring all Cambridge Indians together ‘as a body of people living in exile’. Positively, ‘students of all religions and denominations met and fraternised on the most affable terms’.8 Shyness and insecurity explained why many young Indians enjoyed the company of their fellow-countrymen. However, Indian students did not merely gravitate towards each other but some actively avoided British company. Kuruvila Zachariah had complained to his mother in 1913 that Indian students at Oxford took no time to get to know English thought or Western points of view, wondering if it was just the circumstances that made it difficult to socialize or a characteristic of Indians to be so aloof.9 In an interview in 1976, B. K. Nehru remembered that at the LSE in 1930, ‘it was not easy to get to know British students and they had no particular desire to know us and we seemed to have no particular desire to get to know them’.10 Despite these remarks, Nehru did make a number of British friends and enjoyed British company at LSE. Nehru’s explanation for the social distance, in hindsight, was that students held a large amount of political resentment towards the way the British ruled India. Despite trying to take advantage of British opportunities, their stay in Britain increased their understanding of their political subjection in India. M. R. A. Baig boarded at Clifton School and then attended Sandhurst and therefore did not have the advantage of a Majlis society. Baig attended other Indian-only meetings such as the Annual Indian Conference (usually held in Derbyshire). ‘Indians do not integrate easily into foreign cultures and, consequently, get home-sick’, he remarked. ‘Such get-togethers, therefore, had a strong emotional atmosphere.’11 The Annual Indian Conference was started by Indian students in 1917 and was open to Indian students from all over the United Kingdom. The three-day conference was a forum for speeches, debates, games, music and excursions into the countryside, creating ‘home surroundings’ in an ‘alien environment’ for these Indian men and women. As expressed in the conference’s pamphlet, it ‘has become a welcome oasis in the dreary desert of a whole year which we have to pass in a foreign country under conditions to which we are unaccustomed’.12 In Indian-only clubs, students could often express themselves more openly and there were many benefits of being friends with fellow countrymen who would often understand them better. These groups did not always have to turn to political debate for entertainment. Indians from the same province often stuck together for the familiarity of their vernacular and provincial traditions, and could do so without alienating

86

Political identities of the England-returned

other Indians. When Kuruvila Zachariah met another student from Calicut in London in 1912, he told his mother that it was ‘homelike to meet people from the same town as yourself ’ and he enjoyed talking about regional affairs with the young man.13 The majority of M. C. Chagla’s friends at Oxford in the 1920s were from the UP and had gravitated unintentionally towards each other. Chagla was from Bombay and noticed how these UP students grouped together, although he was welcomed into their circle and did not face any regional prejudice from them.14 Young Indians sought familiarity and home comforts whilst in a foreign land but had multiple loyalties to their region, their country and to their empire. Indian debating societies such as the Majlis encouraged students to express and reason out their political ideas and the contradictions that they often faced as willing members of British society. Ostensibly nationalist gatherings, Indians of all political leanings were welcome. Chagla, a moderate, who saw the Oxford Majlis as particularly extreme, described how ‘the speeches were anti-Government, often highly seditious, calling always for the abdication of the empire in India, and for the establishment of the freedom and independence for our country’.15 Despite some of his concerns, Chagla was President for one term of the Majlis in 1920 and felt that is was necessary for all Indian students to join them. Kirpalani, who was in Oxford from 1919 to 1922 agreed that the Majlis overflowed with emotion and sentimentality, but all the Indian students he knew (about 40) joined: ‘Non-association would have provoked a comment on one’s lack of patriotism. But, in all conscience, no one wanted to stand apart, even though some of us did not quite distrust the Britisher as some others did.’16 The 1920s were a period of great political change in India: the 1916 Lucknow Pact and then the 1919 Government of India Act had seen greater representation for Indians in the Central Assembly, as well as more recognition of Muslim demands, but on the other hand the 1919 Amritsar Massacre and then the 1922 Chaura Chaura incident had seen violence overflow and was indicative of the political unrest in the sub-continent. K. P. S. Menon was President of the Oxford Majlis for a term in 1920 and often made what he has called ‘patriotic’ speeches. He was simultaneously preparing for the ICS exams, but did not realize the inconsistency at the time (which he acknowledged later) to support national determination but to also desire to work for the colonial power in India.17 Menon wrote a manuscript for a book in 1923 entitled ‘Passage to Oxford’ about his years at the university and included a whole chapter on the Majlis. Menon explained that Indians were self-conscious whilst the English were reserved and so Indians naturally kept to their own company; ‘Living in an atmosphere of freedom, we felt that we belonged to a dependent country; but on one day at any rate – on Sunday nights – we were determined to be independent.’18 G. K. Chettur, writing in 1934, when political negotiations with the British Government were in full-swing, about the 1920s, felt that many Indians were rather naïve in expressing extremist ideas. ‘Our thunders and our rantings were very real to us, and often we worked

Political identities of the England-returned

87

ourselves into a passion, which, albeit generous and noble, fills me in retrospect with a kind of melancholy amusement.’19 Indian societies were often a means to demonstrate to their British colleagues the importance of Indian politics and of the presence of Indian student communities at universities.20 In student societies, Indians were free from the supervision of parents and teachers and thus felt liberated to express their frustrations and ideas in a receptive environment, without necessarily feeling compelled to act on them. Criticism of the herd mentality of Indian students came from Indian voices too. Having ostensibly come to Britain to gain knowledge about British society and ideas, it was disconcerting to realize that it was not an easy task. Indians stuck together because it helped to ‘tide over the feeling of insecurity’.21 In the universities, Indians had to cope with other young students with similar levels of maturity. K. L. Mehta came to the LSE in 1932 at the age of 18. ‘There was a natural tendency amongst Indians to be on their own, partly because it meant taking the path of least resistance’, explained Mehta in his autobiography published in 1985. ‘It required effort to befriend a foreigner and even more so, to find subjects for conversation in which he would be interested.’22 Prakash Tandon came to Manchester, also aged 18, in 1929. Tandon agreed with Mehta’s recollections that Indian boys formed their own groups immediately and in fact that this habit had begun from the boat; he explained that this was ‘simply because it needed no introduction to talk to Indians you did not know’.23 Despite these concerns, both Mehta and Tandon did make British friends, but rather they were pointing out some of the tensions that were apparent among the Indian student community. The India Office kept a close eye on Indian student societies due to a concern about sedition. The India Office kept copies of Bharat, a quarterly produced by the Oxford Majlis, and at one point in 1931 considered prosecuting the editors for their revolutionary ideas but found the language was not strong enough for conviction.24 The Majlis was now adopting the language of the Congress in India by adopting the slogan ‘Inquilab Zindabad’ and calling for full swaraj instead of merely dominion status. However, a closer look at the Bharat shows that Indians did not take all revolutionary rhetoric seriously. In the January 1931 issue, the writer of the ‘Oxford letter’ said that only about three people took the Majlis seriously and that they were rather conservative. The author suggested that The debates could be more serious, members could be less noisy and we could once in a while, when we are in a generous mood, pass a resolution of sympathy with the Nationalist Movement and raise a subion say for the miserable victims of Bombay lathi charges. We could, in short, be reasonably dignified, and properly Nationalistic.25 The minutes of the Cambridge Majlis reveal the nature of some of their political discussions from 1932 to 1937. On 7 June 1933, the Majlis debated the motion, ‘It is time that all sections of Indian opinion give up the foolish

88

Political identities of the England-returned

hope of any benefits occurring to India by remaining within the British Empire and looked to revolutionary means and ideals’, which was defeated. Other debates during this period include, ‘This House recommends rejection of the White Paper by Indian Public Opinion’ on 11 March 1934 (motion carried), ‘This House has no faith in the INC’ on 17 February 1935 (motion defeated) and ‘This House has no confidence that the Government of India Act meets the aspiration of the Indian people nor points the way to future progress’ on 7 March 1937 (which was carried).26 Although the political activities of Indian students were very important, they were not the main reason why young Indians joined these societies. Caught up in the company of other Indians, it was natural that conversations and actions would be concerned with aspects of Indian life including Indian politics. These political discussions influenced the young Indians and compelled many to become politically active when they returned to India, but Indian societies were designed as social meeting points rather than recruiting grounds. Meanwhile, many Indians were able and did desire to join university clubs that were not designed exclusively for Indians. Indians were able to demonstrate their sporting abilities and taking part in games was seen as an integral part of British education. Others became involved in University Unions. R. C. Bonnerjee was elected treasurer of the Oxford Union in 1905; he was the son of W. C. Bonnerjee, the first President of the Indian National Congress. Jaipal Singh was elected President of the St John’s College, Oxford, Debating Society in 1925 and also represented the University Hockey Team from 1924 to 1926.27 The son of a farmer of the forest tribe, Munda, and sent by missionaries to study at Canterbury and then Oxford, Jaipal Singh went on to captain the India Hockey Team that won a gold medal at the Olympics in 1928 and then, in 1938, became President of the All India Adibasi Mahasabha, which campaigned for tribal rights and after independence for the separate state of Jharkand. Humayan Kabir at Exeter College was the librarian of the Oxford Union in 1931, and was later to become a successful Bengali novelist, poet and political figure. Kabir was remembered fondly in The Isis – ‘the charm of his personality has won him universal popularity’ – and the Oxford Magazine noted that he was influential in bringing Indian matters to the forefront and ‘sustain the debating reputation of the Society’.28 Two years later, in 1933, Karaka, who had described the benefits of the Majlis, became the first Indian President of the Oxford Union. The Indian Students’ Department recorded in its annual reports all the Indians who had obtained sporting ‘colours’ from their universities. Indians particularly excelled in hockey and tennis, and of course many played cricket inspired by the example of Prince Ranjitsinhji who had played for England from 1896 to 1902. The Nawab of Pataudi, a member of Balliol College Oxford, was awarded the ‘Blue’ for cricket and Hockey in 1929 and went on to play for the England cricket team and to captain the Indian cricket team.29 Indian students did not all get involved in political matters when they came to Britain either. Chandrasekhar, a highly successful physicist who made his

Political identities of the England-returned

89

name in Chicago, had been born in Lahore in 1910. He came from a South Indian, Tamil, Brahmin family, was the nephew of the Nobel Prize winner C. V. Raman, and came to Cambridge in 1930 for a research degree. Chandrasekhar wrote to his father after arriving in Cambridge, ‘I do not intend making any friends as that merely wastes one’s time’.30 He was a serious student and realized his ‘duty’ to make the most of the experience. He was alone for the first time in his life and thousands of miles away from home, and so to overcome his loneliness Chandrasekhar worked extremely hard to complete his research. He remembered the visit of M. K. Gandhi to Britain for the Round Table Conference in 1931, but in an interview in the 1980s, Chandrasekhar explained why he had not been interested in politics even though all his fellow Indian students talked constantly about political matters. ‘I sort of felt, either consciously or subconsciously, that so long as I was in England I had better try and do my science as best I could, and so long as I was not in India, taking part in political matters was not helpful either to me or to India.’31 Chandrasekhar was one of the exceptions in believing that interest in politics was not helpful. There were extremes among the students and they had different purposes in coming to Britain. They were all educated in multiple ways. Chandrasekhar acknowledged that the loneliness and distance had changed his personality and attitude to life in general. Indians came to learn in Britain and ultimately they learnt more about themselves through the experience.

Burgeoning political identities Early nationalism These students, staying in Britain, were able to gain valuable insight into British perspectives on India. They could read British newspapers, learn ideas from British people and see British politicians debating Indian issues in the House of Commons. Their direct engagement with British institutions and understandings of the workings of British policy gave them greater agency in agreeing with or criticising the British than those who were in India. They were able to compare Britain and India directly. For those who decided to immerse themselves and engage with British politics whilst students in the UK, they were able to use those experiences and tools to become natural leaders and educators of political movements. They now had experience of different societies and had a new perspective on India and the potentials for India’s future. Indian commentators were aware of the influence of the England-returned on Indian politics in the early twentieth century. Bipin Chandra Pal credited the rise of unrest in India in 1910 partly to the practice of foreign travel for education. Pal, born in 1858, received a scholarship in 1898 from the British and Foreign Unitarian Association, through his involvement with the Brahmo Samaj, to study at New Manchester College in Oxford. Pal utilized

90

Political identities of the England-returned

his two years in Britain to undertake a ‘preaching tour’ and thus gained extensive knowledge of British society.32 Pal was actively involved with the INC, the Swadeshi movement in Bengal and journalism. In 1910, he wrote an article for the Contemporary Review in which he explained that various features of the British administration in India had encouraged unrest in India, including foreign education. ‘The England-returned educated Indian, with his insistent claim to equality with the ruling classes and the inspiration of a new patriotism and freedom’ was described as having strengthened the deep forces behind the unrest.33 Pal explained that Indians had been inspired by their faith in British liberalism and generosity, but had also become greatly organized through political associations modelled on European experiences and methods. Their ideas about equality had been shaped by their times spent living in British society and thus Indians had begun to believe that they could achieve independence with success. Syed Ameer Ali wrote an article for a British journal on the unrest in India, three years before Pal, in 1907. Ali explained that Indian nationalism was inspired by British policies in India, especially as the British had encouraged Hindu–Muslim animosity. Ali had been called to the Bar in London in 1873 and then practised law in Calcutta and was made a judge in 1890. He settled back in England in 1904, after retirement, and established the London Muslim League in 1908 – two years after the Muslim League had been set up in India.34 In his article published in Nineteenth Century and After, Ali admitted that the influence of students educated abroad was ‘naturally great among their compatriots’, because they were ‘keen-witted and well-educated’.35 Ali was concerned, however, about the negative impressions students were beginning to receive of British life. He noted that most students joined societies that were political in nature and ‘imbibe here the lessons of political philosophy which England teaches with such success to the rest of the world’. Yet, they returned back to India ‘with not very kindly sentiments towards the somewhat autocratic government which rules their country’.36 Ali believed it was necessary for Englishmen to be friendlier with Indian students, and thus wished to foster a non-political club for Indian students, although he was to found a society in the London Muslim League that was distinctly political in nature. Exposure to British society also meant exposure to Western political ideologies, such as ‘nationalism’. Students in Britain learnt more about Western history and ideological concepts, and also were able to understand and experience British ideas of democracy, liberalism and imperialism. These observations were influential in the development of the political thought for many Indian individuals. That is not to say it was only Indian students who were exposed to nationalism – Western education and ideas had influenced Indian nationalists without the need to travel to Britain for further higher education. However, the first-hand experience of British liberty and democracy was an inspiration for many young Indians. Within British universities, students were given more freedom and respect than they had experienced in India. The

Political identities of the England-returned

91

Pune newspaper Servant of India (which had been founded in 1918, three years after the death of G. K. Gokhale, the founder of the nationalist Servants of India Society) highlighted the importance of this experience in July 1921. It can hardly be denied that a few years’ education in the free atmosphere and in the midst of the free institutions of England has a great moral effect on the Indian youths. Much of the social and political development in this country is directly attributable to initiative, courage and energy of the English educated Indian.37 Sir Michael E. Sadler, the Vice-Chancellor of Leeds University, and the former President of the 1917 Calcutta University Commission, told the Lytton Committee in 1922 that Western education had emphasized individual responsibility and national freedom, which had encouraged Indians to seek autonomy from British rule. Although Indians were influenced by these ideas in Indian universities, Sadler asserted that this ‘infection of freedom’ had a far stronger effect on young Indians educated in Britain, who were also inspired by the ‘corporate life’ in British universities and colleges.38 Indian students could learn about British history and values from a wider range of sources when they attended British institutions. Fazl-I-Husain joined Christ’s College, Cambridge, in 1898. In 1900, he wrote in his diary about some of the new concepts he had learnt whilst in Britain: ‘I learnt what independent nations call “liberty”, & understood, yes even understand the distinction between freedom and slavery.’ These new distinctions troubled Husain, however, as he wished to understand why he was treated differently: ‘am I inferior, simply because I am an Indian?’39 Husain returned to India to become a prominent Punjabi Nationalist. In an article on Indian students in England, published in The Student Movement in 1910, K. Chowdry, from Manchester University, explained that there were political benefits for Indian students coming to Britain because ‘the idea of true citizenship, strict justice and fair play, and of political equality and honesty, can nowhere be more generously imbibed than in England’.40 Chowdry was involved in the management of the Lascars’s Club in the East End of London with John Pollen, retired of the ICS, and so had seen firsthand the opportunities and support for social work in Britain. Chapter 2 explained how travel abroad and interaction with other Indians had informed these students’ ideas about their identities and India’s place in the international world. Equally, they were influenced by their interaction with people from other countries and colonies who lived in or visited Britain during this period. One such influential group were the Irish, with whom India had many close connections. Alfred Webb and Annie Besant both presided over the Indian National Congress, in 1894 and 1917 respectively. Besant was involved in the India Home Rule League as well, which was inspired by Irish Home Rule agitation. The Indian Press had placed close attention on Irish

92

Political identities of the England-returned

affairs and often found parallels between India and Ireland. Indian ‘extremists’ were inspired by the activities of Sinn Fein, by reading histories of the Irish movement and adapting their policy of boycott to the Indian policy of Swadeshi.41 Frank Hugh O’Donnel was a vocal Irish Home Ruler who actively sought to collaborate with Indian students in London, taking a group of them to the House of Commons in 1893 to swear allegiance to Parnell.42 Thus, in Britain, Indian students could interact with more Irish people and observe the ways in which the British press and Parliament reacted to demands for Home Rule. Indian students had the opportunity to interact with Egyptian nationalists and other activists from British colonies in Africa too. Although the Indians were the largest group of foreign students in Britain and generally formed their own societies and kept the company of other Indians, they could at least learn more about the British Empire and contemporary nationalist agitations through their times in Britain. When the Lytton Committee met in 1922 to produce a report into Indian students they were able to interview many Indians at British universities. The Report acknowledged the many ways in which Indian students were becoming politically aware when in Britain. Dr Spooner, the Warden of New College in Oxford, told the committee that nationalist feeling and political hostility was very strong among Indian students. Spooner recommended that the number of Indians coming to Britain for education be curbed, because they either mixed well with the British and then resented them when they did not receive the same equality back in India, or they did not socialize with the British and returned to India disliking Britain.43 It was upon their return to India that the students were able to realize more fully the inequalities and subjugation they faced. Their ideas and outlooks had developed, but many were disappointed in the way there was little social change in India, and also more keenly aware of the need for change.44 Yet, there were also positive political repercussions from education abroad. Indian law students residing at the Indian Students’ Union and Hostel in London told the committee that the practice of sending Indians to Britain for education had been a success. The students who have returned have taken back with them more democratic and progressive ideas and a wider outlook of life. They have been pioneers in the field of social reform which is very badly needed in India. In the political sphere also they have stood out for greater independence. Their knowledge on technique and organisation has been a great gain to this country.45 Two years earlier, an Indian student wrote for the Britain and India journal, an organ of the Britain and India Association set up in 1920 by Josephine Ransom, an Australian Theosophist, and other British well-wishers of India who had denounced the 1919 Amritsar Massacre. The anonymous student urged British readers to understand the full extent of the reasons why ‘these ambassadors of the East’ study in Britain.

Political identities of the England-returned

93

Because when these temporary guests return to their homes in India, they are put in the witness box by a million minds, whose natural curiosity and thirst for knowledge makes them the keenest critics of the conditions of the West which they are eager to study by hearsay from the ‘EnglandReturned’, although they cannot do so first-hand.46 The student argued that the England-returned was ‘magnified in his importance and his sphere of influence, geographical as well as political’ upon return, highlighting, as we discussed in the second chapter, widespread comment upon these students in many Indian communities. A. R. Malik, the representative of the Edinburgh Islamic Society, who was studying forestry, submitted a memorandum to the Lytton Committee in which he explained why Indians wished to study in Britain. ‘It is not open to doubt that a Britain-returned student plays in every way a better role that one who has stayed there’, Malik explained. ‘It is needless to say that almost all the men in whose hands the destinies of India lie to-day are Britain-returned.’47 A. Rahim, the secretary of the All-England Indian Conference, wrote on similar lines: ‘they no longer consider education at British Universities to be purely personal matter as they used to do in the past, but as one affecting their future careers as servants of their Motherland.’48 Jawaharlal Nehru utilized his Western learning to great effect in his political career. Nehru had been admitted to Harrow School in 1905, when he was 15 years old, and then joined Trinity College, Cambridge in 1907 to read natural sciences, and was called to the Bar in 1912 at Inner Temple. At Harrow, Nehru kept abreast of Indian news through English newspapers and would discuss affairs with his cousins and other Indians in the holidays. In Cambridge, Nehru was inspired by the activities of Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Aurobindo Ghose in India, both known as ‘extremists’. In his autobiography, Nehru admitted that he and his Indian contemporaries were all stirred by Swadeshi events as ‘almost without an exception we were Tilakites or Extremists’.49 When Nehru joined Cambridge University his father advised him to take the opportunity of university to get to know the Indian students there as well, having had little contact with Indians whilst at public school. Jawaharlal wrote to his father from Cambridge giving his impression of the Indians there: Your advice about my not keeping too much aloof from the Indians here is perfectly right and just what I myself thought. There are some disreputable Indians here but then there are also some respectable ones and it would be silly of me, if not worse, to keep away from the latter ones just from fear of meeting the former.50 Nehru attended the Majlis society, although he hardly spoke at the debates, where the students were eager to copy parliamentary and Union structures. Here, extreme language was used in discussions about Indian politics, inspired by Bengali violence, but as Nehru noted in 1935, ‘few of these parlour-firebrands

94

Political identities of the England-returned

took any effective part in Indian political movements subsequently’.51 By 1910, Nehru had become slightly disappointed with the increasing number of Indians at Cambridge and was in favour of putting a quota on Indians at the colleges.52 He had also kept in touch with his old Harrow friends, who led him into expensive habits and large debts. The Majlis welcomed Indian politicians such as Lala Lajpat Rai and Gopal Krishna Gokhale who came to speak to the students. However, as Nehru recalled, ‘We respected them but there was also a trace of superiority in our attitude. We felt that ours was a wider culture and we could take a broader view of things.’53 When Jawaharlal Nehru returned to India in 1912, he joined the High Court to take up a career as a barrister. He soon became dissatisfied with his new life and the monotony of his new job. Nehru attributed some of his dissatisfaction to his ‘mongrel’ education and the difficulties in fitting in after seven years in England.54 Nehru found that the British and Indians were uncomfortable in each other’s company in India. He realized that the British official class was narrow-minded and that the Indian intelligentsia was cut off from the Indian masses. Nehru did not rush into politics either, as he believed Indian politics to be characterized by ‘aggressive nationalist activity’ which he did not feel suited to, but he began to attend Congress meetings. Nehru gradually became more absorbed in the movement to eventually take leadership and to become the first Prime Minister of independent India. He wrote his autobiography whilst imprisoned in 1935, and yet he did not have any serious animosity towards the British: Personally, I owe too much to England in my mental makeup ever to feel wholly alien to her. [ … ] All my predilections (apart from the political plane) are in favour of England and the English people, and if I have become what is called an uncompromising opponent of British rule in India, it is almost in spite of myself.55 Indian nationalism was in many ways characterized by this admiration for Britain at odds with the desire to rid India of British rule. These dilemmas continued to dog Nehru in his political career as disillusionment with the British over the Kashmir crisis, for instance, had to be reconciled with his many close friendships with British people and then resurfaced in India’s negotiations to remain a part of the Commonwealth as a republic in 1949. In the United Kingdom, Indian students became more aware of their own status in relation to the British, as they had more direct contact and interactions with British people than they could have in India. Although most Indian students stuck together, this was often a result of their insecurities about their racial status. Colonel Zaidi went to Cambridge in 1919 to take the history tripos. On the ship over, Zaidi asked the captain a question and then was admonished for being ‘silly’ and therefore took offence; ‘And that was true of my generation. We would take offence, because of our sense of inferiority. We were not sure of ourselves.’56 Their insecurities became accentuated in an

Political identities of the England-returned

95

alien environment without the emotional support of home. Interacting firsthand with British society allowed Indians to realize how they were distinct. They realized the difference in their political status because, as N. B. Bonarjee put it about the Empire, ‘they possessed, while I only belonged’.57 Indians realized how their society and beliefs were particular and thus were able to begin to understand what it meant to be ‘Indian’. Their experiences in Britain often created new resentments and suspicions of British people and the British Government. K. P. S. Menon has written much about Indian suspicions of ‘Anglo-Indians’.58 When he arrived in London in 1918, Menon’s first few days were spent at 21 Cromwell Road, a house for Indian students administered by Miss Beck, an Englishwoman with deep affection for India.59 Menon enjoyed the company of the British people he met but soon learnt that it was not a good idea to be friends with British officials as this led to accusations of being a spy. In 1923, Menon wrote: There is something in the free atmosphere of England which makes you hate officialdom and patronage. India Office is the ‘bête noire’ of Indian students in England. Why should Indians have a delegacy when the other foreigners, Chinese or Japanese, had none? [ … ] The dislike is mutual: every Indian office friend is a spy, and every Indian student a seditionist, actual or potential.60 The issues that students were grappling with as visitors to Britain were fuelled by the political relationship between Britain and India. Students in Indian universities had been politically active and events such as the Partition of Bengal in 1905, the Amritsar Massacre in 1919 and movements such as Swadeshi and non-cooperation were at the back of the students’ minds when they came to Britain. They came to the UK with preconceived notions of British society and also with the experience of relations with officials in India and the knowledge of the way the British wielded power in India. Menon tried to explain some of these feelings with hindsight in 1965. Perhaps the real handicap from which I and most Indian students suffered was that we had a certain complex from the unnatural relationship between Great Britain and India, the ruler and the ruled. Whether it was an inferiority complex or a superiority complex I do not know; perhaps it was an inferiority complex which, as it often does, took the form of a superiority complex. It was this that created an invisible barrier in the way of any real friendship between Indian and English undergraduates in those days.61 Menon may possibly be trying to highlight the changes that had occurred in India since his student days or justify in retrospect the suspicions he had of Anglo-Indians and the difficulties he had in forging lasting friendships from Oxford, which did not hinder him from leading a successful career as Foreign

96

Political identities of the England-returned

Secretary where international friendships and dialogues were so important. It is evident that students were acutely aware of their status as British subjects and imperial citizens and many were keen to utilize the opportunities to turn their insecurities into practical change. Terrorism and violence The British Government had concerns about the radical tendencies of Indian students in Britain, fuelled by increasing tension after the murder of the India Office official Sir Curzon Wyllie by Madan Lal Dhingra in 1909 in front of the Imperial Institute in South Kensington. The Government had been aware from early on about the importance Indian students would hold for the future of India. British understanding of their prominence had been one of the reasons behind the introduction of technical scholarships in 1904. The Lee-Warner committee had also been explicit in their realization of the importance of these Indian students: We cannot pretend that we do not view with grave concern the growth among Indian students in England of a sentiment of vehement hostility to the Government; we cannot be blind to the serious consequences which it must produce in India. The number of Indian students who leave England for India every year is small in actual figures and, by comparison with the millions of India, infinitesimal, but the men educated in England constitute an influential section of the educated classes of Indian society, and their permanent alienation from the British Government would be a disaster.62 The Government was aware of the violent tactics used by Indians, particularly in Bengal, and of the example of Aurobindo Ghose, who eventually became a Hindu philosopher and religious leader. Ghose was taken to England in 1879, aged seven, with his other two brothers for their education. He was admitted into St Paul’s School in 1884 and then joined King’s College, Cambridge, in 1889 on a scholarship. Ghose tried to enter the ICS, having passed the written parts, but failed the riding element for entry (some say deliberately turning up late) and so returned to India after he completed his Classics degree. Ghose had been involved in the Cambridge Majlis and the ‘Lotus and Dagger’ society, a secret society for Indian students in London. He had received regular news of India because his father used to send him Bengali newspapers. Upon return to India, Ghose earned an appointment in the Baroda State Service, but he also became involved in journalism and became editor of Bande Mataram, a ‘nationalist’ journal. His wide knowledge of European history influenced his outlook and vision for India. Ghose became involved with a secret revolutionary group in Calcutta with his brother, Barin, which was implicated in the attempted assassination of the District Judge of Muzaffarpur, Douglas Kingsford, and he was arrested in 1908 for possession of weapons.63 Peter Heehs has argued that this Bengali

Political identities of the England-returned

97

terrorism of 1907–8, in the aftermath of the 1905 Partition of Bengal, was inspired by understanding of European history and accounts of European secret societies, and that although they used violent tactics, they were not anarchists but nationalists who only wanted the removal of British rule.64 Yet, it is particularly interesting that the main figurehead of Bengali terrorism should have spent such a great part of his childhood and received the bulk of his education in the UK. Madan Lal Dhingra, the engineering student who murdered Sir Curzon Wyllie on 1 July 1909, had been a resident of India House.65 India House had been set up in Highgate by Shyamaji Krishnavarma. Krishnavarma had studied Sanskrit at Oxford and been called to the Bar in 1884. He worked in the Indian Princely States’ Service but then returned to England in 1897. He set up India House as a lodging house for Indian students, then started a journal, Indian Sociologist, in 1905 and began to offer scholarships for young Indians to study in Britain as long as the recipients guaranteed that they would not take up government jobs when they returned to India.66 Krishnavarma explained that it was beneficial for Indians to study in Britain to observe political freedom and obtain practical experience of liberty in order to apply these principles to India.67 Krishnavarma left London to settle in Paris in 1907 to avoid Government attention on his activities. The organization of India House continued to flourish under the leadership of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who had come to London in 1906 to study law. The Times noted how nearly 100 Indian students attended a meeting at India House in May 1908 to commemorate the 51st anniversary of the Mutiny, and was particularly concerned that students were coming down to London from Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh to attend.68 Savarkar, later to coin the word ‘Hindutva’ and become President of the Hindu Mahasabha, was a mentor to Madan Lal Dhingra and was arrested in 1910 for his involvement in revolutionary tactics and the India House in Highgate was closed.69 The British and Indian Governments became particularly concerned about Indian revolutionaries after the foundation of India House and the murder of Sir Curzon-Wyllie. Madan Lal Dhingra was seen as a pawn of these groups and especially exacerbated tensions when he refused to apologize for his actions. The murder of Sir Curzon-Wyllie was a seminal moment in relations between Britain and Indian students as police surveillance increased. The Criminal Intelligence Office in India paid close attention to Indians who visited Europe and America, and New Scotland Yard began to issue close surveillance upon Indian students and their associations.70 Although these opponents of British rule advocated violent tactics and adamantly campaigned for complete independence for India, these anti-imperialists did not appear to believe it was contradictory for them to live abroad and to take advantage of British education. In fact, they admired British principles of liberty and democracy, and their time abroad served to increase their anger about the nature of British rule in India when it was clear that there were other political futures available for India.

98

Political identities of the England-returned

Another British official was murdered in London by an Indian on 13 March 1940. Sir Michael O’Dwyer, former Governor of Punjab who had been in charge during the 1919 Amritsar Massacre, was murdered by Udham Singh at Caxton Hall, Westminster. However, the case of Udham Singh differs from Dhingra because he was not a young student in London but had instead come over to Europe with the express intention to murder O’Dwyer. What does bear comparison is the way that Indians felt that they were able to come to Britain and express their anger through violence on British soil. Singh did have connections though with the Ghadr Party in the USA that had links with the earlier India House organization and Curzon Wyllie’s assassination. Lala Har Dayal had joined St John’s College, Oxford, in 1905 on a state scholarship from the Punjab. He was a Boden Sanskrit Scholar and was awarded a college prize worth £30 (the Casberd Exhibition) in 1907. Har Dayal appeared to be actively involved in college life as he was a member of the college debating society as well. However, he began to visit India House and resigned from his state scholarship in 1907, with the support of Krishnavarma, as he no longer wished to be dependent on British favours.71 Har Dayal was also studying for the Bar and considered giving up this career as it would be wrong to work for British justice in India.72 Ultimately, Har Dayal returned to India in 1908 with active hostility towards the British and then went to the USA in 1910 to take up a job as a lecturer in Indian Philosophy and Sanskrit. In 1913, he set up a weekly paper, Ghadr, in California and then became one of the founding members of the ‘Hindustan Ghadr Party’ which was an association for Indians in America who advocated for the liberation of India from British rule with militant undertones.73 The Ghadr party was a precursor to the Indian National Army (INA) led by Subhas Chandra Bose, who had studied at Cambridge from 1919 to 1921. Bose had been involved in student agitation at Calcutta University, but had considered entering the ICS when he came to England. He soon realized that it would be hypocritical to join the service when he harboured so much animosity towards the Government; although he made British friends, he enjoyed the way British people served him when he was at university.74 Upon his return to India, Bose became a prominent member of the INC, positioned on the left-wing, and was heavily involved in civil disobedience agitations. Bose was twice President of the INC but after M. K. Gandhi forced his resignation in 1939, he separated himself from mainstream nationalism. He formed the All-India Forward Bloc in 1939 and took over control of the INA in 1943. Bose led the INA in battles alongside the Japanese against the Allied Forces, in anger at the Government’s decision to declare war on India’s behalf and in his fight to gain total independence for India. At a rally of Indians in Burma in 1944, Bose called ‘Give me blood, and I shall give you freedom!’, demonstrating his belief that bloodshed was a necessary precursor to political autonomy. As we have seen, some political groups involved with India advocated violence as the only way in which to gain notoriety for their cause and to force

Political identities of the England-returned

99

through noticeable change. Indians in Britain, and also the rest of Europe and the USA, used the distance away from India to avoid censure or arrest by the Indian Government, but were then afforded greater freedom to formulate plans of attack. Violence and bloodshed did not disappear from the Indian sub-continent after independence; partition itself was particularly brutal and saw millions of deaths (historians have estimated up to two million deaths and about twelve million refugees). In India, the Hindu right-wing organization RSS has been involved in numerous conflicts in the twentieth century, while Islamic groups have also taken responsibility for many bombings in both India and Pakistan. Hence, the violence of the colonial period has not disappeared; indeed one could compare the India House organization of radical students in London to Al-Qaeda recruitment of students of Pakistani origin in Britain. In the colonial period, Indians were influenced by anarchist groups in Britain and other countries such as Russia, and the political posturing of these students was an indication of improved communications and the greater sense they had of the international world. International events and ideas were actually common influences for many students with ideologies across the political divide. Communism Edward Shils, an anthropologist, argued that leftist Indian nationalism ‘grew tremendously from the circles of the India-returned’ because the seed of such radicalism was maintained by students abroad, particularly those in the University of London, and more particularly in the London School of Economics.75 At the LSE, a prominent lecturer, Harold Laski, was particularly friendly with Indian students and encouraged leftist ideas. (Anila Graham, Renuka Ray and B. K. Nehru all studied at LSE and have all given credit to Laski for influencing their political thought.)76 Many Indian students were introduced to and encouraged by the Communist ideology, influenced by events in Eastern Europe and the rise of the Labour Party and British Communists at the beginning of the twentieth century. Marxist works were read and discussed widely among student circles in British universities, so Indians were able to learn the tenets quite easily. The British Government was particularly concerned about the Communist presence in Britain and so was equally anxious that the ideology should not become powerful in India, having taken steps to suppress Communist Parties in India.77 In India, Communism was a minority ideology and feared by many Indian nationalists as well as conservatives. For those Indians who did pursue the Communist ideology, study in Britain and association with British Communists appeared to be particularly influential upon their politics. The Communist Party in India had been founded in 1925 (although M. N. Roy had set up the roots for the organization in Tashkent in 1920) and attracted a significant proportion of England-returned members in the years leading up to independence. The Congress Socialist Party was founded in

100

Political identities of the England-returned

1934 as a subsidiary of the INC and many Indian Communists tried to join in order to gain legitimacy, but ideological and policy issues created divisions. Communism was not always popular in India; redistribution of wealth was not appealing to many of the landlord classes, and the atheism of Communism alienated religious groups. The Communist Party’s support of Russia and therefore the Allied Cause in World War Two after the Hitler–Stalin pact was broken when Germany invaded Russia created bitterness among many sections of the Indian public. However, even critics were aware of and admitted that the Communist Party of India was a strong recruiting ground for many Indians who had studied in Britain. Abid Ali, an MP and supporter of the trade union movement, wrote a pamphlet on Indian Communists in 1965. Ali had no sympathy for Communism, but in his history stated that the Communist Party in India would not have survived if it had not been for the membership of returned Indian students. His cynical attitude is expressed thus: Such young students studying abroad had a background wholly different from that that would meet the requirements of the text-book communist workers. Their social background would never have justified their conversion to Marxism. They came from well-to-do families who could afford their education abroad. With the western type of education, these Indian students developed a change in their outlook different from that of traditional Indians. Ali believed that the students abroad suffered from an inferiority complex and that these insecurities were capitalized upon by the Communists.78 Although young men were inspired by the ideology and rhetoric of Communism, Ali is correct to point out that they came from privileged backgrounds. These students aspired to be leaders rather than labourers. In 1925, The Times of London had reported on the spread of Communist propaganda among Indian students in Oxford, through influences on the Majlis society. The Times explained that young Indian recruits were given non-Indian membership names and sworn in with strict secrecy.79 Communist thought may have been more widespread than known as so much was done under the cover of secrecy. The article in The Times was probably a result of a round-up of British Communist leaders in October 1925. The Home Office seized documents from the Communist Party headquarters and published some of their findings. One memo written by two Communist undergraduates at Oxford was on the Indian Majlis. It listed the political tendencies of the members, stating that there were 18 Moderates, 11 Swarajists, 20 Government supporters, 12 unclassified and five Socialists. A letter from the Communist Party to Shapurji Saklatvala on 23 June 1925 was also published, and this letter had requested that Saklatvala make sure that at least two of those five, K. V. Gopalswamy from Madras and Susobhan Chandra Sarkar from Bengal, were committed to the Communist Party before their return to India.80 One of those, Sarkar, joined the Indian Educational Service and returned to India

Political identities of the England-returned

101

as a teacher of history in 1925. He did not, however, openly commit to Communism until 1938 when he was a Professor at Presidency College, Calcutta. Mulk Raj Anand joined University College London in 1925 to study philosophy. His time in Britain was important for the development of his political and philosophical outlook and also helped him in his subsequent career as a writer and novelist. Anand acknowledged that the General Strike of 1926 had a ‘profound’ influence on his life. Anand was impressed by the way the miners were openly challenging the British Government, and he was involved with students who refused to be blacklegs and then got caught up in a fight in Gower Street.81 He respected the dignity of the strikers but realized that the electorate were unable to control their elected representatives and so he lost some faith in democracy. In his memoirs, published in 1946, Anand explained that he became disillusioned after the failure of the General Strike, as he was reminded of ‘the slave status of India’. He reconsidered the position of Indian students in Britain, realizing that they were ‘false’ because most were ‘absorbing portions of an alien culture’ only in order to get better jobs upon returning to India.82 These considerations made Anand feel a deeper kinship for his countrymen because he became more aware of his attachment to India. Anand had come to Britain to improve his employment prospects but also ‘with the vague and genuine ambition to learn the secrets of European civilization’. He wished to ‘reside for a time in a world where ideas of social and human equality could at least be discussed freely, if they were not quite sincerely accepted’, yet as a result Anand became increasingly disillusioned with British imperialism.83 It should be noted that Anand became a novelist and may have been romanticizing his philosophical developments but he observed the divisions and disunity within the United Kingdom, which convinced him of the disadvantages of the class system and attracted him for a time to Communism. Shapurji Saklatvala, an elected Communist MP in Britain of Parsee Indian descent, naturally caused concern for the British Government.84 He had close contact with Indian students in Britain and was often asked to speak at student meetings, and so his influence was closely monitored. Saklatvala did not appear to actively try to recruit Indian students to Communism. However, his example in achieving election to the British Parliament was obviously of interest to Indian students and he was a role model to many for his remarkable feat. His presence in London influenced Indian students in many ways. In 1931 the Central Association of Indian Students (Abroad) merged with the National Union of Indian Students (Abroad) upon the condition that the society should not be used for Communist activities. The CAIS had also received substantial money from Indian donors with the provision that the organization should not identify with Saklatvala and his colleagues, which naturally angered the MP. Many Indians felt the pressure to distance themselves from Communists; Communism was not seen as the best way to deal with the nationalist struggle in India despite the socialist tendencies of Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose in the Indian National Congress.

102

Political identities of the England-returned

New Scotland Yard continued to monitor the activities of the CAIS and of Saklatvala. Their President, Vajid Mahmood, had repeatedly assured Indians in 1931 that the society had no political or religious motives and intended only to meet the needs of Indian students in London, although Mahmood did meet with Egyptian nationalists in London. The British Government, however, reported that Saklatvala continued to keep links with Indian students albeit very discreetly. Scotland Yard argued that Saklatvala was particularly keen to exert his influence over boys whose parents were in government service or other powerful positions in India, whether this was to influence the parents or to negate the parents’ influence was unclear. The weekly secret report of Scotland Yard on Indian students of 27 April 1933 gave credit to Saklatvala for encouraging students to return to nearly every province in India as ‘rabid Communists’ and endeavouring to spread Communism across their states. The tone of the report reveals the fear of the Government but also the ways in which they could easily exaggerate claims. The report stated that the Communists’ biggest influence was in Bengal where Kiron Chandra Basak had formed the Workers’ Party of Bengal. The report further proclaimed that ‘practically all’ of that group of students who had been associated with Saklatvala in London had returned to join or form some Communist Party, either working on the ground among industrial and agricultural labourers or influencing students in Indian universities.85 One such example of an Indian student swayed by Saklatvala was Kunwar Mohammad Ashraf. He went to England in 1927 to join Lincoln’s Inn and the School of Oriental Studies as a PhD student. He pledged himself to Communism in 1928 having renounced a scholarship from the decadent Maharaja of Alwar and lived in relative poverty in London. His father was a railway guard, and Ashraf had many other politically minded friends when in London who had influenced his ideology. Upon his return to India, Ashraf guided the Alwar movement of peasants who revolted against the Maharaja and remained an active Communist as well as successful historian.86 Apa B. Pant, the son of the Rajasaheb of Aundh, joined the October Club, a secret Communist society in Oxford, in 1934 (the year the Indian Communists were trying to go mainstream with the Congress Socialist Party). Pant came from a wealthy and privileged background but still had compassion for the Communist cause; he was attracted to the revolutionary undertones and the attack on British imperialism rather than the socialist and economic objectives of Communism. Whilst sending letters to his father constantly asking for more money, whose wealth was extracted from the inhabitants of Aundh, Pant demonstrated his support for workers’ marches in the United Kingdom, explaining that there was no peace under capitalist rule.87 Further confusions were apparent when Pant considered joining the Air Squadron, or when he told his father that Maharastra should be made an independent state before the rest of India but that Maharastra could be either a communist or fascist state as long as she was free from foreign rule.88 Pant made friends with another Indian student, whom he did not name, who had gained a place

Political identities of the England-returned

103

in the Bombay Presidency ICS even though he was a Communist and held a ‘burning hatred’ for British imperialist policy.89 Despite Pant’s animosity towards capitalism and democracy as a student, he became an Indian ambassador after independence, including posts as High Commissioner in Nairobi and London. Hence the reaction of youth had been tempered by age and opportunism. The biographer of Jyoti Basu, who became Chief Minister of West Bengal in 1977 as leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), has argued that the British Communist Party (CPGB) worked closely with Indian students such as Basu, Nikhil Chakravarty, Indrajit Gupta and Renuka Ray Chakravarty from Bengal to become fully versed in the doctrine and ideology of Communism.90 Jyoti Basu admitted the same in his own autobiography and recognized the influence of British Communists when he was at the LSE in 1935; ‘It was during our student life in London that some of us took a conscious decision that once back in India, we would devote ourselves to the Communist Party.’91 Basu told Zareer Masani in 1986 that he had not been political at all before he had come to Britain nor had he had many political influences when in India, but within a year, he had come into touch with Marxist literature and leaders of the CPGB. Basu was attracted to Communism because their party was talking openly about Indian freedom.92 Basu continues, ‘I remember that when we left London, top CPGB leaders like Rajani Palme Dutt, Harry Pollit and Ben Bradley had told us categorically that formation of an anti-imperialist united front was the only way out of India at that time.’93 Rajani Palme Dutt, born in Britain to an Indian father, was a prominent Communist and his Indian roots may also have encouraged students. Indians were directly and openly using British resources, in this case the British Communists, to aid their political development and to plan for a future without British rule. Another Bengali Communist was Bhupesh Gupta. Gupta’s father was a rich landlord from East Bengal. Gupta had studied at Scottish Church College in Calcutta and had been politically active from a young age. He was active in the civil disobedience movement and was arrested in 1930, 1931 and 1933 and then placed in detention in 1937. He became attracted to Communism in the detention camp and so his father sent him to England to keep away from politics. Gupta went to University College London to study law and was called to the Bar from Middle Temple. He remained politically active through his involvement with Indian students in Britain and returned to India in 1941 fully pledged to the Communist Party of India. Gupta became a champion of the rights for women, the poor and harijans, and remained an active member of the Communist Party in Bengal. In 1952, he was elected to the Rajya Sabha and served until his death in 1981.94 The Communist Movement had strong international links, but young students in Britain were given direct contact with other Communists and able to use their experiences and training to take up influential political roles in India. The increasing involvement of Indian students with the Communists in the 1930s reflects the changing political atmosphere in India – students were no longer merely

104

Political identities of the England-returned

concerned with gaining independence from Britain but seriously considering what type of political-state an independent India should manage. Students were able to consider the range of political options for India, of which Communism attracted many idealistic young men and women at the time. Indian students formed their own Communist societies at British universities. Marxist study groups emerged around the universities and Indians used these to learn and apply Communist policies; other larger societies became dominated by Indian Communists. Jyoti Basu was secretary of the London Majlis, but the British Government was particularly concerned that the Oxford and Cambridge Majlis societies were becoming breeding grounds for Indian Communists. The British Government felt that Cambridge was a particular hotbed for communism due to the presence of the University Labour Federation (ULF). The Federation of Indian Students’ Societies published a pamphlet entitled ‘Indian Students and Socialism’ that also caused concern. Two of their members, Rajni M. Patel and Mohan Kumaramangalam, then went on to join the Cambridge Majlis: Patel, from St Catherine’s College, was President in Michaelmas 1936 and Kumaramangalam followed as President in Lent 1937. The Government was concerned that these two students persistently consorted with other Indian Communists despite joining mainstream societies, and their fears were later realized as both became members of the Communist Party upon their return to India. Mohan Kumaramangalam benefited greatly from the experience of involvement in the debating society. As his friend V. G. Kiernan recollects it was in this sphere that ‘Mohan had some of his first lessons in organisation and planning’.95 Kumaramangalam returned to India and became an active worker in the Communist Party of Bombay.96 Thus Indians were willing to express their political views whilst abroad, especially through the benign environment of a student society, and learnt debating and leadership skills that would be invaluable in their future careers. British Communists worked hard to appeal to Indian students in Britain. The High Commissioner of India in London, in 1940, was convinced that Indian students were only attracted to Communism and other extreme ideologies because they had limited contact with British society, but were flattered and appealed to by people and organizations from the Left.97 For example, Harry Pollitt, a Communist Party member, spoke to Indian students at the Indian Students’ Union and Hostel in Gower Street on 13 May 1931.98 Young students from Asia and Africa were attracted to Communism when they came to Britain because away from home in an unknown environment, it was Communist recruiters who took the time to talk to foreign students.99 Impressed by the attention, the range of social activities and the feeling of empowerment, many students became Communists and when they returned to their homelands became active Communist leaders. Therefore, the High Commissioner was correct to attribute the relatively high proportion of Communists among the Indian students in the 1930s to the hard work put in by the CPGB.

Political identities of the England-returned

105

On the other hand, some of the Communist activity of Indian students was actually dismissed by the British Government. A Secret Report of 1940 on extreme politics expressed by Indian students at British universities stated that there were no outstanding leaders among the Indian students and that their protests and campaigns were actually driven by the ULF with the support of the CPGB and the India League, rather than through any initiative of the students.100 The India Office concluded furthermore that the majority of Indian students were absorbed in their work and not involved in leftist politics. This dismissal of Communist influences may reflect the change in India Office priorities by the 1940s. With the Second World War under way, Communism was not seen as the major threat to Britain (as it was to be after the war in the USA for example). The political activities of a few radicals were not seen as a serious political problem and no steps were taken to restrict or censor Indian students whilst in Britain. As the Communist Party was not the most influential party in India, the Government was more concerned with the more general unease about Indians who were to demand and achieve full independence by 1947. Regionalism and late nationalism The presence of politically-minded Indian students in Britain reflects political developments other than Communism in India from the late 1920s. The mainstream nationalist party, Congress, could no longer claim to represent the needs of all Indians. The 1935 Government of India Act gave greater political autonomy to the provinces and increased the electorate. Seats were reserved for Dalits (Untouchables) following negotiations between Ambedkar and Gandhi that resulted in the 1932 Poona Pact. The Muslim League, having gained greater representation for Muslims through the 1916 Lucknow Pact, began to give serious weight to the two-nation theory by 1940. Savarkar and the Hindu Mahasabha supported the theory of separate Hindu and Muslim states as well. Therefore, while mainstream leaders were negotiating with the British to first demand dominion status and then negotiate the realities of a full independence, animosities were also escalating between certain religious communities. These tensions were not so evident among the relatively minuscule student population in Britain, although minor regional and religious differences did emerge. Minoo Masani was hindered in his attempt to be elected as President of the Students’ Union whilst at the LSE in 1927 due to prejudices amongst Indian students. Another Indian, Krishna Menon, decided to stand against Masani in the election and in his campaign told Indian students in London that Masani was not a true Indian because he was of Persian (Parsi) origin. The Indian and Labour vote became split which allowed the Tory candidate to win. Masani, though, felt strong ties to India. He kept in touch about Indian events through correspondence with his friend, Yusuf Meherally. He became attracted to Communism and was one of the leading members of the Congress

106

Political identities of the England-returned

Socialist Party when he returned to India. As a student, he visited the Soviet Union in 1927 and wrote articles about the country for the Bombay Chronicle.101 He demonstrated his attachment to India by his involvement in Indian politics upon his return and with the publication of Our India in 1953, an economic plan for India’s future. He later denounced socialism and was a prominent Liberal member of the Lok Sabha between 1957 and 1971. The Central Association of Indian Students (Abroad) was formed in 1929 in London. This group had revolutionary undertones but also had broad intentions, as we have seen trying to distance itself from the Communist Party, attracting 459 members from the start including Indian members of the High Commissioner’s Office. New Scotland Yard kept a close watch on this association and reported that it was almost exclusively dominated by Bengali students. This was not reported as a coincidence but due to the high and close organization of Bengalis keen to keep a firm grip over the union and not allow members from other provinces to take over control.102 Prakash Tandon also criticized Bengali insularity: Tandon, a Khatri Punjabi, remembered how some Bengali boys told other students that Tandon was a spy. These Bengalis were critical of Tandon because he had English friends and derided him by explaining to others that his Punjabi background made him loyal to the Crown rather than to other Indians.103 Regionalism took up political undertones amongst some Indian students who felt the need to assert their regional identity amongst the growing number of Indians in Britain. The variation in regional affinities is best exemplified by the experience of Pathan students in Britain. Coming from the North-West, on the border with Afghanistan, they did not feel much comradeship with Indians from other regions. Mohammad Said Khan was an engineering student at Nottingham between 1930 and 1933. He became a member of the Harbour Union, which was a society of about 20 Pathans who met once or twice a year. Khan describes how ‘there was a definite more affinity between the Potoon themselves and also upon people and us rather than with between us Indians (sic)’ because Pathans preferred to keep to themselves and ‘if we could find a society Potoon or Afghans we preferred that to an Indian society’.104 Khan remembered that he often preferred the company of English students to Indians and had no sense of ‘Indian’ nationality at all at that time because his ‘Pathan’ identity was so strong. However, Khan said these words to an interviewer in the 1970s, when the Pathans, now part of Pakistan, were campaigning for greater autonomy and may have been reflecting these ideologies when recalling his student days. Regional animosity appeared to decline as Indian students united in their common grievances and experiences. A Scotland Yard Report on the Annual Indian Social Conference of 1936 disclosed that It was evident from private conversation with the students that most of them were not in the least interested in politics, although most of them were emphatic about the unification of all Indians, regardless of caste,

Political identities of the England-returned

107

religion or province. Some years ago, when debates were held, the controversies affecting castes, religions and even provinces were often rather sharp, but now the students are interested primarily in games, and their conversations are extremely friendly.105 The Scotland Yard spies who had been employed precisely to detect political unrest among the students may have just been misled or projecting hope that political sentiments had died down, but it does appear that over time the students had a greater sense of their responsibility and ‘duty’ when in Britain, but were also eager to enjoy the experiences of student life while away from the everyday urgent political developments in India. Nationalists in India grappled with the ways in which to imagine and project an Indian national identity in the years leading up to and even after independence. In the subcontinent, regional differences could be very distinct and divisive. However, Indian elites could communicate through the common language of English and now those who had been to Britain for education had another unifying experience. In a minority in Britain, although some Indians preferred the company of others who shared the same vernacular, it was difficult to find too many students from the same province and therefore it was advantageous to unite with other Indians from different regions. Other England-returned political activists were influenced in more moderate ideologies. Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy was a Bengali Muslim born in 1892. His father had studied at the Inns of Court and been a judge of the High Court of Calcutta. Suhrawardy went to England in 1913 to study science at Oxford and also to be called to the Bar. He returned to India in 1920 and almost immediately became involved in politics. Suhrawardy had been active in the Oxford Majlis society which had given him training in reasoned debates, and the atmosphere of Britain had given him a strong leaning towards politics and the desire for independence. In 1921, he was elected to the Bengal Legislative Assembly and joined the Swaraj Party in 1923 under the guidance of Chitta Ranjan Das, before becoming a Muslim separatist and Muslim leader in 1927. He became Prime Minister of Bengal in 1946 and then Prime Minister of Pakistan in 1956.106 Despite the presence of separate Muslim groups in Britain, Hindu–Muslim relations amongst students were generally very good. The Telegraph remarked in 1909 that the growing problem of politicized students was one of ‘over-educated Hindus’ and that ‘Mohammedans’ were hardly concerned in revolutionary politics.107 By the late 1920s and 1930s, British commentators and the Government were more concerned about right-wing Hindus or left-wing Communists than separatist Muslims. Mohammad Ayub Khan was made the Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistani Army in 1951 and became President of Pakistan in 1958 (through a military coup). Born in 1907, Khan’s father was a havidar major and devout Muslim. Khan was sent to Aligarh College in 1922 as his father wanted him to feel like a Muslim and then, in 1926, he went to Sandhurst with the aid of

108

Political identities of the England-returned

a scholarship. Life at Sandhurst and in the Indian Army reinforced the distance between Indians and the British. Although Khan did not make any close friends at Sandhurst, the Indian cadets clung together and spent their holiday time together. His Muslim background was not an issue as he was ‘Indian’ and felt loyalty to ‘India’. Khan recalled in 1965 that the ‘tragedy of belonging to a subject race depressed us more poignantly in the free air of England’.108 Indian students were united in their experiences as an alien community in Britain and therefore it was easier to rise above their differences in order to gain strength from each other. Many supporters of Muslim separatism had been educated in Britain, such as Jinnah, Rahmat Ali and Mohammad Iqbal; Muslims also had their own societies such as the London Muslim League formed by Syed Ameer Ali in 1908. However, Hindus, Muslims and Indian students from other backgrounds often found more ways and preferred to unite rather than divide themselves in a foreign country. Students were more concerned about defining themselves in opposition to the British rather than to create divisions amongst themselves. Renuka Ray was born in 1906 and had contact with British society and Britain from childhood. Her father had passed the ICS exams in London and was District Magistrate in Hooghly in Bengal. Ray remembers that she was allowed to drive her father’s horse-drawn buggy out in town, wearing a frock which would elicit a great deal of attention: ‘Many people took the freedom we children enjoyed to be a sign of extreme westernization.’109 Her paternal grandfather had been one of the pioneers of the Brahmo Samaj and her maternal grandfather was advisor to Indian students in London in 1911. Ray’s family moved to London for two years where she attended Kensington High School and her grandmother’s home became a gathering place for many Indian students from across the country. As a teenager back in India, Ray became involved in the non-cooperation movement and came to know Mahatma Gandhi. Her father wanted to take her to study in England in 1920 and Ray asked Gandhi’s advice about whether this would be contravening the rules of non-cooperation. Gandhi urged her to go to England, telling her: Education in England is education in a free atmosphere. I have myself had the advantage of this. [ … ] I trust in a free atmosphere without becoming an anglicized girl you will take full advantage of the education and come back well equipped to serve your country with courage and an independent outlook!110 Ray left Calcutta in August 1921 with her whole family. Her brother was admitted to Clare College, Cambridge, and although Ray had a chance to join Girton College, Cambridge, she decided to go to the LSE to avoid becoming ‘aristocratic’. Her parents stayed for a few months to help her settle in and then returned to India. Ray visited her brother in Cambridge regularly and became acquainted with his friend Satyen Ray, who was studying natural sciences at King’s College, and subsequently married him in 1925 when they

Political identities of the England-returned

109

returned to India and he joined the ICS. She was also friends with Srilata Sen, the daughter of the advisor to Indian students in London, who studied social sciences at the LSE and who eventually married Ray’s brother Shanto. Renuka Ray had been socially and politically active as a student in London. She was involved in the Indian Society at the LSE, regularly met with other Indian students at the Indian Students’ Union, and was elected to the LSE Students’ Union Executive in 1922, being the only woman and only Indian at the time. Ray joined the Fabian Nursery (for young Fabians) and volunteered for the Labour Party during the 1922 General Election. When she returned to India, Ray concentrated on social work for women, setting up many Mahila Samitis (women’s societies) and became an executive member of the All-India Women’s Conference (AIWC). She became a member of the Central Assembly in 1943 and was an active spokesperson for social welfare. Jawaharlal Nehru agreed to let his daughter study in England despite his involvement in the nationalist movement; like Gandhi he did not see this as a contradiction. His daughter, Indira, went to Oxford in 1936 with the intention of joining Somerville College. Her mother was ill in Switzerland and so she had not achieved the required academic qualifications to gain entry. Indira was sent to Badminton School in Westbury-on-Trym in Bristol to prepare for the Oxford entrance exams. She eventually joined Somerville in October 1937 and immediately became secretary of the Majlis society and an executive member of the China–India Committee. She also joined the University Labour Club and canvassed for the local Labour candidate in the council elections. Indira was very well known amongst the Indian and British student community, due to the fame of her father. She regularly visited London because she was involved in the India League and to see Feroze Gandhi, her future husband. Unfortunately, Indira failed her exams twice and then was struck with pleurisy in 1938 and so did not take her final exams.111 Her family connections stood her in good stead for her public life when she returned to India. She was involved in the nationalist movement with her husband and was arrested for her involvement in Quit India; after independence she was secretary and companion for her father and became Prime Minister of India in 1965 after her father’s death in 1964. Gandhi was Prime Minister of India from 1965–1977 and then from 1981 to 1984; after her assassination in 1984, she was succeeded as Prime Minister by her son, Rajiv (who was assassinated in 1991), thus maintaining a Nehru–Gandhi dynasty for over forty years in India. Indian students developed their nationalist sympathies whilst being educated in Britain. Other notable political representatives who had been educated in Britain include Vallabhbhai Patel, B. R. Ambedkar, Sarat Chandra Bose, Syed Mahmud, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur and Frank Anthony. In the newly formed Pakistan, many political officials had been educated in Britain as well; five of their first seven Prime Ministers were ‘England-returned’ – Liaquat Ali Khan, Khwaja Nazimuddin, Chaudhry Mohammad Ali, H. S. Suhrawardy and Firoz Khan Noon. In 1956, the position of President of

110

Political identities of the England-returned

Pakistan was instated and two men who had been trained in Sandhurst manoeuvred to take up this position through coups: Iskander Mirza and Mohammad Ayub Khan. Upon return to India and their homes, young students were able to assess how their outlook and values had been influenced and changed through their years abroad. Their relations and expectations with the British and the Government had been altered by their experiences of British society and of living within a democracy. Thus, many returned to India to play an active role in the developing political movements that were emerging to consider both how to challenge British rule but also how to maintain the new nation-states after gaining independence.

Conclusions Indian students in Britain were exposed to innovative and current ideas. These ideologies were vibrant in India, but students in Britain were able to engage with new approaches and developments in these ways of thinking. They could see how Western nationalism had been applied in Europe and developed into democracy. Students in Britain learnt more about Western history and ideological concepts, and also were able to understand and experience British ideas of democracy, liberalism and imperialism. Exposure to new social divisions led them to understand the wider implications of socialism. They could liaise with Communists and feel part of an international movement. Indian students had the opportunities to meet with not only other students but various political activists as well. They could meet with British Communists, Egyptian nationalists and Irish Home Rulers. They met with Indians from other regions and social backgrounds. They also crucially met with a wider spectrum of British society, noticing differences in the ways the British acted away from India. Thus, their eyes were opened to new thoughts and they had the time and freedom to process these new influences to shape their own thinking. Hence, education at British universities was a highly influential experience for these young Indians and had significant repercussions for the development of Indian political thought, across the breadth of the political spectrum, as was apparent when these students returned home. Indian students were able to seek out the company of other like-minded Indians when in Britain. Student societies were breeding grounds for political discussion and growth, but also allowed students to meet other Indians from a range of backgrounds. United by their education and elite status, issues such as ‘communalism’ and ‘casteism’ did not tend to dominate relations, although of course they proved to be so crucial to the landscape of the Indian sub-continent by partition and in the aftermath. Apart from some regional differences and political rivalries, animosities between Indian students in Britain did not escalate to such severity. The large majority of any bitterness was instead directed towards the British Government and Government of India, and this bitterness often over spilled into direct forms of political action and violence in Britain itself. Nevertheless, although not discussed in

Political identities of the England-returned

111

much detail, we should not ignore that many students were not politically involved when they were in Britain, and many were loyal to Britain and the empire. As we will see in the next chapter, a large number had travelled to London to take the ICS exams and pursued careers in government bureaucracy. A former student at the Bar, M. M. Bhownaggree was elected as a Conservative MP in Bethnal Green in 1895 and 1900. He supported the Boer War and Tory Imperialism. During the First World War, many Indians were involved in the British campaigns on the Western Front and in the Middle East and Africa. While M. K. Gandhi was raising an ambulance corps for the British while in South Africa, many Indian students in Britain were involved in raising awareness and money for injured Indian soldiers and were involved in celebrations of the Armistice. Therefore it is important to stress the range of political opinions of these students and the very evidence of their disparate political action. Without wishing to give the impression that Indians who had not studied in Britain could not have been successful political leaders, British higher education had given Indians the experiences and status to take up influential social roles when they returned to India. The intention has not been to list all the men and women who became prominent after education in Britain. Indeed, many returned to become prominent local figures rather than leaders on the national scale and are harder to trace. Instead, we have sought to illustrate some of the influences that encouraged students to play significant political roles upon their return. British education was not a compulsory attribute for Indian political leaders, nor did it convince all students to join in politics. Many had been attracted to political action before they had travelled to Britain, and many were affected by other personal circumstances rather than their British education. The development of Indian nationalism and political action was a complex process influenced and inspired by many individuals, events and social forces, and only one of these factors was education abroad. It is noticeable and evident that many Indian political leaders had been educated in Britain. Before independence, the significance of education in Britain was acknowledged by British and Indian commentators, who realized that this small proportion of students had a large influence on India upon their return. Many placed emphasis on the responsibility of the British to welcome Indian students and ensure they returned with positive impressions of British life. The political awakening of many Indians occurred when they were students in Britain. They were inspired by student action at British universities and the vibrant British domestic scene. They learnt about organizing themselves in political associations, about methods of challenging the government, and ways in which an independent India could be politically viable. Their social background had facilitated education abroad and they had the means to support themselves in political careers when they returned to India. They were able to relate to British society in India and also sought to represent the Indian masses. And so it was that Indians learnt how to challenge British rule from their experiences of living in Britain. For some, their time abroad had accentuated

112

Political identities of the England-returned

their resentment towards the British as their comprehension of the discrimination inherent in colonial rule became clearer, and as they understood the alternatives to British rule more fully. Others were not as antagonistic towards the British but more determined that India should be free and independent, and they were resolute that they would use their education, new-found skills and outlook to play a role in achieving that independence. The features of British education that taught students to be independent and think for themselves were transferred into political direction. After 1947, India and Pakistan sought to shed their imperial past and create truly independent postcolonial nation-states. Recollections by key players since then have often obscured the extent to which the England-returned featured as a category on the one hand and on the other hand have sought to highlight the ‘modern’, international outlook they had. Although education abroad was only one of the factors that influenced the political landscape in India, from the creation of the INC in 1885 and political assassinations to left-wing sympathies and the prominent roles leaders such as Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah were to play in negotiating the terms of independence in 1947, it was such a pervasive feature of this period that it should be reflected upon with much more consideration than it has been in the decades after independence.

5

The careers and long-term impact of the England-returned

Employment One of the main purposes of education in Britain was to advance the careers and provide financial security for the students when they were to return back to India. Thus, having explored the social and political impact of the England-returned, it is now necessary to study their impact on the Indian workplace and their success in their chosen careers. Indian parents had sent their sons and daughters to Britain often at great emotional and financial sacrifice. The England-returned students now had to fulfil their responsibilities and find prosperity in a competitive and politicized economy. The costs for Indian students in Britain were approximately £200 a year, as demarcated by the prize of the government scholarships. Oxford and Cambridge were slightly more expensive for Indians, due to college expenses, although many students found lodgings outside of the colleges. Indian students did not generally have a great deal of disposable money. They tended to come from the professional middle classes and their families made many sacrifices on their behalf.1 For many, studying and living in Britain generated costs beyond their means, and created great strains between students and their families; Jawaharlal Nehru, for example, amassed a number of debts as a student and had to return immediately to India after having been called to the Bar – this was despite the fact that Nehru was given an enormously generous allowance of £400 a year: but he did live a very lavish and social student life.2 The India Office in London also took responsibility to repatriate students who landed in serious financial difficulties; for example in 1932, five Indian students were sent back home because of unsustainable debts.3 Many Indian students faced unemployment when they returned to India, creating further discontent among the educated classes. The Indian Students’ Department acknowledged the growing unemployment trend in their reports during the 1930s, due to the impact of the Depression on India and the lack of opportunities for educated Indians in British-dominated employment. They considered setting up Appointment Boards, as existed at British universities, to help find employment for graduates. The Government was concerned that their scholarships were becoming a waste of money and feared

114

Careers and impact of the England-returned

growing discontent because unemployment was not discouraging increasing numbers of Indians from travelling to the United Kingdom for further studies.4 Earlier, the Report of the Indian Students’ Department had stated It is no exaggeration to say that India ultimately gains nothing, either materially or intellectually, from the exodus of an appreciable proportion of the young students who annually proceed abroad. They return to their homes in many cases disgruntled and embittered, with no definite qualifications for employment of any kind, and only too often completely divorced in thought or feeling from the kindly family life and interests of their own people.5 Young Indians had gone and been sent to Britain for an education, which they hoped would elevate them socially and financially. However, unless they took vocational courses or preparations for careers such as medicine, law or the ICS, they had very little guarantee of any new opportunities for employment in India. Companies tended to be dominated by the British and Europeans, and despite holding British qualifications, their ‘race’ could not be disguised. The economic sector did not want or require educated Indians, as they could use low-paid semi-educated workers, and so the British-educated Indians were dependent on the state for their careers and became increasingly isolated. Those who failed to gain entry into the Government Services were left with very few opportunities for finding private employment. Racism and unemployment in these professions goaded many Indians into the nationalist movement.6 The British Government had played a significant part in creating this group of Indians who had been exposed to Britain and British education. The Government had wished to create and nurture these collaborators to strengthen their regime; the British had opened up the Government Services, the law and later on businesses for Indians to share in this power. The Royal Commission on the Public Services in India produced a report in 1917 from observations conducted in 1912 and 1913 to question the role of Indians in the public services. The Government had credited Western education in India for facilitating the unity of the Indian National Congress, for the vibrancy of Indian journalism and for social and economic benefits. The Royal Commission sought to find ways to reduce the need and numbers of Indians going abroad for their studies, and realized that the employment of Indians in the superior services who were treated on a par with their British colleagues was only increasing resentment amongst the rest of the Indian population. In our opinion nothing could be more inimical to the best interests of the Indian personnel of the public services than thus to create within their ranks a small, exclusive and officially recognised class, whose existence can only have the effect of placing a perpetual and an irritating discount, in the eyes of the youth of India, upon the institutions of their own land.7

Careers and impact of the England-returned

115

The Government could not avoid creating inequality in Indian society. Although education abroad had created a class of Indians who were elite through their education and experiences, social and economic difference were features of all societies. The Indians in the higher ranks of the Government Services were noticeably distinct because of the privilege and power that they wielded and so created a conspicuous difference from many other educated Indians. Indians were not guaranteed jobs in the public sector either. The 1917 Royal Commission on Public Services acknowledged the problems in employment for educated Indians, and the embarrassment that even state scholarships did not guarantee employment for bright young Indians.8 The Report also considered the pay of educated Indians compared to their British counterparts. The Government justified higher pay for British men because they lived away from home and were entitled to more leave that would send them back to Britain. The Report stated that it was rich Indians who could afford to go to study in England but then if they also got better pay, they would perpetuate inequalities in Indian society. To extend the same treatment to a limited number of Indians, simply because they are appointed in England instead of in India, is to cut to the root of this the legitimate ground for differentiation, and must result in diffusing the false and most undesirable idea that the Indian educated in his own country is inferior in status and ability to his fellow countryman who had been partly educated abroad.9 The Government expressed the fear that treating educated Indians equally to the British would actually create more division and discontent within Indian society and upon the Government, and yet by not offering them equal pay they still created resentment. Mary Trevelyan was a warden of the Student Movement House in Russell Square in London from 1932. The House had been founded in 1917 for students from different countries to come together and live, and included many Indian residents.10 Trevelyan travelled to India in 1937 to visit some former students and was struck by the high incidence of unemployment among the England-returned. She was also struck by the unhappiness of these men who had psychological difficulties in adjusting upon their return home. During her travels across India, she talked to 20 of the England-returned in depth specifically for a report for the India Office. Trevelyan found that only five were economically secure, many had been greeted with suspicion and antagonism from Indian friends upon their return and that the British had been uncooperative.11 Indeed, Trevelyan found the term ‘England-returned’ to be used by those who had not been to Britain and as an expression of envy and scorn. Khushwant Singh, a Punjabi journalist and novelist, studied at King’s College, London, from 1934. Singh had made many English friends as a student and so, when he returned to India, had many friends amongst the British

116

Careers and impact of the England-returned

community in India. He remembered that he was an exception because the British in India were never close to Indians, especially not those Britons in higher levels of employment. However, Singh noticed that a new breed of Britons came out to India during the Second World War; they did not like allwhite clubs and actively tried to mix with Indians, reflecting a sea change in British attitudes at home with the rise of liberal and socialist values.12 Relations between the British and Indians in the workplace did gradually improve as the ratio changed to favour Indian employees and as British personnel increasingly became aware of the imminence of independence. Indian students had a range of career options upon their return. Many had taken vocational courses in Britain which led to obvious choices such as the Indian Civil Service, medicine or the Bar. Others could utilize their foreign qualifications in other areas of government service, industry or private business. In this section, we will look at four areas of employment: education, industry, the army and the ICS. Returned Indians had to compete with the British in the workplace and attempt to utilize their education and experiences to propel them in their careers. Their expectations were high and they held considerable prestige among their local communities: but the realities of the Indian job market created varying degrees of success. Comparative education Indian students at British universities became aware of many pedagogical differences in the education systems of India and Britain. The different approaches made an impact on their outlook. Many were inspired to join the educational service in India and implement their new ideas in the system. Thus, teaching was a popular profession for young Indians who had been educated in British universities. British universities gave their students more freedom and independence of thought, which was seen as beneficial for their political education and understanding of society. As discussed previously, Indian students enjoyed the ‘spirit of freedom’ at British universities greatly. Shyamaji Krishnavarma, the founder of India House in London, began a newspaper in 1905 called The Indian Sociologist. Krishnavarma introduced two scholarships for Indians to study in Britain at the value of 2000 rupees, provided that the holders should not accept any post under the British Government upon their return to India. Despite his animosity towards British rule, Krishnavarma was certain about the benefits of a British education. In 1907, he wrote in anger about Bombay University’s withdrawal of a student’s scholarship for showing disloyalty to British rule in a pamphlet, comparing the ‘degraded condition’ of Indian universities to the ‘free atmosphere of the English seats of learning’ who would not interfere with the rights of students to say or write as they wished on political matters.13 Krishnavarma called England the ‘land of freedom’ despite his antagonism to the Crown and was adamant that Indians could gain practical experience of liberty and political freedom by studying in Britain.

Careers and impact of the England-returned

117

Study in Britain brought about obvious comparisons with the Indian educational system. Indians had been keen to demonstrate their intellectual ability by competing equally with British students abroad. Their successes in Britain encouraged Indians to reassess the education provided in Indian universities. A British degree tended to have a higher market value than an Indian qualification, which entrenched ideas about the worth of a foreign education for utilitarian purposes, but students also appreciated the intellectual expansion they underwent at British universities. M. R. Jayakar wrote into The Times of India in 1908, having been called to the Bar in 1905, and argued that Indian successes at British universities revealed that ‘cramming’ was ‘not inherent in the constitution of the Indian mind’ but the result of the present system in India.14 Babu Lal Sud explained in his articles for The Tribune in 1916 that Indian universities crushed originality but Oxbridge, in particular, gave students more culture and discipline, allowing students to engage in free discussion. He wrote that British universities tested their students for their proficiency and not their encyclopaedic knowledge as in India, suggesting that Indian students would do well to rest before their exams, as in Oxbridge, rather than to cram.15 Kuruvila Zachariah arrived in England in 1912 desiring to study History at Oxford. He met with the Indian students’ advisor, Mr Arnold, in London and was advised that Keble College had been selected for him. Zachariah came from a South Indian Christian background and so was pleased that Keble had strong Christian traditions and had a good reputation in History, although he was disappointed that Balliol and New Colleges were full up. However, Zachariah soon had doubts about the suitability of Keble because of the Anglican tradition there and applied to Merton instead. Zachariah was happy at Merton College, learnt British and European history and gained a first-class degree. He wrote to his mother in praise of the approachability of the tutors at Oxford. One of the most striking things here is the extreme cordiality and bonhomie of the dons. One would never dare to face, say, a professor in Presidency College, without awe. One would never be asked to sit down, and would be dismissed as soon as possible, and as to being offered a cigarette, why heavens forfend!16 Zachariah decided to join the educational service despite his boyhood dreams of joining the Civil Service, as he realized in Britain that joining the administration would not help the Christian community in India much. In December 1914, in his final year at Oxford, Zachariah was offered a job as Professor of History at Madras Christian College. The post would give him the same status as the professors from European backgrounds but his salary would be lower. However, Zachariah realized that it would be best to obtain a post through the Indian Educational Service and so took up a post teaching history at Presidency College in Calcutta. Although he would be working far

118

Careers and impact of the England-returned

away from his family and not in a Christian environment, Zachariah was happy to pursue this academic path. He taught at Presidency College from 1916 to 1930 (where he was a colleague of Jehangir Coyajee, who had studied at Gonville and Caius in Cambridge with a Tata scholarship)17 and then became the Principal of Hooghly College and then Islamia College. After independence, Zachariah served on a number of government commissions related to education and died in 1955.18 K. M. Panikkar had positive recollections of his Oxford education as recounted in his autobiography written in 1954. Panikkar was at Christ Church from 1914 and 1918 and believed that they were the four most important years of his life and that he would always hold a special debt to Oxford. At the university, ‘tutors and professors treat pupils like friends, while the college authorities are always active to help mould the character of students and advancing their careers’.19 Panikkar was the first Indian to receive the Dixon Research Scholarship from his college and received a first in History. Upon his return to India, he gained a post as Professor at Aligarh College in 1919 after an exodus of European teachers. At Oxford, Panikkar had begun to write for the press and sent articles to the Indian Review and Modern Review, and in 1922, he left Aligarh to pursue journalism. He founded the Hindustan Times and then entered a career in politics in 1928 with the Indian states. After independence, Panikkar was posted as Indian Ambassador to China, Egypt and France. The continued rise in the number of Indians travelling abroad for higher education was a clear indication to the Government of India of the need to improve educational facilities in India. The Government hoped by improving standards in India that the prestige and value of British degrees would decrease.20 The IES was the Government-funded route for men and women to join the teaching professions. This Service was reformed considerably through the course of the early twentieth century to accommodate the increasing number of qualified Indians who wished to join this profession. In 1917, Europeans held 229 posts in the IES and Indians only had 9 positions. By 1922, Europeans held 221 posts but the number of Indians had increased to 120, which now also included 2 Indian women.21 Irene A. Gilbert has argued that the academic profession in India had little professional self-regard and low esteem, as a result of the dominance of the ICS over the IES.22 Professors had no say in the choice of curriculum. Indians were only entitled to twothirds of the full pay accorded to their British and European counterparts in the IES. From 1919 Indians were given the same pay, but in 1924 the IES was abolished and incorporated into the provincial cadres, following the recommendations of the Lee Commission. This reform was introduced in accordance with the spirit of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms of 1919, which had devolved education policy to provincial legislatures. The low pay and difficulties in gaining promotions discouraged many able young Indians from applying to the IES, and thus the ICS remained the main career ambition for the middle classes. For example, G. D. Sondhi went to

Careers and impact of the England-returned

119

Cambridge in 1910 with the intention of sitting for the ICS exams, but due to low self-esteem and fears that he would not pass, he applied for the IES instead. Sondhi gained a post in Lahore Government College in 1917 and later became the first Indian principal at that college.23 Many Indians were aware of the situation of Prafulla Chandra Ray, a chemist who studied in London in the 1880s. He was unable to join the IES in 1888 because the ranks were closed to Indians. Ray was only able to get a temporary position in the provincial service and then was barred from promotion into the central IES cadre. Ray told the Home Department in 1909 that the lack of status and pay meant that Indian students in Britain preferred the ICS or law or medicine. Ray cited a case where he had suggested to his pupil’s father, who was about to send his son to England, that the boy should in due course enter the educational service. However, the father was concerned that P. C. Ray had been on a salary of 250 rupees a month for seven years before his next pa -rise, which was then only to 400 rupees. Therefore, the boy joined the ICS instead and became a Sessions Judge.24 Foreign degrees were highly regarded for appointments within the Indian educational system. The universities had been modelled on the federal structure of the University of London, and the majority of teachers had come from Britain until the 1920s. The Royal Commission on the Public Services in India of 1917 recommended that the Education Service admit more Indians, but expected that these recruits should either have been educated in European universities or at least be sent to Europe for postgraduate work. The Report stated that Indian universities were designed for students to pass exams and not concerned with original research, and therefore Indians should be encouraged to pursue postgraduate research abroad in order to improve the standards and learning environment of Indian universities.25 The Indian Statutory Commission in 1930 acknowledged that ‘European standards and methods of education’ had been adopted in India, thus justifying the continued recruitment of Europeans into Indian universities, although they also wished to attract Indians with ‘high European or other qualifications’.26 Yet, despite the British inspiration for Indian education, the system and methods of teaching were very different. Indian universities were partly hampered by their lack of resources and thus limits on the subjects they could offer. Their development had been swift despite the fundamental problems of literacy and lack of primary education in India, and thus they catered only for a select proportion of the Indian population.27 By the 1920s, the Government was placing increased emphasis and resources for scientific and technical education, which was to further transform the educational outlook of India, and will be discussed in more detail in the next section below. Industry and commerce The introduction of Government scholarships for Indians to study technical subjects in Britain in 1904 was a crucial development for both the migration

120

Careers and impact of the England-returned

of Indians to study in Britain and for Indian industry. Industrial training took on a political dimension at the beginning of the Swadeshi movement, following the partition of Bengal in 1905, when Indians desired to take control of their own means of production, and they were inspired by the Japanese defeat of Russia in 1905, which demonstrated that countries could build their own industries from scratch. There were few technical colleges in India until after 1906. The Tata Institute was opened in Bangalore in 1911 and a mining and metallurgy department in the Benaras Hindu University was created and then a Technical Institute was set up in Kanpur in 1920.28 Indians were still, however, attracted to British institutes. Britain was one of the most highly developed industrialized nations at the beginning of the twentieth century and had a strong economic relationship with India. Thus, the education and training of young Indians in Britain had important repercussions. The Indian Industrial Commission was appointed in 1916 by the Government of India to explore ways to further industrial development.29 The greatest improvement required was to provide more specific training and research, especially as education was dominated by literary studies in India. The educated elite in India tended to have little interest in technical education and there were few industries to absorb Indians. Education in India had been implemented primarily to provide literary knowledge for Indians and create collaborators and administrators rather than entrepreneurs especially because industry was the preserve of private British interests until the end of the nineteenth century.30 As capital was in British hands, there was little role for Indian managers in industry; however, it was necessary for young Indians to now learn these new skills if they were to ever compete in this sector or indeed if they wished to set up their own businesses. Thus, a greater spirit of co-operation was required from European businessmen and there needed to be more resources for Indians. The scholarships for technical studies in Britain had given opportunities for young Indians to take advantage of better training and facilities, but this did not mean that this education could be easily transferred to practical success when they returned to India. The proposal for State Technical Scholarships was made in 1901 and local governments had realized the need to provide employment for the scholars upon their return. The Bengal Government was particularly concerned that they did not have any particular industries in which they would be able to employ the scholars and was willing to allow private firms to take advantage of these men educated by Government means. H. W. Orange, the Director General of Education, was sure that Government money on the scholarships would be well spent if the students returned to work either as technical teachers or in private firms which would benefit industry and the economy.31 Denzil Ibbetson also explained that the initiative was designed not to create Indian managers for European enterprises, but to ‘encourage and assist the development of native industries by native capital and enterprise’.32 Thus, the Government of India was seeking to train young Indians in Britain for the benefit of the industrial development of the country and to encourage Indian

Careers and impact of the England-returned

121

enterprise. For this reason, the scholarships were not awarded to engineering students because studying that subject would normally lead to a career in the Public Works Department rather than in industry.33 The technical education of young Indians in British institutions was designed to improve Indian industry and thus benefit the British economy too. However, these students faced various difficulties in Britain which hampered their progress. There were frequent complaints about the inadequacy of the basic training of the students before they came to Britain, particularly in drawing techniques and experience of industry.34 A student of glass technology at Sheffield University, G. D. Kelkar, told the Lytton Committee in 1922 that he had not been taught to deal with the differences between raw materials in Britain and India, about which he expressed concern. Kelkar had come from Bombay on a scholarship and had asked the Government to send him to the USA for some further training, but he was refused.35 Indian students were also hindered by common reluctance from British manufacturers to employ Indians as apprentices, as was required as practical training for their courses. Some factories were hostile to admitting foreign students partly for fears that their trade secrets would be stolen, as employers realized that these Indians would not be apprentices who would stay on and work in Britain but would generally return back to India. Professor Smithells taught Chemistry at the University of Leeds and was President of the Indian Guild of Science and Technology. He wrote a letter to the Secretary of State for India in 1911 in which he expressed concern about the difficulties Indian students faced in gaining practical experience of industry in Britain. There were a number of Indian students at Leeds but English manufacturers were not willing to provide them with the practical training to supplement their scientific education.36 The Indian Students’ Department remained concerned in their 1921 report, articulating Government fears that the students would go to America and learn to compete with English manufacturers, and thus favour America for contracts and materials, if they were not catered for in Britain.37 Thus, the Government revealed its priorities about maintaining industrial links between Britain and India through these students, and demonstrated the competitive drive behind the provision of training for Indians in Britain. There were some options for technical students when they returned to India. They could join existing industries, set up their own firms, or join technical institutes and research groups. However, many found difficulties in securing suitable employment upon their return to India.38 The Indian Students’ Department revealed in 1924 that ‘a large proportion of returned scholars fail altogether to secure employment in their special branches for which they have been adequately and efficiently trained’.39 The Morison Committee that inquired into the system of State Technical Scholarships in 1912 reported that, of the 66 scholars, 31 had finished their courses and returned by 1912. 26 of these 31 were in employment, and of these 26, 18 were working in industry. Some faced problems in integrating into British

122

Careers and impact of the England-returned

industry and it was ‘absurd’ to expect any to set up their own industries immediately.40 The Calcutta Association for the Advancement of Scientific and Industrial Education of Indians had provided private scholarships to 80 travelling students by 1912, not limited to Britain. Upon their return to India, 28 were in industry, 9 in private enterprise and 19 had Government jobs.41 Many Indians were hindered in gaining jobs by what were in effect colour bars. N. K. Nag had graduated from Edinburgh University in 1918 with an engineering degree. He told the Lytton Committee in 1922 that he had found it extremely difficult to gain any practical training whilst in Britain. The Indian Students’ Department had advised him to pay a premium of between 200 and 300 pounds to ensure an apprenticeship but Nag felt it was wrong to have to pay this sum. He applied for a job with the Indian railways, which had advertised for vacancies for assistant engineers who had to be graduates of British universities. Nag’s application was unsuccessful and he gathered that they were only willing to employ Europeans.42 R. V. Gurjar, a textiles student at Manchester, told the Morison Committee in 1912 that he knew of students who had returned to get jobs in mills but they had obtained these posts through contacts and personal acquaintances rather than through force of their British qualifications.43 Sir R. N. Mukherjee, owner of a works in India, told the committee that he did not like to employ graduates from British universities because they expected higher pay and lacked practical training. Mukherjee did concede, however, that they could be beneficial in creating networks with British engineers and British firms.44 Many students liked to keep their options open as seen in the example of Prio Krishnar Majumdar. He received a Government mining scholarship in 1904 and went to Birmingham University, but also studied at the Bar. Majumdar was the son-in-law of the notable politician W. C. Bonnerjee and upon his return to India was appointed as a manager to a diamond mine in South Africa. Majumdar faced such harsh racial prejudice in South Africa that he returned to India within a year and enrolled in the Calcutta High Court instead.45 The British commercial community in India had very little contact with Indians as colleagues. Unlike the Government Services, they did not feel obliged to employ Indians in senior positions and did not like the idea that a European should be subordinate to an Indian. British qualifications did not particularly impress businessmen because education could not change the Indian ‘character’. Recruitment was strongly driven by kinship or school links and so it was difficult for outsiders to break in.46 Raj Chatterjee had studied at the LSE in 1936 and had intended to join the ICS but had failed the exams. British friends of his parents (his father was a member of the Central Assembly and his mother did social work with British women) found him a job in Imperial Tobacco. Chatterjee was the fourth or fifth Indian to join the company and was aware of how little social contact the commercial community had with Indians. Even though he joined in 1937 by which time there had been Indianization of the services, Chatterjee noted, ‘I don’t think they even

Careers and impact of the England-returned

123

dreamt that there could be an Indian who could speak English the way they could’.47 It was really only in the late 1930s that Indians were able to gain senior positions in European businesses in India. Prakash Tandon trained as a chartered accountant in Manchester and returned in 1937. The accountancy qualification was a relatively new qualification and was treated with some suspicions, and so Tandon had an added disadvantage to his ‘race’. Tandon was employed by Unilever but his post was in the advertising department rather than in accounts in which he was qualified. Tandon admitted that ‘they were probably less willing to accept an Indian who was rather better educated than they were’.48 He also only earned 400 rupees a month while British accountants in the company earned 650 rupees. Tandon stayed with Unilever to become Director in 1951 and then Chairman in 1961. He had rarely socialized with his British colleagues when he first joined the firm, despite having many British friends in Manchester, but his promotion was eased by the exodus of his European colleagues after independence. Tandon’s friend, Roshan, gained a Blue when he studied at Oxford and was working at Bombay Company in 1938 when Tandon was settling into Unilever. Roshan admitted that his Oxford qualification had helped him gain his position, as it almost made him ‘pukka’, but that he felt as though he was paraded round the company as the token Indian.49 R. N. Sen studied accountancy at Manchester as well and earned an external commerce degree from London University. Upon return to India in 1939, Sen got a job as a part-time lecturer at Vidyasagar College in Calcutta and had to wait six months before he was offered a full-time position. Sen had ambitions to join a firm and luckily met a partner at Price Waterhouse on a ship.50 This partner, Mr Toft, came from Manchester and so shared a connection with Sen and offered him a position as ‘Senior European Assistant’, which was the post just below partner. Sen knew that he had only got the job because the Second World War had begun and Indians were being employed out of sheer necessity due to shortages of personnel. By the 1930s, Indians were placing increasing importance upon scientific and technical education. Students were taking advantage of research facilities in Britain and increasingly enrolling on post-graduate courses at British universities.51 As job opportunities opened up for Indians, and they realized that they could compete with the British by creating their own companies, these subjects became more ‘respectable’ and lucrative. As India approached independence, her people realized that there would be an acute shortage of technicians with the withdrawal of British personnel and thus they placed high importance on these fields for the development of Indian industries and for the country to stand on her own feet.52 Indian Army Sandhurst Academy was opened to Indian cadets in 1918 and a number of Indian students trained there in the 14 years before Dehra Dun Military

124

Careers and impact of the England-returned

Academy was opened in 1932. Sandhurst had only ten places for Indians each year, which would entitle them to receive the King’s Commission into the Indian Army. Therefore, only a limited number of Indian officers were trained in the United Kingdom, from 1918 to 1932, but they had to pioneer the way for Indians to lead alongside their British colleagues in India. Indians were now qualified to lead battalions in which they could feasibly be senior to junior British (white) officers. After some concern, the Army created eight specific ‘Indianized’ units in 1923 to avoid Indians commanding British officers. Yet Indian officers did continue to work alongside their British counterparts and had to navigate through racial and cultural differences to success. Once the threat to their posts was diminished by the creation of specifically Indianized units, British and Indian officers tended to get on well, although Indians were generally excluded from the European clubs (as their Indian ICS counterparts were also).53 The Sandhurst Indians were in an advantageous position, because they had taken the opportunity to be trained in Britain to become high-ranking officers, and managed to overcome the difficulties in training (Sandhurst had a 30 per cent failure rate for Indians, as discussed in Chapter 1) to take up positions of power and prestige. Mohammad Ayub Khan was President of Pakistan from 1958 to 1969, assuming power through a military coup. Khan’s father was a Risaldar Major (a Viceroy-Commissioned Officer) in the Indian Army and had a limited army pension but sent his son to Aligarh College in 1922. Khan was a member of the University Training Corps at Aligarh and was advised to apply to the army. He was admitted into Sandhurst in 1926 and won a scholarship, which helped his father who was preparing to sell land to finance his son’s education.54 Khan travelled with six other Indian cadets on the ship to England and soon became resigned to the fact that the Indians clung together at Sandhurst. Khan remained formal and distant from the British cadets and spent his leave with the other Indian cadets. Khan passed first among the Indian cadets and was commissioned to the Royal Fusiliers in Eastern Punjab for a trial. His first regiment was in the Punjab and he remembered that there was a certain amount of friction between the junior British officers and the senior Indian officers such as himself.55 These tensions became irrelevant when Khan had to fight in the Second World War and served in the Punjab Boundary Force in 1947. At independence, Khan decided to join the Pakistan Army and was Commander-in-Chief from 1951. J. N. Chaudhuri came from a very different background to Khan. Chaudhuri was the grandson of W. C. Bonnerjee, and both his mother and father had been educated in Britain. His father was a barrister who was involved in the nationalist movement in Bengal. Chaudhuri was sent to England in 1923 at the age of 15 to join Highgate School. Leaving his family at an early age, Chaudhuri became independent and acknowledged that the distance made him look at India’s problems more objectively but he also became detached from Indian politics.56 Chaudhuri was a member of the Officer Training Corps at Highgate School and then decided to apply to Sandhurst because he

Careers and impact of the England-returned

125

had enjoyed the OTC. His father was disappointed that he was not taking up law, but agreed to support his son at Sandhurst. Chaudhuri joined in 1926 in the same year as Ayub Khan. Of the other cadets, Chaudhuri remembers how Bhonsle, a Mahratta, joined Subhas Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army and then became a politician after independence; Yousuf later became Pakistan’s High Commissioner in London; Wallawarkar from Bombay joined the State Force Units; and Bilimoria later joined the Jammu Kashmir militia. Chaudhuri did not feel that the Indian cadets were treated differently, but they did not mix with the British cadets. Chaudhuri was commissioned in 1927 and posted in Rajputana, and then joined a cavalry regiment in Jubbulpore. This was a non-Indianized unit and so Chaudhuri was not allowed to join their social club.57 Chaudhuri remembered how the British were just beginning to get used to meeting Indians on the same terms, but he harboured no resentment towards them; he stayed in the Indian Army and fought in Italian East Africa during the Second World War and then became Military Governor of the former princely state of Hyderabad in 1948 after independence. D. K. Palit studied at Oxford for a short while before joining the Indian Army through the military academy in Dehra Dun. Palit was born in 1919 and his father was in the Indian Medical Service of the Army. He studied at St Paul’s School in Darjeeling and then went to St. Paul’s School in London. Having been brought up in Army life, Palit was always sure that he too would join the Army. Palit took the examination and interview in London in order to join the Indian Military Academy, through which he was successful. Palit found that class consciousness was very high among the British ranks and that the Indian cadets tended to socialize amongst their selves.58 After five years in England, Palit was shocked by the lack of integration between the British and Indians. He realized that the British didn’t like their Indian colleagues and there was no socializing outside the Army.59 He was commissioned into the Baluch Regiment in 1939, just before the Second World War began, and in 1947 Palit fought in Kashmir. The Second World War changed attitudes as the Indian Army had an influx of British officers, known as Emergency Commissions, who did not hold old prejudices and were very friendly with Indians such as Palit. In 1967, Palit became Commandant of the Indian Military Academy; after independence Palit kept links with England by visiting often and retained many English friends. Although Palit had some nationalist sympathies, he had been warned not to reveal these ideas in his interview for the Indian Army. Palit was quizzed about the October Club, an underground Communist society at Oxford, of which Palit was not a member but most of his Oxford friends had been. The Indian Army was required to be apolitical and played an important role in attempting to preserve order during the partition riots. Admiral Chatterjee was a member of the Indian Navy who went to Dorchester in England in 1940 to specialize in anti-submarine skills. Sardar Patel had encouraged Chatterjee to stay in the Navy because he recognized the need for independent types who were not involved in the nationalist movement.60 Sarojini Naidu’s

126

Careers and impact of the England-returned

son was refused admittance to Sandhurst in the 1930s owing to his mother’s prominent nationalist role, and so the British Government was increasingly aware of the need to keep loyal Indians on side. Indians who joined the Indian Army had to contend with rising political sentiment and remain neutral, and yet learn to work alongside British officers. Those who had been to Sandhurst were exposed to some of the realities of the distance between British and Indian officers, which appeared to continue in Indian Army life, at least until the late 1930s. The ICS The policy of Indianization was best seen in the Indian Civil Service. The opening of competitive examinations to all candidates in London in 1855 had been an important spur for young Indians to travel to and study in Britain, although a sizeable number of candidates were not seen for some decades. The age limit was raised to 23 in 1892, which allowed for more Indians to be eligible for the open examinations. Simultaneous exams were introduced in India in 1922, but successful candidates were still required to spend their probationary training at British universities. Indians were slowly admitted into the superior ranks of the Indian bureaucracy; their numbers and ratio in the ICS was often addressed by the Government and became an important political issue in the early twentieth century.61 Between 1904 and 1913, 95 per cent of ICS recruits were of European descent.62 The First World War created a break in recruitment, but once the war was over, European numbers failed to increase to their previous numbers. There was a decrease in British interest in the Indian Civil Service. In 1920, appointments were fixed to create a ratio of 33 per cent Indians to Europeans in the Superior ranks of the ICS. In 1924, a Royal Commission, chaired by Viscount Lee of Fareham, reported on the Superior Civil Services to discuss the rate of recruitment of Indians in the various departments. The Lee Commission recommended that Indian recruitment rates in the ICS should be increased to a ratio of 50 per cent, expressing the need to speed up and earnestly pursue Indianization.63 Indian ICS officers had been educated and trained in Britain at universities with British colleagues. They had learnt to socialize with their British counterparts and understand more about British society and culture. Indeed, the open examinations held in London were based upon the British syllabi because the Government believed that it was only the British or people who adapted to their methods and outlook who could assume positions of power and adhere to British policy and intentions in regard to rule in India. Upon their return to India, these Indian ICS officers were immersed into a different society of British officers. They had to cope with rising nationalist sentiment and changing ratios of Indian to British officials in the government service, and find a way to maintain peace and build success in their profession. Indian politicians involved in the nationalist struggle against the Government, were placed in a dilemma about their attitude towards the ICS. In 1934,

Careers and impact of the England-returned

127

Jawaharlal Nehru had revealed his desire to abolish the ICS if an independent India was to be successful and free of British rule.64 Nehru’s antagonism to the bureaucracy was surprising as many of his cousins were members of the ICS, and indeed Nehru himself had been groomed to join the bureaucracy but had not been academically dedicated enough to pursue this career path. Many Indian ICS members were also sympathetic to the Congress cause (more on this below). However, Congress’s opposition to the ICS gradually diminished as Congress delegates were more determined for power and wished to appeal to and reassure capitalists and businessmen by retaining the ICS to maintain stability in an independent India. Congress decided that maintaining the status quo was necessary in the 1940s, in the face of huge political upheaval in their negotiations with the British and the Muslim League. Vallabhbhai Patel, the Home Minister, in particular argued forcefully for the need to maintain a strong all-India service after 1947, which would be politically neutral and provide security for those Indians recruited into the Government by the British.65 Hence, England-returned ICS officers could demonstrate their support for strong central Government by remaining loyal to the British before 1947, but were still able to find roles for themselves in an independent India. In the face of growing unemployment for educated Indians, those who found positions within the ICS were assured security and stability, and thus had firm support for the Government which gave them their livelihoods. Jnanendra Nath Gupta, an ICS Magistrate and Collector, told the Royal Commission on Public Services in 1914 that Indians who had joined the ICS through England had no caste or class prejudices at all: ‘They are Indian civilians, nothing more, neither Muhammadans nor Hindus.’66 However, by the late 1930s, many Indian officers were becoming increasingly sympathetic to the nationalist movement. Many had family connections to Congress or personally supported their cause. Muslim members, on the other hand, tended not to like Congress nor did they tend to support the Muslim League. According to David Potter, the political divide between European and Indian officers grew in the late 1930s as Indians were increasingly ‘disloyal’ to the Government.67 Yet, British officers, especially the newer recruits in the 1930s, were more sympathetic to the nationalist cause, revealing the diversity in experiences. Potter, however, is keen to point out that Indian ICS members were not merely ‘Brown Sahibs’ but remained true to their ‘Indian’ cultures. They were able to work alongside the British in the office, but returned to their traditional cultures when at home.68 Indians were able to rise to high positions within the Government Service, and they became the bedrock of the bureaucracy after independence. One of the highest ambitions for young Indian men was to join the ICS, the ‘heaven-born service’. ICS men had their own privileges, status and exclusive membership clubs; as Khosla remembered upon his return to join the ICS in 1926: ‘I was coming back with a sense of fulfilment, of importance and, yes, of prestige’.69 Other Indian ICS officers did not have such happy experiences of joining the service community. N. Bakshi had studied natural sciences at

128

Careers and impact of the England-returned

Cambridge from 1921 to 1923 and then took the ICS exam and was posted to Bihar in 1924. Bakshi recalled that, ‘while the Europeans, particularly the women, appeared to be appreciative of my Cambridge education, the general attitude, though not openly expressed, was that of superiority’.70 Many British officers were fearful of the rise of Indian officers. Some Indians were excluded from British clubs even though they were colleagues. S. K. Kirpalani was not allowed to join the British club in the Punjab when he entered the ICS in 1922 and so socialized mainly with Indian barristers. His Deputy Commissioner chastised him for ‘mixing too much with the natives’ and Kirpalani was often offended when his British colleagues called Indians ‘swines’ but then would assure him that he was ‘one of us’.71 N. B. Bonarjee had studied at Dulwich and Oxford before joining the ICS in the UP in 1924. His commissioners criticized him for his ‘nationalistic’ tendencies and Bonarjee found it difficult to get on with some of his British superiors: ‘I knew too much about the English and the result was that I was not always ready to give the same respect to the English that quite possibly other Indians were’72 Despite his concerns and sympathies for Indian nationalists, Bonarjee stayed in the ICS to satisfy his parents; he had joined to prove that he was ‘as good as’ the ‘English’ and therefore intended to fulfil his obligations by remaining in the service. N. B. Bonarjee expressed some of the contradictions he felt in joining the ICS in his autobiography published in 1970. Bonarjee had been born in 1901 and then taken to England in 1904 as his father entered Lincoln’s Inn. Bonarjee’s grandfather had converted to Christianity in 1847, and his uncle was W. C. Bonnerjee, the Congress leader. Bonarjee joined Dulwich School in 1910 and his parents returned to India, but he had been brought up in the ‘English way’.73 During the First World War, Bonarjee began to question the aims of Britain and became more aware of the political situation in India. He joined Hertford College, Oxford, in 1919 and was shocked by the British attitude to the Amritsar Massacre, especially the Hunter Commission, which he believed not only exonerated but lauded General Dyer.74 Bonarjee took the ICS exam in 1924 as he felt he had few opportunities otherwise with his history degree. There was certainly an impressive inconsistency in the ambition of all young Indians to enter a service like the ICS which was both the embodiment and the mainstay of that very imperial rule which had allegedly been the ruin of the country; and the inconsistency was made even more prominent by the manner in which we all made the best of both worlds when once in it.75 Bonarjee recollected that he had probably joined the ICS to satisfy his parents and to prove that he was as good as the English. He was appointed the first Indian District Magistrate of Meerut in 1940 and remained in government service for nine years after independence.

Careers and impact of the England-returned

129

In the interval between 1920 and 1945 I disapproved of imperialism in general and the Empire in India in particular. That during the period I, like many others, served the maligned Empire by entering into the highest Service which it had to offer and that my intellectual opposition to it was based on the liberalism I had learnt in England, was conveniently, though not intelligently, blacked out of my mind.76 Although Bonarjee’s Commissioners had pointed out his nationalist sympathies, and he had trouble reconciling his English upbringing with working under the British in India, Bonarjee had a successful career in Government Service. Before independence, Bonarjee was posted as Chief Secretary of the United Provinces, which was one of the highest positions in provincial government. Many Indian students preparing for the ICS in Britain expressed nationalist sentiments and antagonism towards British rule whilst at university, but then were reconciled to a career in government service. C. D. Deshmukh was Finance Minister of India from 1950 to 1956, known for nationalizing the life-insurance business. He was the son of a lawyer from Maharashtra and went to England in 1915 to study Natural Sciences at Jesus College, Cambridge. He then went down to London to compete for the ICS in 1918. During his time in Britain, Deshmukh made friends with many Indian students who were to rise to prominence in the ICS, including J. V. Joshi, later Economic Adviser, Y. N. Sukhthankar, later Governor of Orissa, Birbal Sahni and C. K. Desai, the nephew of Vithalbhai Patel.77 Deshmukh married an English girl, Rosina, whom he had met at his lodgings and returned to India in 1920 to a large reception of family and friends. Deshmukh had been President of the Majlis Society in Cambridge and had sympathy with Indian extremists. Looking back, he recalled how he had expressed extreme views in student groups in Cambridge (‘like most Indian students’) and was informed later that he had arrived in India with a confidential report requiring that he be watched.78 Despite British concerns, Deshmukh got on well with his British colleagues, especially the Deputy Commissioner in the Central Provinces. He was appointed Secretary to the Reserve Bank in 1939 and continued to hold high-profile jobs in administration until his resignation in 1956. Not all Indian students were as willing to serve the British Government through the ICS, despite the huge prestige and job security of the government service. As mentioned in the last chapter, Subhas Chandra Bose had been sent by his father to Cambridge in 1919 to study for the ICS. Bose took the ICS exam in July 1920 and stood fourth, but then came to a dilemma as to whether it would be hypocritical to join the Service. Although his brother, Sarat, suggested that he join the ICS and fight its evils from within, Bose concluded that he did not wish to serve the alien bureaucracy and wished to help the welfare of the country independently and thus resigned from the ICS before he even started.79 G. D. Khosla went to Emmanuel College in Cambridge in 1921 to study Maths and to eventually join the ICS. Bose’s actions caused Khosla to doubt whether he could serve in the ICS either. He soon convinced

130

Careers and impact of the England-returned

himself that ‘there was nothing unpatriotic or shameful in joining the ICS’ and ‘if one performed one’s duty honestly and competently, there need be no diminution in one’s love for the motherland and no deviation from the path of Dharma’.80 Khosla passed the ICS exam in 1925 and was posted to the Punjab. He continued to wear Khadi dress and had Mahatma Gandhi’s picture in his room, but British officials remained congenial colleagues, and he was promoted to Judge in 1930 and then to the High Court in 1944. Indians working in the ICS shared their workplace with Europeans and these encounters were shaping their ideas about the British and British society. J. M. Lobo Prabhu joined the ICS in 1928 and admitted that ‘I.C.S. officers were detached and were even accused of being aloof and un-Indian. It is true that the majority of them conformed to the English way of life’.81 The ICS was a changing bureaucracy in the twentieth century as more Indians were encouraged to become part of the Government at all levels and so experiences of Indians varied. Acceptance of Indians in the services increased as time went on; however, despite the Indianization of the services, the character of the bureaucracy remained Westernized and it was up to Indian recruits to assimilate to individual degrees. Nasim Ahmad Faraqui was a Punjabi Muslim from a middle-class background; his father was a medical officer in Government Service. Faraqui was encouraged to apply for the ICS because it ‘was the best possible profession for outstanding young men. It carried great prestige and glamour.’82 He successfully passed the exams in Delhi in 1929, was assigned to the Bombay ICS and then sent for two years probationary training at Trinity College, Cambridge. Faraqui recalled that there were three particular benefits of this training period: all the probationers met fortnightly at a retired ICS officer’s home, which allowed them to get to know each other well; they received periodical visits from senior ICS officers on leave of both British and Indian descent; and the officers in the India Office were very understanding and paternal. Faraqui went to Bombay in 1931 and was able to join the British social clubs. He believed that there was less social distance between British and Indian officials in the Bombay Presidency where they mixed freely and earlier exclusions and discriminations had died out by this time.83 Faraqui was transferred to New Delhi in 1938 as an under-secretary to the Home Department and in 1943 became the first Indian collector of Bombay City. In 1945, Faraqui was appointed Collector of Karachi and after independence stayed in the Pakistani administration as a Government Secretary until retirement. R. A. Gopalaswami was born in 1902, took the ICS exam in Allahabad in 1925, and then spent two years probationary training at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and took the Mathematics Tripos. Gopalaswami held office in the Union Society, the Majlis Society and the Cambridge University International Society. He served in the Madras ICS until 1940, after which he worked in Central Government. Gopalaswami was Director General of Civil Defence in 1943, Agriculture Secretary in 1945, Registrar General of India in 1949 and Census Commissioner until 1953. He recalled, in 1984, that any

Careers and impact of the England-returned

131

temperamental differences between ICS officers were not due to race, and that British and Indian colleagues were able to express themselves freely to each other.84 Gopalaswami wrote, ‘it is not correct to say that British members of the ICS were “cut off” from the Indian community or society except for one prominent fact that “club life” of Europeans was exclusively European and did not include Indians normally’.85 Despite this exclusion, Gopalaswami did not feel he was being discriminated against nor resent his British colleagues. He admitted at the time that he had nationalist sympathies, but justified his position in the ICS by the Government’s commitment to dominion status when he first joined, and because the freedom struggle was largely non-violent and so, according to Gopalaswami, was not a threat to the bureaucracy.86 J. D. Shukla attended Oxford University as an ICS probationer in the 1930s. He was the only Indian at Corpus Christi College and received especially good treatment. He enjoyed his time in Oxford very much due to the freedom he was granted and the ‘youthful’ atmosphere. He had gained immense prestige and pleasure for his family and, 40 years later, remembered the attraction of Oxford at that time: My residence there exposed me to a great and long tradition of learning and freedom and independence of spirit. As ICS probationers, we enjoyed complete freedom and independence of spirit. It speaks a lot of the English tradition of freedom and their confidence in the openness of their society that they exposed us, the civil servants of an Empire, to the free academic atmosphere of a great university.87 Shukla was a regular member of the Oxford Majlis society, attended Labour Party meetings and paid attention to the Spanish Civil War and events in Japan. He travelled around England and France, and remembered this time fondly. He enjoyed the independence he was afforded as a student and felt he had learnt to understand the British better. When he returned to Bombay, he was inspired to utilize his experiences for positive change; ‘I was seized with a keen desire to serve India and to see it as prosperous, powerful and free as England. The prosperity, power and the free air of England were infectious.’88 Shukla remained in the Civil Service upon his return, and was friendly with British officers. He forged a successful career in administration in India, which was his method of ‘serving’ India rather than to join a political movement. Most Indian ICS officers were aware of the political situation and growing opposition and resentment against the British Government, of which they were a willing part. M. Azim Husain was the son of Fazl-I-Husain, a lawyer who had been educated in Cambridge from 1898 to 1902 and an active Punjabi nationalist.89 He joined Christ’s College in Cambridge in 1932 to study Mechanical Sciences. He initially thought about becoming an engineer, but then in Britain began to consider joining the ICS. His father would have preferred that he take up the law, but ‘reluctantly’ supported his son.

132

Careers and impact of the England-returned

Husain believed it was a natural choice for a man of his upper-middle-class background to compete for the ICS: It is essential to point out that during 1932–33 when I seriously conceived of joining the ICS the Round Table Conference was in progress in London but it seemed to me [ … ] independence was still a distant prospect. In this pre-World War II era with the Nazis and the Fascists in the ascendant in Europe, the British Raj seemed stable and firm, so there were no second thoughts about becoming a part of the British Indian Administration.90 Husain failed the ICS exam in 1935 in London and so took the exam in Delhi in 1936, in which he was successful. He took his probationary training at University College, Oxford, and was also called to the Bar during this year. He remembered that from the year 1936 in England, ‘I made life-long friends with some of my British I.C.S. colleagues’. Upon his return to the Punjab, Husain remembered being immediately struck by the servile response to him from the Indian public because he was an ICS officer. People would bow and ‘salaam’ to him which made Husain uncomfortable and ashamed. However, Husain was sent for treasury training at Simla in 1938 and was given advice by the Deputy Commissioner, which he wrote down in his notebook: ‘You should never become a “sahib”. This simply would not do in 1938. You should avoid the manner of the pre-1918 civilian. The times have changed and you should move with the times.’ In 1941 Husain became Director of Panchayats. In 1944, the Unionist Party in Punjab asked Husain to be Secretary to the Premier, but he declined: I was a civil servant, and the concept inculcated in me while at Oxford under probation and the first five years of my service under three British and three Indian senior civil servants was that a civil servant should not involve himself in party politics regardless of what political views and sympathies he personally has.91 Thus, Husain remained loyal to the Government and remained in administration after independence.

Post-independence promotions With a large exodus of British personnel in 1947, Indians were able to take over their posts in the bureaucracy and business sectors. Even Indians with less experience were likely to achieve more rapid promotions. The bureaucracy remained in place after independence and political administrators continued to hold enough power to provide a check against new ministers. The Indian Civil Service was renamed the Indian Administrative Service, but remained largely the same. In Pakistan, the bureaucracy was named the Central Superior Services after independence. Government Service continued to hold high prestige

Careers and impact of the England-returned

133

and relatively high salaries, as well as job security, and thus remained an important career choice for aspirational young Indians and Pakistanis. Those Indians who had been put through the British training and served before independence, continued to hold sway in the new bureaucracy and found success in higher positions of authority. Danial Latifi, a Muslim born in Bombay, joined Oxford in 1935. His father was a retired ICS officer, and his grandfather was Badruddin Tyabji. In January 1937, Latifi wrote a letter to his parents about his thoughts for the future. He told them that he would not be swayed in his career choice by salary because his education was above the average, he did not fear unemployment and did not have expensive tastes. Latifi suggested that he could join the ICS, serve for five years, and then resign and go into politics. He felt that the ICS would give him administrative experience, but he did not want a lifelong career in government service because it could be stifling and there was a chance of a revolution in India.92 By 1938, Latifi no longer wished to join the ICS, not even for five years, and so his mother wrote to him urging him to reconsider. She told him that Congress only gave its workers 70 rupees a month and that the ICS was a good career with money and scope.93 Danial replied immediately to say that he realized the need to earn a living and would finish his Bar course and practise in Lahore. Latifi explained: ‘The reason why I don’t wish to go into the ICS is because I have a conscientious objection to serving the British Crown.’94 Latifi was called to the Bar in 1939 and participated in the nationalist movement upon his return to India. He was an active Communist, was arrested in 1940, and in 1943 married Sarah, the Communist daughter of a Syrian Christian bishop, who converted to Islam before the wedding. After independence, Latifi concentrated on his legal career, championing the cause of peasants and workers. Dharam Vira joined the ICS in 1930. He had been influenced by antiBritish sentiment at school in Benaras but decided to join the ICS because his father had been a civil servant and because the service had a special position within the country. He remembered how the Indian public judged Indian ICS men by comparing them with British sahibs and wondering if they were as good ‘sahibs’ or could drink as much. His father had worked as an engineer for the government and had many British friends in India and so Vira felt he knew the British quite well from his childhood and his time at London at the LSE and School of Oriental Studies. Vira contended that Indian officers had an advantage because they could mix with Indians in the lesser services and had access to British society and thus led ‘a sort of dual existence’.95 Indian officers were able to adopt the characteristics of the British ruling class after their experiences of living abroad and from their careers working as colleagues with the British. Vira recalls that when he joined the UP cadre in 1930 ‘there was definitely an undercurrent of racialism and nationalism’. He went on to state that while the ‘government was fair in matters of appointments, postings, and promotions in the service, it preferred the British for manning the more important and responsible posts’.96

134

Careers and impact of the England-returned

Among Dharam Vira’s contemporaries at the LSE and School of Oriental Studies in London was Jagan Nath Khosla, who became a professor of economics and then joined the Indian Foreign Service and succeeded Vira as ambassador to Czechoslovakia in 1956. Other ICS probationers included K. R. Damle, who later became Chairman of the Union Public Services Commission, and R. L. Gupta, who held posts in charge of food and agriculture, and shipping and transport.97 Dharam Vira was Joint Secretary of the Cabinet Secretariat in 1947, and then became principal private secretary to the Prime Minister, Nehru, in 1950. In 1951, Vira was appointed as commercial advisor to the High Commissioner in London and then held various commissions until he retired in 1966. After retirement from Government Service, Vira was Governor of Punjab, Bengal and Mysore respectively until 1972. Other examples of ICS career progressions include C. S. Venkatachar. He had studied Chemical Engineering at Manchester in 1921 and passed the ICS exam to be admitted to the UP. ‘I carried no ideas from Cambridge about Britain’s empire in India or how to rule it’, confessed Venkatachar, who had undergone his probationary training at Cambridge. ‘My entry into Civil Service was mainly a means of furnishing myself with a career with handsome emoluments and a pension at the end of it.’98 His cabin-mate on the journey back to India in 1922 was Narayan Raghavan Pillai, who ended his ICS career as Secretary General to the Ministry of External Affairs under Jawaharlal Nehru. Venkatachar served in the Foreign and Political Department from 1927 to 1933 and then returned to the UP cadre. In 1947, during the transfer of power, Venkatachar was Prime Minister of the princely state of Jodhpur and then, after independence, was attached to a task force to oversee the integration of the princely states. He then became secretary to the President, Rajendra Prasad, and High Commissioner in Ottawa until his retirement. C. V. Narasimhan went to Oxford in 1934 with a Tata scholarship and passed the ICS exams in 1936. He was allotted to the Madras Service and upon his return to India in 1937 was welcomed into the European Clubs. He joined the Madras Secretariat in 1942 and served there until 1949. Narasimhan believed it was necessary to have an apolitical service and therefore, despite his sympathies for the nationalist cause, did not have any outright political affiliations. In 1950, he joined the Department of Food and Agriculture, then the Ministry of Finance and in 1956 began to serve in the United Nations.99 S. Rahmatullah passed the 1935 ICS exam in Delhi and then spent two years at Oxford. As a contemporary of Narasimhan, Rahmatullah was treasurer of the ICS probationers’ society at Oxford, which included British nominees. Rahmatalluh worked for the Service until retirement in 1959, joining the Pakistani Service after independence. In 1962, he joined the Karachi High Court and was posted to Dacca in 1963, but left East Pakistan in 1971 at the outbreak of civil war.100 After the exodus of British personnel in 1947, there were many opportunities for rapid promotions in Pakistan and India, as qualified individuals were highly sought after to fill in vacant positions.

Careers and impact of the England-returned

135

As discussed above, many Indians had become politicized as students in Britain and joined political associations, which gave continuity to their political activities when they returned to India. Individuals include Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, who was called to the Bar in 1928, but joined Congress in 1921 in Assam. Ahmed came from a Muslim background but believed in the national unity of India and remained loyal to Congress and Nehru. In 1946, Ahmed was made Advocate-General of Assam, a post he held until 1952, and he served as President of India from 1974 to 1977.101 Many became involved in politics after careers in other sectors. John Matthai was Professor of Economics at Presidency College, Madras, from 1920. Matthai had gone to the LSE in 1913 for a DSc degree, where he worked with Sydney Webb, and then he went to Balliol College, Oxford, for a BLitt. Taking part in the Oxford Union sharpened Matthai’s repartee which proved invaluable for his future political career and developed his independence of thought. Matthai joined the Madras Legislative Assembly and became Minister of Finance in 1946. He held the post again from 1948 to 1950.102 M. C. Chagla read History at Lincoln College, Oxford, from 1919 to 1922 and was called to the Bar at the Inner Temple. He returned to India to practise at the Bombay Bar, where Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a senior colleague. Chagla joined the Muslim League, but soon became disillusioned with their ambitions, because he desired Indian unity, and so left the League after they started their two nation theory, also severing all ties with Jinnah.103 From 1947 to 1958, Chagla was Chief Justice of Bombay, and was then made Ambassador to the United States by Nehru. In 1963, Chagla was appointed Education Minister and then was Minister of External Affairs until 1967. All of his children married outside the Muslim community and his two sons studied at Cambridge. Frank Anthony was an Anglo-Indian (of mixed race) who went to Britain and was called to the Bar at the Inner Temple in 1933. He started a law practice in Jawalpur, in Central India, in 1936 and was then elected President of the Anglo-Indian Association, aged only 26. Anthony held a seat in the Central Legislative Assembly from 1942 and actively campaigned for AngloIndian representation in parliament. He was very angry that the British failed to acknowledge the important role of the Anglo-Indian community in upholding the British Empire or the discriminations they faced, but the community remained pro-British. Anthony was friendly with Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel and in 1958 was offered a position as Supreme Court Judge, but he refused. He was also offered the post of Vice-President of India the year before the assassination of Indira Gandhi, but he declined and continued to represent Anglo-Indians.104 The England-returned were influential in politics, society and the economy. Thus in 1947, when India was given independence and the new nation of Pakistan was formed, where were the ‘England-returned’? Those who had been involved in political negotiations were now able to follow through with political power in their new nation-states. Those involved in the administration

136

Careers and impact of the England-returned

gained rapid promotions within India and Pakistan. The anglicized Englandreturned continued to hold prestige and power in India, but were not as obviously lauded in Pakistan, despite the continued prominence of these former students in all areas of Pakistan. This can be partly understood when we look at the early years of the nation-state of Pakistan when there was a challenge for power and opportunism from various regional bases, which allowed for the visible presence of strong leaders, be they from the political ranks or from the military.105 The England-returned utilized their experiences and confidence in international affairs to be those ‘strong leaders’. Muslim intellectuals at the beginning of the twentieth century had been rather anglicized – the Tyabjis, Syed Ameer Ali, even Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Muhammad Iqbal, had embraced British life in their youth – but with the pressure and expectations involved in laying the foundations of a new country, these attributes were no longer desired nor accentuated, as the Englandreturned within Pakistan had to concentrate on the future. Was the British educational experience a force ultimately for conservatism or for radicalization? As has been made clear, despite the radical stances taken up by students in Britain, the England-returned in India had relied extensively on British institutions and ideologies. Pakistan had to restructure their bureaucracy and military institutions as they shifted their capital and bases away from Delhi, but Pakistanis also continued to encourage their young to study or migrate to the UK after 1947. The British educational experience ultimately fostered conservative attitudes towards education and the West. Both India and Pakistan in the early decades of independence relied upon strong, powerful, leaders of their nation-states. India saw a great deal of continuity from the British Raj because Jawaharlal Nehru was Prime Minister from 1947 to 1964 and allowed for a continuation of Western practices in the bureaucracy and links with the Commonwealth, although he did institute several new ideas along socialist lines such as his five- year plans and establishing India as an independent force on the international stage as epitomized in the 1955 Bandung Conference. Pakistan did not have as much stability, especially after the death of the British-educated Jinnah in 1948, but allowed for a tradition of bureaucratic authoritarianism and personalization of authority, again with five England-returned Prime Ministers. Beyond electoral politics, therefore, the bureaucracy in both countries was extremely important, and as already made clear, rapid promotions were available in the aftermath of partition, and so what had been an ICS dependent on British education, allowed for the England-returned to flourish. In other sectors, the prestige that had been afforded to the England-returned before 1947 still remained. It was increasingly valuable in the job market to have a wider international awareness and skill-set as India and Pakistan sought to concretize their economies in global markets. Although investments were put into domestic education, there remained a lingering admiration for education abroad. Indian students had returned to take up a wide range of jobs, engaging with the British in various sectors, and eventually rising to positions of

Careers and impact of the England-returned

137

authority in their respective fields. Independence allowed for more rapid promotions as Indians were able to fill the gaps left by the retreating British. However, independence had kept in place similar employment structures and career opportunities within India. Education remained important, and a British education especially so. The investments in foreign education had generally paid off, and although not all had been guaranteed employment or the financial security they had aspired to, opportunities did increase after independence; the former students had also amassed many benefits for their families. Of course, Indians could succeed without a British education. A good Indian education and family networks were just as invaluable and held as much potential for career success. This chapter, and the book as a whole, however, has attempted to delineate the paths of Indians who did take up the opportunities of higher education in Britain. Before independence, the encounter with society in Britain had prepared the students to engage in a British-dominated workplace in India. Nonetheless, their education and experiences did not guarantee easy rides. The England-returned faced British colleagues who were also their competitors and rivals, socially they remained aloof and discrimination existed in varying measures. Having refined their political ideologies as students in Britain, these Indians were affected by their early career experiences as well. Unemployment or difficulties in finding jobs and the attitude of their British colleagues politically influenced these returned students and gave added impetus and support to the growing nationalist movement. However, the main grievance for these Indians was about representation and equality in the workplace, and so when independence came, rather than dismantle the employment structures left in place by the British, they assumed the roles that the British had played. Indians who had studied in Britain were able to integrate into the Englishspeaking world and become involved in professional associations and organizations affiliated with the Commonwealth and other international networks after 1947. Their education and the links they had created helped them in all manners of careers from Government Service, academia, journalism and industry. Thus, a British or other foreign qualification (increasingly American) retained importance and prestige for aspirational Indians and Pakistanis, and as India and Pakistan developed beyond 1947, the migration for higher studies abroad continued to increase. Although the formal imperial tie with Britain ceased to exist, the prominence of the England-returned in all sectors ensured that education abroad continued to carry enormous weight.

Conclusion The future for the England-returned

What of the future for Indian and Pakistani students in Britain and abroad? Scholars have been interested in the development of Indian and Pakistani global links post-independence and the large numbers of students abroad, questioning their roles in their home country, their perception of foreign education and the needs to formulate education policy around them. John and Ruth Hill Useem conducted a survey of Indians from Bombay State who studied in the UK and USA between 1935 and 1951. The study took place in 1954 with a sample of 110 former students. The Useems concluded that about half the students had ‘discovered’ India while abroad; they had learnt more about India from abroad and had a heightened patriotism.1 Direct interaction with persons in another culture makes the student reappraise his own customs, raises questions that usually are not discussed, creates a self-awareness that stimulates new lines of thought. [ … ] Similarly, the move back to India forces the individual to look at his society from a new point of view, and as he readjusts, he is made conscious of himself.2 Taking part in foreign education was part of an eagerness and readiness to change. After independence, students were no longer moving within the familiar imperial world, but connections with the West remained relevant to the subcontinent. South Asian politicians were trying to place India and Pakistan on the international stage and the youth of these two countries attempted to exploit the opportunities of improved communication and global links. The students who went to Britain created and entrenched ties between the two countries that strengthened their imperial relations. After independence, the subcontinent was able to create links with other countries, especially the new ‘imperial power’ of the United States. The Commonwealth organization was seen as a remnant of imperial networks but Britain was keen to retain these ties with India and Pakistan. Both India and Pakistan had concerns about the Commonwealth and although they were able to integrate well into the organization, there continue to be tensions about this remnant of the empire. As India’s constitution was approved in 1950, she was able to come to

Conclusion

139

an agreement with the Commonwealth that she would be a ‘republic’ member of the organization and not need to show allegiance to the Crown. Pakistan had a rocky relationship with the Commonwealth, withdrawing in 1972 over the impending recognition of Bangladesh, returning in 1989, and then first suspended in 1999 after Pervez Musharraf gained power through a military coup.3 In 1965, Maurice and Taya Zinkin discussed the situation for relations between Britain and India and for educated Indians. The Zinkins acknowledged that the number of Indians studying in Britain had increased after the Second World War, but these students were no ‘longer necessarily the academic and social cream of Indian society, preparing themselves to go back to be part of a small governing elite’ but were increasingly going to Britain for technical and scientific training to contribute to India’s expanding economy and modern science-based economic and intellectual emphasis.4 The Zinkins argued that, in the 1960s, the relationship and link between Britain and India had changed considerably; although the number of Indians in Britain had increased and they continued to bring back Western ideas and approaches, they no longer tried ‘specifically to anglicize it in the way their predominately British-educated fathers so often did’.5 Michael Lipton and John Firn have similarly looked at the relationship between Britain and India in the 1960s explaining that Indians had increasingly gone elsewhere to study abroad as their needs had changed. These new batches of students pursued specialized research, in preference to undergraduate degrees, as there had also been a rapid growth in university education and provision in India. Lipton and Firn explained that the Indian educated elite who were fortunate enough to go to Britain before 1947 were prepared for leadership and to ensure ‘the peaceful continuation of India within the British Empire’, but that education was not suitable for India’s ‘development’ because her needs were different in independence to those provided by the British system.6 Yet, the Indian sub-continent’s familiarity with the English language remained a crucial facet of international success. The relations and networks created by Indian students before 1947 were no longer as beneficial for independent India once the imperial ties had been broken. Similarly, British education was no longer essential to Pakistani success. British education remained important and continued to hold prestige, but was no longer bound up with specific jobs and careers or social mobility in such an obvious way as it had been before. The cachet of a British degree, however, remained very important. The prestige of qualifications from internationally renowned institutions continued to be important in many fields, such as in academia. Membership of the Commonwealth opened up many scholarship opportunities, for example, Rhodes Scholarships to Oxford were opened up for Indian and Pakistani men in 1947 and then for women in 1977. Alumni organizations were also important and these networks of knowledge were influential in helping young students gain entry into foreign universities and encouraged Indians and Pakistanis to continue to pursue education abroad and seek similar benefits as those students had gained in the early twentieth century. As a sustained

140

Conclusion

‘Occidental’ viewpoint, many Indians and Pakistanis continue to idolize British university institutions, in particular Oxford and Cambridge – viewing them as symbols of intellectual achievement, despite the rapid and successful growth of educational institutions in South Asia. The ‘brain-drain’ of highly intelligent South Asians is now more distinctly flowing to the United States. And now, these students and young professionals are not merely going abroad to study for a degree, but rather are now intending and hoping to settle abroad. Since 1947, Indians and Pakistanis have been part of a growing diaspora across the world, and are more resigned to live permanently in different countries – something that was much more unusual before independence for the educated middle-class elites. There has been an enlargement in social composition of those who now study abroad. With greater funding opportunities and, more importantly, improved primary and secondary education in India and Pakistan, more men and significantly more women of lower-middle-class backgrounds are able to take up the opportunities to study abroad. Not to mention, those of lower, working-class backgrounds, who are part of diasporas in Britain whose children, of the second and third generation of migrants, are able to compete and take up wider access opportunities in these institutions of higher education that were once the preserve of the few. This study has been concentrating on elites, and has therefore not mentioned the very significant part of the South Asian populations who are unable to access education and remain excluded from these opportunities. The middle classes who are capitalizing on Western education today have been creating further divisions and social unrest within the sub-continent, but unfortunately the scope of this book has only been to concentrate on those bourgeois elites who hide the high numbers of illiteracy, poverty and unemployment in the region. The ‘England-returned’ today could be seen as the equivalent of the wealthy ‘NRIs’ (non-resident Indians), some of whom have been so central to the success of the growing Indian economy of the late twentieth century through their overseas investments into their former homelands. Although the England-returned no longer exist in the same way, they speak to similar issues that are faced by the South Asian diaspora today. They were dealing with issues of race, identity, class, and ‘multiculturalism’ in their pockets. They were creating their own societies and ‘ghetto-like’ enclaves within the universities. They were becoming involved with political radicalism and experienced alienation from the state – issues that are particularly relevant to South Asian youths in Britain at the moment. The students who went to Britain in the early twentieth century were encouraged to do so by the imperial relationship. The Government of India had created scholarships that enabled them to study in Britain, the India Office in London created a dedicated department to students in the country, careers in the ICS, Bar and other government services were dependent upon British qualifications. The British official community, having encouraged Indians to study in Britain, had thus laid the seeds for continuous and increasing migration in those years before the Second World War, which

Conclusion

141

became an avalanche after the 1950s. Commentary on the England-returned tended to come from within their social circles – jealousy, admiration and cynicism were all reactions to their return. Ultimately they were players on the international stage; they interacted with various elements of British society, learnt more about Western ideals and used all these experiences when they returned back to India. Although they went to diverse university centres across the breadth of the United Kingdom, they were all seen as having returned from the mythical ‘England’ and the subjects they studied, or indeed the marks they got, did not appear to be as important to their image as was having been to Britain. Student societies were important arenas to play out their ideas about identities and politics. Despite a lack of noticeable leadership in social reform, they became prominent leaders in the political public arena in the lead up to independence. What about the reputation of the England-returned today? Are they still derided as mimic-men and Brown Englishmen? The England-returned are remembered as male students who perpetuated British habits and were embarrassingly loyal to the British Empire, even after independence, and yet these stereotypes are misleading. Certain leading political figures such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Muhammad Ali Jinnah are remembered for their Westernized ideas and mannerisms. However, other leaders such as Savarkar, Gandhi or Bose are not remembered in light of their times in Britain as clearly. Gandhi’s time as a student of the Bar in London and pictures of Gandhi in tailored suits are often dismissed as anomalies in relation to his image as a dhoti-clad ascetic. Although Bose is known for his international links, again it does not fit in with the image of him as a revolutionary to remember that he studied at Cambridge and competed for the ICS. Despite the continuation of a bureaucracy and system of government modelled along British lines in the 1950s and 1960s, ‘nationalist’ Indians were keen to downplay this unbroken line and see independence as a time of change. The history of India and Pakistan post-1947 is too complex to deal with here, through the eyes of the England-returned. However, the burgeoning nationalism that developed among Pakistani and Indian students was utilized for both nation-states. In the first few years of independence, the subcontinent saw enduring colonial ties as the last British officials did not leave before 1950. In Pakistan, the England-returned had to tussle with conservative forces and the need to assert Central control. The power politics at play in the early years of the Pakistani nation were more precarious for the England-returned players, where national elections were not held until 1956, than in India where Nehru took almost absolute control over domestic and foreign policy. The England-returned were particularly crucial in the transition from colonial to postcolonial state as they had experience in colonial institutions but also were willing to pursue ‘national’ methods. However, India and Pakistan were not merely images of continuity. New ideas of the West and the global state emerged as relations changed. International relations in the Cold War arena were shaped by different priorities. Just as the idea of the nation had been so

142

Conclusion

important in the early twentieth century, the twenty-first century is now a time for reflection of wider global and trans-national links, in terms of both mass communications and economies but also in terms of political organizations such as pan-Islamic groups or the United Nations. Indian students in Britain before 1947 were a diverse and yet extremely significant group of individuals. It is hoped that this book has opened up many more questions and lines of research. A deeper consideration of the careers and roles of the England-returned in India and Pakistan in the 1950s and 1960s would give much greater insight into political developments of that era. The anglicization and adoption of Westernized ideals by the Englandreturned should not be equated with a force for ‘modernization’ in the subcontinent, but rather discussed as part of complex social changes in South Asia at the time. There are questions about comparisons between these students and those who went to other countries in Europe, the USA and Japan, who were not engaging with the imperial power in the same way. However, it was the significance of the imperial relationship during this period that should not be overlooked – the ways in which Indians saw Britain as motherland of empire and felt a right to come to study in her institutions of higher education. This book has used a number of autobiographies that have often been self-serving and may have over-accentuated the importance of their student days in Britain. Will this prestige for foreign education and degrees ever abate in India and Pakistan? Will these countries stop looking to the West for validation and as benchmarks of success? The descendants of the Englandreturned are now living in a very different world, the numbers of South Asians living in Britain today could not have been imagined by those students a century earlier. However, students today grapple with similar issues about identity and loyalty and have had to market their degrees in similar ways in order to promote their careers and create long-term impacts. Indian and Pakistani students today are following in the footsteps of their predecessors, who had laid the path for the continued excellence and significance of cosmopolitan South Asians in the twenty-first century world.

Notes

Introduction: the ‘England-returned’ 1 E. Shils, ‘Foreword’, in A. K. Singh, Indian Students in Britain: a survey of their adjustments and attitudes, London: Asia Publishing House, 1963, p. xiv. 2 P. Fryer, Staying Power: the history of black people in Britain, London: Pluto Press, 1984. See also P. D. Morgan and S. Hawkins (eds) Black Experience and Empire, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, and J. S. Gundara and I. Duffield (eds) Essays on the Histories of Blacks in Britain: from Roman times to the midtwentieth century, Aldershot: Avebury, 1992. 3 R. Visram, Asians in Britain: 400 years of history, London: Pluto Press, 2002; R. Visram, Ayahs, Lascars, and Princes: Indians in Britain, 1700–1947, London: Pluto Press, 1986; K. Hunter, History of Pakistanis in Britain, Norwich: Page Books, 1962; B. Maan, The New Scots: the story of Asians in Scotland, Edinburgh: John Donald, 1992. Also see A. Dunlop and R. Miles, ‘Rediscovering the History of Asian Migration to Scotland’, Immigrants and Minorities 9, 1990, pp. 145–67. 4 M. H. Fisher and S. D. Mahomet, The First Indian Author in English: Dean Mahomed (1759–1851) in India, Ireland and England, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996; M. H. Fisher, Counterflows to Colonialism: Indian travellers and settlers in Britain 1600–1857, New Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004; M. H. Fisher, ‘Migration to Britain from South Asia, 1600s–1850s’, History Compass 3, 2005, pp. 1–9. 5 A. Burton, ‘Making a Spectacle of Empire: Indian Travellers in Fin-de-Siecle London’, History Workshop Journal 42, 1996, pp. 126–46; Burton, At the Heart of the Empire: Indians and the colonial encounter in late-Victorian Britain, London: University of California Press, 1998. 6 S. Lahiri, ‘Metropolitan Encounters: A Study of Indian Students in Britain 1880– 1930’, London University: PhD thesis, 1995. 7 Lahiri, Indians in Britain: Anglo-Indian encounters, race, and identity, 1880–1930, London: Frank Cass, 2000. 8 S. Sen, Migrant Races: Empire, Identity and K.S. Ranjitsinhji, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004. Elizabeth Buettner has studied the converse flows of Britons to India and back in Empire Families: Britons and Late Imperial India, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. 9 E. W. Said, Orientalism, London: Penguin, 2003, first published in 1978. 10 N. Thomas, Colonialism’s Culture: anthropology, travel and government, Oxford: Polity Press, 1994, p. 5. 11 For example, Burton, ‘Making a Spectacle’; Burton, Heart of the Empire; I. Grewal, Home and Harem: nation, gender, empire, and the cultures of travel, London: Leicester University Press, 1996; S. Sen, Travels to Europe: Self and Other in Bengali travel narratives, 1870–1910, Hyderabad: Orient Longman, 2005.

144

Notes

12 Grewal, Home and Harem, p.162. 13 Carol Kaplan has been keen to warn against generalisations and reductive statements about the benefits and conclusions that can be made from travel in Questions of Travel: postmodern discourses of displacement, Durham: Duke University Press, 1996, Introduction. 14 Fisher, Counterflows, p. 430. 15 Ibid., p. 438. 16 J. Majeed, Autobiography, Travel and Postnational identity: Gandhi, Nehru and Iqbal, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. 17 D. Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe: postcolonial thought and historical difference, Woodstock: Princeton University Press, 2008. 18 See P. Chatterjee, ‘Five Hundred Years of Fear and Love’, Economic and Political Weekly 33, 22, 30 May, 1998, pp. 1330–36; S. Subrahmanyam, ‘Taking Stock of the Franks: South Asian Views of Europeans and Europe, 1500-1800’, The Indian Economic and Social History Review, 42, 1, 2005, pp. 69–100; G. Khan, Indian Muslim Perceptions of the West During the Eighteenth Century, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1998; W. Halfbass, India and Europe: an essay in understanding, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988; S. H. Hashmi, ‘Political Perceptions in Early Anglo-Indian Relations’, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 12, April 2001, pp. 211–32. 19 See Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 26, 3, 2006, for an issue entitled ‘Critiques of the West’, which examines Ottoman and Japanese encounters and perceptions of the West. 20 G. K. Mookerjee, The Indian Image of Nineteenth-Century Europe, London: Asia Publishing House, 1967, especially pp. 30–42. 21 T. Raychaudhuri, Europe Reconsidered: perceptions of the west in nineteenth-century Bengal, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002. 22 See A. Nandy, The Intimate Enemy: loss and recovery of self under colonialism, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1983. 23 L. Subramanian, ‘Rabindranath Tagore and the Problem of Self-Esteem in Colonial India’, in R. K. Ray (ed.) Mind Body and Society: life and mentality in Colonial Bengal, Calcutta: Oxford University Press, 1995, at p. 451. 24 Kamal Markandaya, ‘One Pair of Eyes: Some Random Reflections’, in A. Niven (ed.) The Commonwealth Writer Overseas: themes of exile and expatriation, Bruxelles: M. Didier, 1976, pp. 23–32. 25 H. Bhabha, ‘Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse’, October, 28, Spring 1984, pp. 125–133. 26 T. Raychaudhuri, ‘Europe in India’s Xenology: The Nineteenth Century Record’, Past and Present 137, Nov. 1992, pp. 156–82. 27 P. Seshadri, The Universities of India, London: Oxford University Press, 1935, p. 2. See also R. J. Moore, ‘The Composition of “Wood’s Educational Despatch”’, English Historical Review 80, 314, Jan. 1965, pp. 70–85. 28 S. C. Ghosh, ‘English in Taste, in Opinions, in Words and Intellect: indoctrinating the Indian through textbook, curriculum and education’, in J. A. Mangan (ed.) The Imperial Curriculum: racial images and education in the British colonial experience, London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 175–193. 29 H. Pratt, University Education in England for Natives of India, London: James Ridgway, 1860, p. 11. See also G. Viswanathan, Masks of Conquest: Literary Study and British Rule in India, London: Faber and Faber, 1989, for Viswanathan’s explanation of how English literature was introduced in India as a colonial tool. 30 D. Rothermund, The Phases of Indian Nationalism and Other Essays, Bombay: Nachiketa Publications, 1970, pp. 144–156. 31 T. Bhattacharya, The Sentinels of Culture: class, education and the colonial intellectual in Bengal (1848–85), New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 4, 225.

Notes

145

32 Ibid., p. 26. 33 Sen, ‘The Politics of Deracination: Empire, Education and Elite Children in Colonial India’, Studies in History 19, 2003, p. 38. 34 J. Starfield, ‘A Dance with Empire: Modiri Molema’s Glasgow Years, 1914–1921’, Journal of Southern African Studies 27, 2001. 35 H. Adi, ‘West African Students in Britain, 1900–60: the politics of exile’, Immigrants and Minorities 12, 1993. See also K. Ingham, Politics in Modern Africa: the uneven tribal dimension, London: Routledge, 1990. 36 J. R. McLane, Indian Nationalism and the Early Congress, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977, p. 52; S. R. Mehrotra, The Emergence of the Indian National Congress, Delhi: Vikas Publications, 1971, p. 277; S. Ghose, The Western Impact on Indian Politics, 1885–1919, Calcutta: Allied Publishers, 1967, p. 2. 37 S. Khilnani, The Idea of India, London: Hamish Hamilton, 1997, p. 6. 38 Hunter, Pakistanis in Britain, p. 11. 39 The first in a series of Subaltern Studies published by Oxford University Press was edited by Ranajit Guha in 1982. 40 C. A. Bayly, S. Beckert, M. Connelly, I. Hofmeyr, W. Kozol, P. Seed, ‘AHR Conversation: On Transnational History’, American History Review, 111, 5, Dec. 2006, pp. 1440–1464. 41 C. Markovits, J. Pouchepadass and S. Subrahmanyam (eds) Society and Circulation: mobile people and itinerant cultures in South Asia 1750–1950, Delhi: Permanent Black, 2003. 42 R. Robertson, ‘Mapping the Global Condition: Globalization as the Central Concept’, in M. Featherstone (ed.) Global Culture: nationalism, globalization and modernity, London: Sage, 1990, pp. 15–30. 43 Sen, Migrant Races, p. 16. 44 U. Hannerz, ‘Cosmopolitans and Locals in World Culture’, in Featherstone, Global Culture, pp. 237–251. 45 See, for example, J. M. Brown, Global South Asians: introducing the modern diaspora, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, and J. Assayag and V. Bénéï (eds) At Home in Diaspora: South Asian Scholars and the West, Delhi: Permanent Black, 2003. 1 Indian students in the UK (1900}1947) 1 B. T. McCully, English Education and the Origins of Indian Nationalism, New York: Columbia University Press 1940, p. 178. 2 See M. H. Fisher, Counterflows to Colonialism: Indian travellers and settlers in Britain 1600–1857, New Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004, for more details about Indian visitors before 1857. 3 The 1853 Government of India Act abolished the director’s patronage for civil service appointments and open examinations began in 1855 in London. 4 Satyendranath Tagore was the elder brother of the famous Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore. 5 OIOC: MSS EUR F111/281, Curzon papers on ‘Hostel for Indians in London’, 1903. 6 ‘Indian Students in England’, Journal of the National Indian Association, 169, Jan. 1885, pp. 1–9. 7 Journal of the National Indian Association, 231, Mar. 1890, pp. 154–8. 8 J. R. Hinnells, Zoroastrians in Britain, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996, pp. 81–7. 9 Journal of the National Indian Association, 351, Mar. 1900, pp. 79–80. 10 For example see West Bengal State Archives, Kolkata: Education 5C-7, Nos. 7–19B, August 1918 for Reports of Provincial Advisory Committees for Calcutta and Dacca.

146

Notes

11 The Indian High Commission was set up in London in 1920 to relieve the India Office of some its duties, and is not to be confused with the High Commission functions that existed after independence. 12 Lee-Warner Report, p. 10. 13 Bashir Maan has explained the attraction of Scotland for Indian medical students because of the large number of Scottish teachers in Indian medical schools, almost all of which had been founded by Scots; B. Maan, The New Scots: the story of Asians in Scotland, Edinburgh: John Donald, 1992, p. 75. 14 Lee-Warner Report, evidence no. 143. 15 S. Sarkar, The Swadeshi Movement in Bengal, 1903–1908, New Delhi: People’s Publishing House, 1973, p. 114. 16 Lee-Warner Report, evidence no. 60. 17 Sarkar, Swadeshi Movement, p. 114. 18 OIOC: L/PJ/6/845, W. Coldsreary to Sec. of State, 23 July 1909. 19 G. R. Batho, ‘Morison, Sir Theodore (1863–1936)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/ 35108, accessed October 2005. 20 Technical Scholarships Report, p. 9. 21 Ibid., p. 35. 22 LSE Archives: WALLAS 1/56, Mallet to Wallas, 8 Jan. 1915. 23 OIOC: L/PJ/6/845, W. H. C. Wyllie to Hirtzel, 7 Mar. 1907. 24 The Times, 4 Dec. 1913. 25 Lord Lytton was the son of the former Viceroy of India. 26 Lytton Report, p. 70 27 E. Shils, ‘Foreword’ in A. K. Singh, Indian Students in Britain. A Survey of their Adjustment and Attitudes, London: Asia Publishing House, 1963, pp. xii–xiii. 28 Technical Scholarships Report, p. 20. 29 OIOC: L/PJ/12/638. 30 Lytton Report, pp. 11–12. 31 ISD Report, 1921–2, p. 7. 32 D. C. Potter, India’s Political Administrators, 1919–1983, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986, p. 116. College registers are another source for fathers’ professions, indicating that most were in government service, see I. Elliott (ed.), Balliol College Register 1900–1950, Oxford: University Press, 1953. 33 Report of the Indian Sandhurst Committee, London: India Office, 1927, p. 10. Much has been written about the Martial Race Theory which explained the predominance of Punjabis in the Army, see for instance D. Omissi, Sepoy and the Raj, London: Macmillan, 1994. 34 PRO: ED 24/1994, Information on Dominion and Indian Students in Britain. See also Figures compiled from Yearbooks of the Association of Universities of the British Empire, created in a table found in A. T. Carey, Colonial Students: a study of the social adaptation of colonial students in London, London: Secker & Warburg, 1956, p. 28. 35 ‘ISS and Indian Students’, Vox Studentium (ISS), VIII (July–Sept. 1931), pp. 124–7. 36 ISD Report, 1927–8. 37 ISD Report, 1937–8. 38 Nagoji Vasudev Rajkumar, Indians outside India, New Delhi: All-India Congress Committee, 1951, appendices. 39 OIOC: L/R/5/179, Native Newspaper Reports, Bombay 1921. See in particular, Sanj Vartaman, 24 May 1921 and Bombay Chronicle, 28 Sept. 1921. 40 OIOC: L/R/5/179, Servant of India, 23 June 1921. 41 OIOC: L/PJ/12/638. 42 ISD Report, 1939–40.

Notes

147

43 K. L. Panjabi (ed.), The Civil Servant in India, Bombay, 1965, p. 16. 44 OIOC: L/PJ/12/638. 45 Oxford University Archives: DC 39/1, Delegates for Oriental Students 1916–1944. S. E. Runganadha to Sir Richard Livingstone, 15 Dec. 1944. 46 J. Useem and R. H. Useem, The Western-Educated Man in India: a study of his social roles and influence, New York: Dryden Press, 1955, p. 3. 2 Images of Britain, India and the England–returned 1 Rabindranath Tagore in Europe Prabasir Patra (1881) quoted and translated in G. K. Mookerjee, The Indian Image of Nineteenth–Century Europe, London: Asia Publishing House, 1967, p. 30. 2 See G. Viswanathan, Masks of Conquest: literary study and British Rule in India, London: Faber and Faber, 1989. 3 OIOC: MSS EUR T113, B. K. Nehru, 1976. 4 P. N. Chopra (ed.) The Collected Works of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, vol. 1, Delhi: Konark Publishers, 1990, p. xii. 5 M. K. Gandhi, An Autobiography, or, The Story of My Experiments with Truth, London: Penguin, 2001, pp. 52–3, and p. 94. 6 Bharat Bandhu, 11 Mar. 1881, in L. Carroll, ‘The Seavoyage Controversy and the Kayastha of North India, 1901–1909’, Modern Asian Studies 13, 1979, p. 265. It is not clear why ‘Bengalis’ are a separate group, the author is possibly referring to members of the Brahmo Samaj. 7 Full Report of the Proceedings of the Sobha Bazaar Meeting, held on 19th August 1892, in connection with the Sea–Voyage Movement, Calcutta: ‘Indian Daily News’ Press, 1892. 8 Carroll, ‘The Seavoyage Controversy’. 9 D. K. Roy to P. Chowdhury, 20 Aug, 1919, published in Bengali in Desh, Autumn 2004, p. 32. 10 For example, C. N. Chandrachud who went to Britain for medical studies in 1925 was compelled to ask ‘Am I, a vegetarian and a non–drinker, fit for the life in England?’ in C. N. Chandrachud, Memories of an Indian Doctor, Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1970, p. 21. 11 See M. K. Gandhi’s autobiography for details about vegetarianism in London. 12 M. V. Kamath and V. B. Kher, The Story of Militant But Non-Violent Trade Unionism: a biographical and historical Study, Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1993, p. 74. 13 Lytton Report Evidence, p. 53. 14 Tagore had been to England first in 1878–80 as a student and then returned in 1912 to be introduced to W. B. Yeats and gained recognition for Gitanjali, leading to the award of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1913. 15 M. Hidayatullah, My Own Boswell, New Delhi: Arnold Heinemann, 1980, p. 20. 16 N. G. Ranga, Fight for Freedom, Delhi: S. Chand, 1968, pp. 8–9. 17 S. L. Rao (ed.) The Partial Memoirs of V. K. R. V. Rao, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002, Introduction. 18 NAI: M. R. Jayakar Papers, File 270a, 5 Oct. 1932. 19 Ibid., 24 Oct. 1932. 20 Ibid., 30 Dec. 1932. 21 Ibid., 13 Jan. 1933. 22 Jayakar Papers, File 563, 26 Sept. 1933. 23 OIOC: MSS EUR T/79/2: Interview with Mr Justice K. K. Banerji, 1975. 24 OIOC: L/R/5/164, Native Newspaper Reports, Bombay 1909, Indian Spectator, 23 Jan. 1909; Rast Goftar, 24 Jan. 1909. 25 The Pioneer, 12 May 1911, from NAI: Home Dept, Est. Deposit, Jan. 1912, No. 16.

148

Notes

26 The Bengalee, 16 May 1911, in NAI: Home Dept, Est. Deposit, Jan.1912, No. 16. 27 The Legislative Assembly Debates. Volume II. Simla: Government Central Press, 1921, 22 Sept. 1921. 28 Acknowledged as much in 1922 in the Lytton Report, p. 13. 29 S. C. Bose to H. K. Sarkar, 26 Aug. 1919, in S. C. Bose, An Indian Pilgrim: an unfinished autobiography, ed. S. K. Bose and S. Bose, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 190. 30 S. C. Bose to H. K. Sarkar, 12 Nov. 1919, in ibid., p. 195. 31 S. K. Bhuyan, From a Historian’s Haversack: London memories, Gauhati: Assam Publication Board, 1979, p. 1. 32 S. K. Kirpalani, Fifty Years with the British, London: Sangam, 1993, p. 11. 33 K. P. S. Menon, Many Worlds: an autobiography, London: Oxford University Press, 1965, p. 15. 34 K. P. S. Menon, ‘“Passage to Oxford”’, in NMML: K. P. S. Menon Papers. 35 Menon, Many Worlds, p. 67. 36 OIOC: MSS EUR C336/3: Ameer Ali Papers, Chapter 8. 37 Ameer Ali papers., Chapter 2. The Jemadar was the lowest rank of commissioned officer in the Indian Army. 38 Ibid. The novels Ali are referring to include Flora Annie Steel’s Voices in the Night and A. E. W. Mason’s The Broken Road. 39 B. K. Nehru, Nice Guys Finish Second, New Delhi: Viking, 1997, p. 69. 40 MSS EUR T113, B. K. Nehru. 41 Nehru, Nice Guys, p. 8 42 Motilal to Brijlal, Aug. 1905 in ibid., p. 8. 43 MSS EUR T113: B. K. Nehru. 44 OIOC: MSS EUR/T109. 45 K. Singh, Truth, Love and a Little Malice: an autobiography, New Delhi: Viking, 2002, p. 82. 46 D. F. Karaka, I Go West, London: M. Joseph, 1938, pp. 43–4. 47 J. Nehru, ‘Foreword’ in D. Y. Dev, Our Countrymen Abroad: a brief survey of the problems of Indians in foreign lands, Allahabad: All India Congress Committee, 1940, p. 5. 48 M. R. Jayakar, The Story of My Life, Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1958, p. 64. 49 J. Nehru to Motilal Nehru, 23 Oct. 1908 from S. Gopal (ed.) Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 1, New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1972, p. 59. 50 H. Chattopadhyay, Life and Myself, Bombay: Nalanda Publications, 1948, p. 112. 51 Ibid., p. 187. 52 K. Chattopadhyay, Inner Recesses, Outer Spaces: memoirs, New Delhi: Navrang, 1986. OIOC: MSS EUR T87/2, Kamala Devi Chattopadhyay, 1975/6. 53 Chattopadhyay, Life and Myself, p. 143. 54 D. Arnold, Science, Technology and Medicine in Colonial India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 155. 55 S. C. Bose to C. C. Gupta, 23 Mar. 1920 in Bose, Indian Pilgrim, p. 205. 56 R. P. Paranjpye, ‘The Indian Student in England’, The Indus, VII, 2 Nov. 1927, pp. 33–9, at p. 35. Paranjpye had studied at St John’s College, Cambridge 1896– 1901. He joined the Legislative Council of Bombay in 1913, and was a member of the Indian Council in London from 1927–1932. 57 K. D. Ghosh, ‘A Few Reflections on the Fifth Anniversary of the Shakespeare Hut’, The Indus, IV, 5 Feb. 1925, pp. 81–5 at p. 85. 58 M. S. Modak, ‘For Ever!’, The Indus, VI, 1, Oct. 1926, pp. 1–2 at p. 2. 59 C. Rahmat Ali, Pakistan: the Fatherland of the Pak Nation, Cambridge: Pakistan National Liberation Movement, 1947, p. 227. 60 OIOC: L/PJ/12/475, Indian Student, 1, 1, May–July 1937, p. 6.

Notes

149

3 The social interactions of the England–returned 1 D. C. Potter, India’s Political Administrators, 1919–1983, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986, p. 115. 2 J. H. Broomfield, Elite Conflict in a Plural Society: twentieth-century Bengal, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968, p. 8. 3 Rabindranath Tagore to Leonard Elmhirst, 19 Dec. 1937, quoted in R. K. Ray (ed.) Mind, Body and Society: life and mentality in colonial Bengal, Calcutta: Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 5. 4 T. V. Satyamurthy, ‘Victorians, socialisation and imperialism: consequences for post–imperial India’, in J. A. Mangan (ed.) Making Imperial Mentalities: socialisation and British imperialism, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990, at p. 117. 5 T. Vittachi, The Brown Sahib. London: Andre Deutsch, 1962. 6 S. Sen, ‘The Politics of Deracination: Empire, Education and Elite Children in Colonial India’, Studies in History 19, 1, 2003, at pp. 37–9. 7 T. Raychaudhuri, Europe Reconsidered: perceptions of the west in nineteenth–century Bengal, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 59. 8 A. L. Roy, Reminiscences English and American, Calcutta: Roy Publishing House, 1888, pp. 28–9. 9 T. Raychaudhuri, ‘Europe in India’s Xenology: The Nineteenth Century Record’, Past and Present 137, Nov. 1992, p. 161. 10 E. Shils, The Intellectual between Tradition and Modernity: the Indian situation, The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1961, p. 81. 11 ISD Reports, 1927–8 and 1937–8. 12 Census of India, 1901, Volume 1, Calcutta: Office of Superintendent of Government Printing, 1903; Census of India, 1931, Volume 1, Delhi: Manager of Publications, 1933. 13 OIOC: MSS EUR F147/5, Minutes of the NIA. 14 Cornelia Sorabji, India Calling: the memories of Cornelia Sorabj, London: Nisbet, 1934, S. Gooptu, ‘Cornelia Sorabji: 1866–1954: A Woman’s Biography’, D. Phil thesis, Oxford University, 1997. 15 E. Riedi, ‘Women, Gender, and the Promotion of Empire: The Victoria League, 1901–1914’, The Historical Journal 45, 3, 2002, pp. 569–99. 16 Sorabji, India Calling, p. 52. 17 Evening Despatch, 1935 or 1936, from the Birmingham Settlement Scrapbook in Birmingham City Archives, www.birmingham.gov.uk. 18 WB State Archives: Educ. 2S–11, April 1908, Nos 49–50, Director of Public Instruction to Secretary of Govt of Bengal, 10 Mar. 1908, and reply from Secretary of Govt. Bengal, 3 Apr. 1908. 19 See D. Engels, Beyond Purdah? Women in Bengal 1890–1930, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999, chs 5 and 6; and G. Forbes, Women in Modern India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 20 University students primarily came from Brahman and other high-caste backgrounds with a tradition of literacy and occupational mobility according to Susan Bayly, Caste, Society and Politics in India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 234. See also M. N. Srinivas, Social Change in Modern India, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969, p. 68, for further explanation of caste mobility. 21 B. B. Misra, The Indian Middle Classes: their growth in modern times, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1961. 22 See S. Joshi, Fractured Modernity: making of a middle class in colonial North India, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001, which raises interesting questions about modernity and class, and the use of Western education as a basis of solidarity among this class.

150

Notes

23 K. R. Narayanan, ‘The Tata scholarship shaped my personal and professional life’: http://www.tata.com/0_about_us/history/lasting_legacies/20040811_k_narayan.htm. 24 For descriptions of the nature of British society in India, see C. Allen, Plain Tales from the Raj: images of British India in the twentieth century, Oxford: Clio, 1986; M. MacMillan, Women of the Raj, London: Thame and Hudson, 1988; P. J. Marshall, ‘British Society in India under the East India Company’, Modern Asian Studies 31, 1, Feb. 1997, 89–108. 25 See E. Buettner, Empire Families: Britons and late Imperial India, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, for detailed analysis of British families in India and the way travel and migration had been influential in their identity formation. 26 A. J. P. Taylor, English History, 1914–1945, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965, p. 308. 27 Ibid. p. 171. 28 Visva-Bharati Archives: Tagore Family Correspondence, File 10, Ghose to G. Tagore, 19 Jan, 1863. 29 M. A. Naidu, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, Hyderabad: M. A. Naidu, 1975, p. 11. Ahmed came from a Muslim background and was President of India from August 1974. 30 Z. Masani, Indian Tales of the Raj, London: BBC Books, 1987, p. 57. 31 Ibid. Srivastava was the daughter of Sir J. P. Srivastava and married Rajeshwar Dayal after her return in 1938. See R. Dayal, A Life of Our Times, Hyderabad: Longmans, 1994, for more on Susheela Dayal, who gave classes in European History at Lucknow University. 32 Rhodes House Archives, Oxford: Mss Brit.Emp. s.527/6(5). Transcripts for ‘End of Empire’. 33 For literature on ‘race’ and British attitudes towards ‘race’, see C. Bolt, Victorian Attitudes to Race, London: Routledge, 1971; D. Lorimer, ‘Reconstructing Victorian Racial Discourse: images of race, the language of race relations, and the context of black resistance’, in G. H. Gerzina (ed.) Black Victorians/Black Victoriana, London: Rutgers University Press, 2003, and for attitudes in India, see K. Ballhatchet, Race, Sex and Class Under the Raj: imperial attitudes and policies and their critics 1793–1905, London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1980. 34 Ethnic origin as a category was not added to the United Kingdom census until 1981, so it is difficult to give an accurate number of the ‘foreign’ or ‘coloured’ population in the early twentieth century. Peter Fryer has estimated that there were 10,000 ‘blacks’ in Britain at the beginning of the nineteenth century in Staying Power: the history of black people in Britain, London: Pluto Press, 1984, p. 235. 35 J. Pryde, ‘The Black Peril’, The Granta, 4 Feb. 1901, pp. 174–5. 36 Lee-Warner Report, evidence no.58. 37 Ibid., p. 25. 38 B. L. Sud, How to become a Barrister and take a degree at Oxford or Cambridge, etc, Kapurthala State: Babu Lal Sud, 1917, p. 36. 39 For example, Muhammad Abdul Wajid from Bangalore, studying medicine at Edinburgh, felt prejudice at the Union and had been openly excluded from University lodges, see Lee-Warner Report, evidence no.163. 40 Technical Scholarships Committee Evidence, p. 9. 41 P. R. Deslandes, ‘“The Foreign Element”: Newcomers and the Rhetoric of Race, Nation, and Empire in “Oxbridge” Undergraduate Culture, 1850–1920’, The Journal of British Studies 37, 1, 1998. 42 Edinburgh Evening News, 21 May 1927. 43 Edinburgh Evening News, 25 May 1927. 44 S. Lahiri, Indians in Britain: Anglo-Indian Encounters, Race, and Identity, 1880–1930, London: Frank Cass, 2000, p. 122. 45 Examples include F. E. F. Penny, A Mixed Marriage (1903), E. W. Savi, The Daughter in Law (1913) and J. Eyton, Mr Ram –A Story of Oxford and India

Notes

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

151

(1929) discussed in Lahiri, Indians in Britain, pp. 100–103. In Savi’s book, a young English girl marries a Bengali who was educated at Cambridge believing him to be part of the Indian aristocracy. Upon their return to India, her husband sheds his western clothes, puts on weight, only keeps the company of Indian friends (because British society in India refuses to accept him) and keeps her in seclusion in the zenana. OIOC: L/PJ/8/714: Marriages between women of British nationality and Indian Hindus or Muslims (1934–1947). P. J. Reddy, Down Memory Lane: the revolutions Ilived through, Hyderabad: Booklinks Corporation, 2000, p. 88. Answers, 26 Dec. 1936 in L/PJ/8/714. There are fewer recorded cases of Indian female students and their relationships with British men, because they are harder to trace if they took up the surnames of their husbands. A. Burton, ‘Making a Spectacle of Empire: Indian Travellers in Fin-de-Siecle London’, History Workshop Journal 42, 1996, p. 132. M. K. Gandhi, An Autobiography, or, The Story of My Experiments with Truth, London: Penguin, 2001, pp. 73–5. Burton, ‘Making a Spectacle’, p. 141. J. Oldfield, ‘Indian Parents’ Duty’, Indian Opinion, 5. Jan. 1907, 12 Jan. 1907. K. P. S. Menon, Many Worlds: an autobiography, London: Oxford University Press, 1965, p. 14. NMML: Apa B. Pant Papers, Pant to father, 4 Mar. 1934. Ibid., Pant to father, 21 Jan. 1934. K. L. Mehta, In Different Worlds: from Haveli to headhunters of Tuensang, New Delhi: Lancers Books, 1985, p. 70, p. 78. OIOC: L/PJ/6/845, Morley to heads of colleges, 19 Mar. 1909. The First Indian MP in the UK is often recorded as Dadabhai Naoroji, elected in 1892 in Holborn as a Liberal. (D. O. Dyce Sombre, born in India of parents of ‘mixed blood’ was elected in 1841 from Sudbury.) Lord Salisbury, Conservative Prime Minister, had remarked that Britain was not ready to elect a ‘black man’, which created a great deal of anger and resentment from Indians. M. A. Jinnah came to London in 1893 to study for the Bar and was inspired by Naoroji; he told his sister, ‘If Dadabhai was black, I was darker. And if this was the mentality of the British politicians, then we would never get a fair deal from them. From that day I have been an uncompromising enemy of all forms of colour bar and racial prejudice’ (S. Wolpert, Jinnah of Pakistan, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984, p. 11). Report of a Sub-Committee of the London Advisory Committee for Indian Students on Difficulties experienced by Indian Students in the United Kingdom, London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1915. King’s College Archives, Cambridge: JMK/PP/45/282, Sarkar to Keynes, 5 Sept. 1911. Pant Papers, letter to father, 23 Dec. 1933. D. F. Karaka, I Go West, London: M. Joseph, 1938, pp. 170–1. Rajeshwar Dayal, A Life of our Times, New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1998, p. 26. Pant Papers, Pant to father, 17 Oct. 1934. Ibid., Pant to father, 9 Dec. 1934. PRO: WO 32/2738, Officer Training Corps, Senior Division: Enrolment of Indian Students, 1937; R. Nunn May to Lord Halifax, 10 July 1935. Ibid., ‘Admission of Indians to the Senior Division Officer Training Corps’, Aug. 1935. See Forbes, Women in Modern India, and T. Raychaudhuri, Perceptions, Emotions, Sensibilities, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999, ch. 4, about changes in attitudes towards marriage and expectations of marriage partners.

152

Notes

70 OIOC: L/PJ/6/903, 3 Nov. 1908. 71 E. Chandler, Youth and the East: an unconventional autobiography, London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1924, pp. 61–2. 72 OIOC: MSS EUR T81/2, N. B. Bonarjee, 1975; OIOC: MSS EUR R193/9, D. K. Palit, 1987. 73 Gandhi, Autobiography, p. 61. 74 F. Z. Kitchlew, Freedom Fighter: the story of Dr Saifuddin Kitchlew, Bognor Regis: New Horizon, 1979, p. 10. 75 M. Sarkar, Justice in a Gothic Edifice: the Calcutta High Court & Colonial Rule in Bengal, Calcutta: Firma KLM Pvt. Ltd., 1997, p. 45. 76 H. B. Tyabji, Badruddin Tyabji: a biography, Bombay: Thacker, 1952. 77 B. Tyabji, Memoirs of an Egoist, vol. one: 1907–1956, New Delhi: Roli Books, 1988, p. 39. 78 OIOC: MSS EUR R193/13, Badr-ud-din Tyabji, 1987–8. 79 OIOC: MSS EUR C336/3, Ameer Ali Papers, Chapter 3. 80 G. Minault, Secluded Scholars: women’s education and Muslim social reform in colonial India, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 192–221. 81 B. K. Narayan, General J. N. Chaudhuri: an autobiography, as narrated to B. K. Narayan, New Delhi: Vikas Pub. House, 1978. 82 Masani, Indian Tale, p. 2. 83 Ibid., p. 3. 84 Merton College Archives: Zachariah Papers, letter to father, 6 Mar. 1913. 85 K. Zachariah, ‘An Indian in England: An Impression,’ The Student Movement XXII, 1, Oct. 1920. 86 F. K. Noon, From Memory, Islamabad: National Book Foundation, 1993. p. 71. 87 OIOC: MSS EUR T109, M. S. Khan, 1976. 88 OIOC: MSS EUR T75, Colonel Zaidi, 1974. 89 Bedford School was particularly favoured by British families in India to send their children and was well-known in India. Many retired British families from India lived in Bedford, see Buettner, Empire Families. 90 N. Rustomji, Enchanted Frontier: Sikkim, Bhutan and India’s North–Eastern Borderland, Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1971, p. 17. 91 Ibid., p. 29. 92 Masani, Indian Tales, pp. 14–16. 93 G. D. Khosla, Memory’s Gay Chariot: an autobiographical narrative, New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 1985, p. 86. 94 K. L. Gauba, The Rebel Minister: the story of the rise and fall of Lala Harkishen Lal, Lahore: Premier Publishing House, 1938, p. 112. 95 Daily Express, 2 Dec. 1933, cutting in NAI: M. R. Jayakar Papers, File 270a. 96 Reddy, Down Memory Lane, pp. 142–7. 97 F. R. Moraes, Witness to an Era: India 1920 to the present day, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973, p. 26. 98 Ibid., p. 29. 99 D. Moraes, My Son’s Father: an autobiography, London: Secker & Warburg, 1968, p. 7. 100 Moraes, Witness, p. 40. 101 Ibid., p. 44. 102 M. R. A. Baig, In Different Saddles, London: Asia Publishing House, 1967, pp. 54–6. 103 Ibid., pp. 70–74; Masani, Indian Tales, p. 26. 104 See M. Misra, Business, Race, and Politics in British India, c.1850–1960, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, on how British businessmen were opposed to racial integration and were unwilling to employ Indian managers until the 1940s when shortages forced their hands.

Notes

153

105 OIOC: MSS EUR T77-8, M. R. A. Baig & T. Baig, 1975/6; T. Baig, Portraits of an Era, New Delhi: Roli Books, 1988. 106 MSS EUR T77-8, Baig. 107 For example, suggestions that India could be a self-governing colony were made at the beginning of the century, the timetable for independence was a contested issue with many preferring a long-term handover with British input, and there were arguments about the nature of the Commonwealth and India and Pakistan’s roles in it. Independent India retained many features of British rule in terms of the bureaucracy and government structure which illustrate the continuing importance of Britain and British relations within India. 108 MSS EUR T77-8, Baig. 109 D. F. Karaka, Then came Hazrat Ali: autobiography, Bombay: n.p., 1972. p. 130. 110 Ibid., p. 58. 111 Karaka, I Go West, p. 16. 112 Ibid., p. 28. 113 Ibid., p. 81. 114 Ibid., p. 265. 115 T. N. Kaul, Reminiscences: discreet and indiscreet, New Delhi: Lancers Publishers, 1982. p. 34. 116 Ibid., p. 36. 117 Ibid., p. 38. 118 OIOC: MSS EUR T127, P. Tandon, 1975/6. 119 P. Tandon, Punjabi Century, 1857–1947, London: Chatto & Windus, 1961, p. 208. 120 Tandon, Punjabi Saga (1857–2000), New Delhi: Rupa & Co., 2000. p. 516. 121 Ibid., p. 302. 122 Ibid., p. 425. 123 OIOC: MSS EUR T112, General Nathu Singh, 1975/6. 124 An Indian Student, ‘Social Disabilities of Indians in England’, Britain and India, 1, 3, March 1920, pp. 86–88 at p. 88. 4 The political identities of the England–returned 1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

J. Nehru, An Autobiography, New Delhi: Penguin, 2004, p. 72. OIOC: L/PJ/6/903, Meeting at Caxton Hall, 3 Nov. 1908. The Times, 1 Sept. 1908. The Times, 14 Sept. 1908. The National Indian Association, as mentioned in Ch. 1, provided a meeting place and journal for Indian visitors. It was founded in 1870 by Mary Carpenter. The Northbrook Society was founded in 1879 by the former viceroy Lord Northbrook intended as a Club for Indian visitors and Englishmen interested in India. King’s College Archives, Cambridge: JMK/PP/45/282, B. K. Sarkar to J. M. Keynes, 5 Sept. 1911. G. K. Chettur, The Last Enchantment: recollections of Oxford, Mangalore: B. M. Bookshop, 1934, p. 146. G. D. Khosla, Memory’s Gay Chariot: an autobiographical narrative, New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 1985, p. 63. Merton College, Oxford: Zachariah Papers, letter to Mother, 10 Sept. 1913. OIOC: MSS EUR T113, B. K. Nehru, 1976. M. R. A. Baig, In Different Saddles, London: Asia Publishing House, 1967, p. 31. NMML: M. C. Chagla Papers, 4th Session of Indian Conference Report 1921. Merton College Archives: Zachariah Papers, letter to mother, 10 Sept. 1912. M. C. Chagla, Roses in December: an autobiography, Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1990, p. 40. Ibid., p. 34.

154

Notes

16 S. K. Kirpalani, Fifty Years with the British, London: Sangam, 1993, p. 53. 17 K. P. S. Menon, Many Worlds: an autobiography, London: Oxford University Press, 1965, p. 54. Menon served in the Madras ICS until 1924 when he was transferred to the Foreign and Political Department as Under-Secretary to the Resident of Hyderabad. In 1939, he was appointed as Chief Minister of Bharatpur, then Ambassador to China after independence, Foreign Secretary from 1948 to 1952 and then Ambassador to Moscow. 18 NMML: K. P. S. Menon Papers, ‘Passage to Oxford’ 1923. 19 Chettur, Last Enchantment, p. 151. 20 D. F. Karaka wrote of the important influence of the Majlis upon young Englishmen as it ‘has been chiefly instrumental in weakening the die-hard attitude to India, and in bringing about a better understanding between the youth of two such important nations of the world’ in The Pulse of Oxford, London: J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd, 1933, p. 41. 21 C. Chandrasekharan, The Life and Works of a Demographer: an autobiography, New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill, 1999, p. 33. 22 K. L. Mehta, In Different Worlds: from Haveli to headhunters of Tuensang, New Delhi: Lancers Books, 1985, p. 73. 23 P. Tandon, Punjabi Century, 1857–1947, London: Chatto & Windus, 1961, p. 207. 24 OIOC: L/PJ/12/252. 25 The Bharat, Jan. 1931, p. 38. 26 Wren Library Archives, Trinity College, Cambridge: Cambridge Majlis Minute Book, 1932–1937. 27 St John’s College Archives, Oxford: SJC Debating Society Minute Book, 1919–1934. 28 C. Hollis, The Oxford Union, London: Evans Brothers, 1965, p. 184. 29 ISD Report, 1928–9. 30 Chandraskehar to father, 2 Oct. 1930 in K. C. Wali, Chandra: a biography of S. Chandrasekhar, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984, p. 81. 31 Ibid., p. 260. 32 B. C. Pal, Memories of my Life and Times, Calcutta: Bipinchandra Pal Institute, 1973, pp. 547–556. 33 Pal, ‘The Forces Behind the Unrest in India,’ Contemporary Review XCVII, 1910, at p. 229. Pal returned at various times to London in the early twentieth century as his son, Niranjan Pal, studied in London and then became a playwright. 34 M. Y. Abbasi, London Muslim League, 1908–1928: an historical study, Islamabad: National Institute of Historical and Cultural Research, 1988. 35 A. Ali, ‘The Unrest in India – Its Meaning’, Nineteenth Century and After, 61, June 1907, at p. 875. 36 Ibid., p. 884. 37 Servant of India, 23 June 1921, in OIOC: L/R/5/179, Native Newspaper Reports, Bombay 1921. 38 Lytton Report Evidence, p. 90. 39 OIOC: MSS EUR E352/2, Fazl-I-Husain Collection, Diary, 25 Aug. 1900. 40 K. Chowdry, ‘The Indian Students in England’, The Student Movement XII, Jan 1910, at p. 87. 41 S. Ghose, The Western Impact on Indian Politics, 1885–1919, Calcutta: Allied Publishers, 1967, p. 68. 42 H. Brasted, ‘Indian Nationalist Development and the Influence of Irish Home Rule, 1870–1886’, Modern Asian Studies, 14, 1980, at p. 49. 43 Lytton Report Evidence, p. 24. 44 Ibid., p. 32. 45 Ibid., p. 266. 46 An Indian Student, ‘Social Disabilities of Indians in England’, Britain and India, 1, 3, March 1920, pp. 86–88 at p. 86.

Notes

155

47 Lytton Report Evidence, p. 134. 48 Ibid., p. 14. 49 Nehru, Autobiography, p. 23. Jehangir Coyajee was at Cambridge from 1907 to 1910 and agreed ‘Cambridge in those days was a stronghold of Radicalism’, from NAI: Jehangir Coyajee Papers, Vita Sua. 50 Jawaharlal to Motilal, 17 Oct. 1907 in S. Gopal (ed.) Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 1, New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1972, p. 34. 51 Nehru, Autobiography, p. 24. 52 See letters to father, 18 Mar. 1909, and 15 July 1910 in Gopal (ed.) SWJN. 53 Nehru, Autobiography, p. 24. 54 Ibid., p. 31. 55 Ibid., p. 436. 56 OIOC: MSS EUR T75, Colonel Zaidi, 1974. 57 N. B. Bonarjee, Under Two Masters, London: Oxford University Press, 1970, p. 41. 58 ‘Anglo-Indians’ was the term used to describe present and former British officials in India until the 1911 Census when the term was appropriated to describe ‘Eurasians’. Menon uses the original definition of ‘Anglo-Indians’ to describe Britons in the UK who had ties with India. 59 Miss E. J. Beck, sister of Theodore Beck, was secretary of the National Indian Association. 60 Menon, ‘Passage to Oxford’. 61 Menon, Many Worlds, p. 53. 62 Lee–Warner Report, p. 102. 63 P. Heehs, Nationalism, Terrorism, Communalism, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998. See also A. B. Purani, Sri Aurobindo in England, Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 1956. 64 Heehs, Nationalism, p. 84. 65 For more about the murder see PRO: CRIM 1/113/5, evidence from Dhingra’s case. 66 T. R. Sareen, Indian Revolutionary Movement Abroad (1905–1921), New Delhi: Sterling, 1979, pp. 2–5.; Indian Sociologist, 1, Jan. 1905, p. 3. 67 Indian Sociologist, May 1905, p. 17. 68 The Times, 23 May 1908. 69 Sareen, Revolutionary Movement Abroad, pp. 11–27. See also D. Keer, Savarkar and his Times, Bombay: A. V. Keer, 1950, and, D. Garnett, The Golden Echo, London: Chatto & Windus, 1953. 70 See Indian Agitators Abroad, Simla: Government Press, 1911, and A. Bose, Indian Revolutionaries Abroad, 1905–1927: select documents, New Delhi: Northern Book Centre, 2002. 71 Har Dayal to Krishnavarma, 8 July 1907 in Dharmavira (ed.) Letters of Lala Har Dayal, Ambala Cantt.: Indian Book Agency, 1970, p. 36. 72 Har Dayal to Krishnavarma, 11 Sawan (the fifth Hindu month) 1907, in Ibid., p. 41. 73 See H. A. Gould, Sikhs, Swamis, Students and Spies: the India lobby in the United States, 1900–1946, New Delhi: Sage, 2006. 74 ‘Nothing makes me happier than to be served by the whites and watch them clean my shoes’, S. C. Bose to H. K. Sarkar, 12 Nov. 1919, in S. C. Bose, An Indian Pilgrim: an unfinished autobiography, ed. S. K. Bose and S. Bose, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 195. 75 E. Shils, ‘Foreword’, in A. K. Singh, Indian Students in Britain. Asurvey of their adjustment and attitudes, London: Asia Publishing House, 1963, p. xiii. 76 See Anila Graham obituary in Guardian, 18 Nov. 2004; B. K. Nehru, Nice Guys Finish Second, New Delhi: Viking, 1997; R. Ray, My Reminiscences: social development during Gandhian era and after, New Delhi: Allied, 1982.

156

Notes

77 In 1929, the Government imprisoned 33 trade unionists, denouncing them as ‘communist’ in an incident known as the Meerut Conspiracy Case, and was indicative of Government attempts to suppress communism in India. 78 A. Ali, The Indian Communists, New Delhi: Indian National Trade Union Congress, 1965, pp. 9–10. 79 The Times, 9 Dec. 1925. 80 C. Sehnavis, ‘Communism at Oxford in the Mid-Twenties’, in S. C. Sarkar, Essays in Honour of Prof S. C. Sarkar, New Delhi: People’s Publishing House, 1976, pp. 13–20. 81 M. R. Anand, Apology for Heroism: an essay in search of faith, London: Lindsay Drummond, 1946, p. 33. 82 Ibid., p. 35. 83 Ibid., p. 54. 84 Saklatvala was a Labour MP for Battersea North 1922–3. He was then a Communist MP for the same constituency between 1924 and 1929. 85 OIOC: L/PJ/12/406, 27 Apr. 1933. 86 H. Kruger (ed.) Kunwar Mohammad Ashraf: an Indian scholar and revolutionary, 1903–1962, Berlin: Akademie–Verlag, 1966. 87 NMML: Apa. B. Pant Papers, Correspondence with father: Pant to father, 10 Jan. 1934, 25 Feb. 1934. 88 Ibid., Pant to father, 6 Feb. 1935. 89 Ibid., Pant to father, 30 May 1934. 90 S. K. Dasgupta, West Bengal’s Jyoti Basu: a political profile, New Delhi: Gian Pub. House, 1992, p. 1. 91 J. Basu, Memoirs: a political autobiography, Calcutta: National Book Agency, 1999, p. 12. 92 Z. Masani, Indian Tales of the Raj, London: BBC Books, 1987, p. 97. 93 Basu, Memoirs, p. 14. See also ‘ The Left Front has Provided an Alternative Method of Government’, Frontline, 22, 25, 3–16 Dec., 2005; http:www.frontlineonnet.com/ fl2225/stories/20051216003803900.htm 94 L. Sabha, Bhupesh Gupta, Eminent Parliamentarians Monograph Series, New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat, 1990. 95 V. G. Kiernan, ‘Mohan Kumaramangalam in England’, Socialist India, 23 Feb. 1974, p. 7. 96 Kumaramangalam was a member of the CPI until 1966 when he was made Advocate-General of Tamil Nadu. 97 OIOC: L/PJ/12/638. 98 OIOC: L/PJ/12/42, 13 May 1931. 99 W. C. Eells, ‘How Colored Communist Leaders are made in England’, The Journal of Higher Education, 26, Apr. 1955. 100 OIOC: L/PJ/12/638, ‘The Universities and Extreme Politics’, 1940. 101 M. Masani, Bliss Was it in that Dawn: a political memoir upto independence, New Delhi: Arnold Heinemann, 1977, pp. 24–9. 102 OIOC: L/PJ/12/405. 103 Tandon, Punjabi Century, p. 211. 104 OIOC: MSS EUR T109, M. S. Khan, 1976. 105 OIOC: L/PJ/12/4, 22 April 1936. 106 H. S. Suhrawardy and M. H. R. Talukdar, Memoirs of Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy with a brief account of his life and work, Dhaka: University Press, 1987, p. 9. 107 The Telegraph, 3 July 1909, p. 12. 108 M. Ayub Khan, Friends Not Masters: a political autobiography, London: Oxford University Press, 1967, p. 10. 109 Ray, Reminiscences, p. 4 110 Ibid., p. 31.

Notes

157

111 S. Gandhi (ed.) Freedom’s Daughter: letters between Indira Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, 1922–39, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1989; K. Frank, Indira: the life of Indira Nehru Gandhi, London: HarperCollins, 2002. 5 The careers and long–term impact of the England–returned 1 ISD Report, 1926–7, p. 23. 2 Jawaharlal to Motilal, 21 June 1912 in S. Gopal (ed.) Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 1, New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1972, p. 97. J. M. Brown, Nehru: a political life, London: Yale University Press, 2003, p. 38. 3 OIOC: L/PJ/12/638. 4 See ISD Reports, 1930–1, 1931–2, 1933–4, 1936–7. 5 ISD Report, 1928–9, p. 19. 67 R. K. Ray, ‘Evolution of the Professional Structure in Modern India: older and new professions in a changing society’, The Indian Historical Review IX, July 1982–Jan. 1983, p. 183. See unemployment figures for all educated Indians in 1931 in J. H. Lutton, Census of India, 1931. Vol 1, Delhi: Manager of Publications, 1933. 8 Royal Commission on the Public Services in India: Report of the Commissioners, London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1917, p. 371. 9 Ibid., p. 26. 10 Ibid., p. 371. 11 M. Trevelyan, From the Ends of the Earth, London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1942, p. 16. 12 Ibid., p172. 13 OIOC: MSS EUR R193/12, Khushwant Singh, 1987–8. 14 The Indian Sociologist, Jan. 1907, p. 3. 15 M. R. Jayakar, The Story of My Life, Bombay: Asia Pub. House, 1958, p. 91. 16 B. L. Sud, How to become a Barrister and take a degree at Oxford or Cambridge, etc, Kapurthala State: Babu Lal Sud, 1917, p. 44 and pp. 68–9. 17 Merton College Archives: Zachariah Papers, Zachariah to Mother, 28 Nov. 1912. 18 NAI: Jehangir Coyajee Papers, A1–90, Early Life and Education. 19 Merton College Register, 1900–1964, Oxford: Blackwell, 1964, p. 93. 20 K. M. Panikkar, An Autobiography, trans. K. Krishnamurthy, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1977, p. 25. 21 ISD Report, 1922–23, p. 3. 22 S. Nurullah and J. P. Naik, A History of Education in India (During the British Period), Bombay: Macmillan & Co., 1951, p. 558. 23 I. A. Gilbert, ‘The Organization of the Academic Profession in India: The Indian Educational Services, 1864–1924’ in S. H. Rudolph and L. I. Rudolph (eds) Education and Politics in India: studies in organization, society and policy, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972, pp. 319–341. 24 Gilbert, ‘The Indian Academic Profession: The Origins of a Tradition of Subordination’, Minerva X, July 1972, pp. 384–411 at p. 392. 25 Home Dept., Edn. Branch (A–Oct. 1909) Nos 87–95, quoted in Ibid., p. 393. 26 Royal Commission on Public Services 1917, pp. 99–101. 27 Report of the Indian Statutory Commission, Volume I, London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1930, p. 400. 28 Indian Universities were federal systems with affiliated colleges. There was an unprecedented expansion of collegiate education after the foundation of Universities in 1857. In 1855, there were 28 colleges with 4158 students, and in 1902 there were 191 colleges with 23,009 students. From Nurullah and Naik, History of Education, p. 272. 29 Ray, ‘Evolution of Professional Structure’, at p. 165.

158

Notes

30 Indian Industrial Commission, 1916–18 Report, Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing, 1918. 31 A. Basu, The Growth of Education and Political Development in India, 1898–1920, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1974, p. 89. 32 H. W. Orange, 2 July 1902 in NAI: Home Dept., Edn. Branch, Oct. 1902, Nos. 67–75. 33 Denzil Ibbetson, 21 July 1902 in Ibid. 34 NAI: Home Dept, Edn. Branch, Oct. 1903, Nos 14–18. A college in Roorkee was founded in 1847 for the training of civil engineers, after which a number of engineering colleges were set up in India from which Indians could train for the PWD. 35 Technical Scholarships Report, p. 14, and The Times, 25 June 1913. 36 Lytton Report Evidence, p. 60. 37 OIOC: L/PJ/6/1125, Smithells to Marquis, 17. Nov. 1911 38 ISD Report, 1920–1, p. 11. 39 Royal Commission on Public Services 1917, p. 26. 40 ISD Report, 1923–4, p. 21. 41 Technical Scholarships Report, p. 26. 42 Ibid., p. 24. 43 Lytton Report Evidence, p. 179. 44 Technical Scholarships Evidence, p. 214. 45 Ibid., p. 261. 46 J. A. P. Majumdar, with A. M. Burton (ed.), Family History, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 20–21. 47 M. Misra, Business, Race, and Politics in British India, c.1850–1960, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 57, 126. 48 OIOC: MSS EUR T15, Raj Chatterjee, 1974. 49 Z. Masani, Indian Tales of the Raj, London: BBC Books, 1987, p. 35. 50 P. Tandon, Punjabi Saga (1857–2000), New Delhi: Rupa & Co., 2000, p. 235, p. 250. 51 R. N. Sen, In Clive Street, Calcutta: M. Sen, 1981, p. 12. 52 The Times, 2 July 1935. 53 J. Useem and R. H. Useem, The Western-Educated Man in India: a study of his social roles and influence, New York: Dryden Press, 1955, p. 5. 54 D. P. Marston, Phoenix from the Ashes: the Indian Army in the Burma Campaign, Westport: Praeger, 2003, pp. 17, 21. 55 M. Ayub Khan, Friends Not Masters: a political autobiography, London: Oxford University Press, 1967, p. 8. 56 Ibid., p. 12. 57 B. K. Narayan, General J. N. Chaudhuri: an autobiography, as narrated to B. K. Narayan, New Delhi: Vikas Pub. House, 1978, p. 14. 58 Ibid., p. 55. 59 OIOC: MSS EUR T51, D. K. Palit, 1974. 60 OIOC: MSS EUR R193/9, D. K. Palit, 1987. 61 OIOC: MSS EUR R193/6, Admiral Chatterjee, 1987. 62 See data on numbers of Indian ICS in D. C. Potter, India’s Political Administrators, 1919–1983, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986, p. 85. 63 Ibid., p. 53. 64 Report of the Royal Commission on the Superior Civil Services in India, London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1924, p. 18. 65 J. Nehru, An Autobiography, New Delhi: Penguin, 2004, pp. 434–5. The Autobiography was first published in 1936. 66 Brown, Nehru, p. 206. 67 Royal Commission on Public Services, Volume III, Bengal Evidence, London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1914, p. 460. 68 Potter, India’s Political Administrators, pp. 126–130.

Notes

159

69 Ibid., pp. 115–6. 70 G. D. Khosla, Memory’s Gay Chariot: an autobiographical narrative, New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 1985, p. 81. 71 N. Bakshi, ‘In Bihar – The State of My Adoption’ in K. L. Panjabi (ed.) The Civil Servant in India, Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1965, pp. 140–213 at p. 144. 72 S. K. Kirpalani, Fifty Years with the British, London: Sangam, 1993, p. 85, p. 109. 73 OIOC: MSS EUR T81/2, N. B. Bonarjee, 1975/6. 74 Ibid. 75 N. B. Bonarjee, Under Two Masters, London: Oxford University Press, 1970, pp. 74–8. 76 Ibid., p. 115. 77 Ibid., p. 41. 78 C. D. Deshmukh, The Course of My Life, New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1974, pp. 35, 49. 79 Panjabi, The Civil Servant in India, p. 4. 80 S. C. Bose, An Indian Pilgrim: an unfinished autobiography, ed. S. K. Bose and S. Bose, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 116, p. 220. 81 Panjabi, The Civil Servant in India, p. 110. 82 J. M. Lobo Prabhu, ‘My Work in the I.C.S’ in Panjabi, The Civil Servant in India, pp. 222–231 at p. 225. 83 OIOC: MSS EUR F180/27, Nasim Ahmad Faraqui, Memoirs 1930–47, 1977. 84 See for instance M. Martyn, Married to the Raj, London: BACSA, 1992, for an account of exclusiveness in British clubs in Bengal. 85 CSAS, Cambridge: Gopalaswami Papers, ‘Administration in India: a brief account of personal experiences during the last twenty years of British rule and the first fifteen years of Independence’, 1984, p. 11. 86 Ibid., p. 33. 87 Ibid., p. 36. 88 OIOC: MSS EUR F180/81, J. D. Shukla, 1977. 89 Ibid. 90 See OIOC: MSS EUR E352/2, Fazl-I-Husain Collection for his diaries in Cambridge, 1898–1902. 91 OIOC: MSS EUR F180/68, M. Azim Husain, 1977. 92 Ibid. 93 NMML: Danial Latifi Papers, Latifi to parents, 22 Jan. 1937. 94 Ibid., mother to Latifi, 13 June 1938. 95 Ibid., Latifi to parents, 16 June 1938. 96 OIOC: MSS EUR T66, Dharam Vira, 1974. 97 Dharmavira, Memoirs of a Civil Servant, Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1975, p. 12. 98 Ibid., p. 10. 99 OIOC: MSS EUR F180/85, C. S. Venkatachar, 1977. 100 OIOC: MSS EUR F180/56, C. V. Narasimhan, 1977. 101 OIOC: MSS EUR F180/4a, S. Rahmatullah, 1977. 102 M. A. Naidu, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, Hyderabad: M. A. Naidu, 1975, pp. 16–18. 103 V. Haridasan, Dr John Matthai 1886–1959: a biography, Cranganore: Sunil, 1986, p. 14. 104 M. C. Chagla, Roses in December: an autobiography: with epilogue, Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1990, p. 78. 105 OIOC: MSS EUR R193/1, Frank Anthony, 1987. 106 I. Talbot, Pakistan: a modern history, New York: St Martin’s Press, 1998, pp. 2–3. Conclusion: the future for the England-returned 1 J. Useem and R. H. Useem, The Western-Educated Man in India: a study of his social roles and influence, New York: Dryden Press, 1955, p. 58.

160

Notes

2 Ibid., p. 31. 3 Pakistan was reinstated to the Commonwealth in 2004 but suspended again in 2007. 4 M. Zinkin and T. Zinkin, Britain and India: requiem for empire, London: Chatto and Windus, 1964, p. 155. 5 Ibid., p. 156. 6 M. Lipton and J. Firn, The Erosion of a Relationship: India and Britain since 1960, London: Oxford University Press, 1975, p. 139.

Bibliography

Manuscript and archival sources Centre of South Asian Studies, Cambridge: Private Papers Ghoshal. Gopalaswami. Jayarajan. Krishna Menon. Nagarajan. India Office, British Library, London District Officer Collection: MSS EUR F180 Political and Judicial Department Files: L/P&J/6. Secret Political Files: L/I/1/142, L/P&J/12, L/P&S. India Office, British Library, London: Private Papers (Mss Eur) Ameer Ali (C 336/3). Diary of Monorama Bose (F 178/69). Curzon (F 111/281). Sir Gerald Fitzgerald (F 119/15). Fazl-I-Husain (E 352/2). National Indian Association (F147). India Office, British Library, London: Oral Interviews (Mss Eur) Frank Anthony (R 193/1). Govind Narain (R 193/3). Major Gen. D. K. Palit (R 193/9). Khushwant Singh (R 193/12). Badr-ud-din Tyabji (R 193/13). Raj Chatterjee (T15). S. K. Das (T22). D. K. Palit (T51). Dharam Vira (T66).

162

Bibliography

Colonel Zaidi (T75). Mirza Rashid Ali Baig and Tara Baig (T77-8). Mr Justice K. K. Banerji (T79/2). H. C. Bannerman (T80). N. B. Bonarjee (T81/2). Kamla Devi Chattopadhyay (T87/2). Mohammed Said Khan (T109). General Nathu Singh (T112). B. K. Nehru (T113). Vishnu Sahay (T122). Prakash Tandon (T127). Inner Temple Archives, London Overseas Students Committee Papers, BEN/4/7, BEN/4/8. King’s College Archive Centre, Cambridge J. M. Keynes correspondence, JMK/IC/1, JMK/PP/45/282. Saltmarsh information on Sri Aurobindo, JS/2/22. London School of Economics Archives, London Indian Students’ Union & Hostel, 5th Annual Report, 1924, BEVERIDGE 2/B/24/8. Letter from Mallet to Wallas, WALLAS 1/56. Professor A. K. Dasgupta Interview, ORAL HISTORY 1/2. Merton College Archives, Oxford Kuruvila Zachariah Papers, ZAC 1b. National Archives (Public Record Office), London Evidence from Rex Vs. Dhingra, CRIM 1/113/5. Civil Service Commission Reports, 1926-39, CSC 5/110. Information on Dominion and Indian Students at British Universities, ED 24/1994. War Office: Officer Training Corps: Enrolment of Indian Students, 1937, WO 32/2738. National Archives of India, New Delhi Home Department Files National Archives of India, New Delhi: Private Papers M. R. Jayakar Sir Jehangir C. Coyajee Nehru Memorial Library, New Delhi: Private Papers M. C. Chagla C. D. Desmukh

Bibliography

163

Danial Latifi K. P. S. Menon Apa B. Pant Oxford University Archives, Oxford Delegates for Oriental Students, 1916–1944, DC 39/1. Lodging House Papers on the Delegacy for Oriental Students, LHD/SF/1/5. Register of Colonial and Indian Students, 1902–1904, UR 2/12. Rhodes House Archives, Oxford Transcripts for ‘End of Empire’, Mss Brit.Emp.s.527/6(5). St John’s College Archives, Oxford Debating Society Minute Book, IV, 1913–1935. Essay Society Minute Book, V, 1919–1934. Visva-Bharati Archives, Santiniketan Tagore Correspondence. Tagore Family Correspondence, Manomohun Ghose and Satyendranath Tagore to Ganendranath Tagore. West Bengal State Archives, Kolkata General Education Files, 1908–1921. Wren Library, Trinity College, Cambridge Cambridge Majlis Minute Book. Ranji letters, 1891–1905. Official reports British Attitudes Towards the Employment of Indians in Civil Service: Report of the Public Service Commission (1886–1887) headed by Sir Charles U. Aitchison, Delhi: Concept Publishing Company, 1977. Census of India, 1901. Volume I. India. Part I. Report, Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing, 1903. Census of India, 1931. Volume I. India. Part I. Report, Delhi: Manager of Publications, 1933. Handbook for Indian Students, London: India Office, 1922. Indian Agitators Abroad: Compiled in the Criminal Intelligence Office, Simla, Simla: Government Monotype Press, 1911. Indian Industrial Commission, 1916–18 Report, Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing, 1918. Indian State Scholarships, Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing, 1919. Indian Students’ Department Reports, 1920–1940. Legislative Assembly Debates. Volume II. Second Session of the Legislative Assembly, 1921, Simla: Government Central Press, 1921.

164

Bibliography

Native Newspaper Reports, Bombay Presidency, 1909, 1913, 1921. Report and Minutes of Evidence of the Committee Appointed by the Secretary of State for India to Inquire into the Position of Indian Students in the United Kingdom, London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1907. Report of a Committee Appointed by the Secretary of State for India to Inquire into the System of State Technical Scholarships Established by the Government of India in 1904, London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1913; and Minutes of Evidence Taken Before a Committee Appointed by the Secretary of State for India To Enquire into the System of State Technical Scholarships Established by the Government of India in 1904, London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1913. Report of the Committee on Distressed Colonial and Indian Subjects, London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1910. Report of the Committee on Indian Students 1921–22, London: India Office, 1922. Report of the Indian Sandhurst Committee: Dated 14th November 1926, with a foreword by the Government of India, London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1927. Report of the Indian Statutory Commission, Volume One–Survey, London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1930. Report of the Indian Universities Commission, 1902, Simla: Government Central Printing Press, 1902. Report of the Royal Commission on the Superior Civil Services in India, London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1924. Report of a Sub-Committee of the London Advisory Committee for Indian Students on Difficulties expressed by Indian Students in the United Kingdom, London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1915. Royal Commission on Oxford and Cambridge Universities Report, London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1922. Royal Commission on the Public Services in India, London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1914. Periodicals The Bengalee. Britain and India. Calcutta Review. Daily Telegraph. Edinburgh Evening News. The Granta. The Hindu. The Indian Appeal. Indian Opinion. The Indian Sociologist. The Indus. Journal of the National Indian Association. The Times. Printed primary sources and autobiographies Ali, Ameer, ‘The Unrest in India Its Meaning’, Nineteenth Century and After, 61, 364, June 1907, pp. 873–885.

Bibliography

165

Ali, Hamid, ‘The Cost of Living in London’, Journal of the National Indian Association, 134, February 1882, pp. 88–92. Ali, Sayyid Kazim, ‘English University Education and Life’, Journal of the National Indian Association, 104, August 1879, pp. 402–410. Anand, Mulk Raj, Apology for Heroism: an essay in search of faith, London: Lindsay Drummond, 1946. Baig, M. R. A. In Different Saddles, London: Asia Publishing House, 1967. Baig, Tara Ali, Portraits of an Era, New Delhi: Roli Books Pvt Ltd, 1988. Balm, Alexander J. My Impressions of England, Madras: Addison and Co 1901. Banerjea, Surendranath, A Nation in the Making: being the reminiscences of fifty years of public life, 1st edition 1925, Calcutta: Oxford University Press, 1963. Basu, B. D. My Sojourn in England, Calcutta: R. Chatterjee, 1927. Basu, Jyoti, Memoirs: a political autobiography, Calcutta: National Book Agency, 1999. Bhoothalingam, S. Reflections on an Era: memoirs of a civil servant, Delhi: Affiliated East–West Press, 1993. Bhuyan, Suryya Kumar, From A Historian’s Haversack: London memories, Gauhati: Assam Publication Board, 1979. Bonarjee, N. B. Under Two Masters, London: Oxford University Press, 1970. Bose, A. C. Indian Revolutionaries Abroad: 1905–1927. Select Documents, New Delhi: Northern Book Centre, 2002. Bose, Subhas Chandra, An Indian Pilgrim, 1st edition 1937, edited by Sisir Kumar Bose and Sugata Bose, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997. Brown, F. H. ‘Indian Students in Great Britain’, The Edinburgh Review, 217, 443, January 1913, pp. 138–156. Chagla, Mahomedali Currim, Roses in December: an autobiography, 1st edition 1973, Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1990. Chandler, Edmund, Youth and the East: an unconventional autobiography, London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1924. Chandrachud, C. N. Memories of an Indian Doctor, Bombay: Popular Pakistan, 1970. Chandrasekaran, Chidambara, The Life and Work of a Demographer: an autobiography, New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill, 1999. Chattopadhyaya, Harindranath, Life and Myself, Bombay: Nalanda Publications, 1948. Chattopadhyay, Kamaladevi, Inner Recesses Outer Spaces: memoirs, New Delhi: Navrang, 1986. Chettur, G. K. The Last Enchantment: recollections of Oxford, Mangalore: B. M. Bookshop, 1934. Chopra, P. N. (ed) The Collected Works of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Volume 1, Delhi: Konark Publishers, 1990. Chowdry, K. ‘The Indian Students in England’, The Student Movement, XII, 4, January 1910, pp. 86–88. Das, Harihar, The Life and Letters of Toru Dutt, London: Oxford University Press, 1921. ‘The Early Indian Visitors to England’, The Calcutta Review 3rd Series, XIII, Oct. Dec. 1924, pp. 83–114. Datta, V. N. and Clegham, B. E. (eds) A Nationalist Muslim and Indian Politics: being the selected correspondence of the late Dr Syed Mahmud, Delhi: Macmillan, 1974. Dayal, Rajeshwar, A Life of Our Times, Hyderabad: Orient Longman, 1998. Deshmukh, C. D. The Course of My Life, Bombay: Orient Longman, 1974. Dev, Dharam Yash, Our Countrymen Abroad: a brief survey of the problems of Indians in foreign land, Allahabad: All India Congress Committee, 1940.

166

Bibliography

Dharmavira (ed.) Letters of Lala Har Dayal, Ambala Cantt Indian Book Agency, 1970. Memoirs of a Civil Servant, Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1975. Dicey, Edward, ‘Hindu Students in England’, Nineteenth Century and After, 66, 309, 1909, pp. 349–360. Doss, Nundo Lall, Reminiscences, English and Australian: being an account of a visit to England, Australia, NewZealand, Tasmania, Ceylon, Calcutta: Herald Press, 1893. Foster, Joseph, Oxford Men, 1880–1892, Oxford: James Parker & Co 1893. Full Report of the Proceedings of the Sobha Bazaar Meeting, held on the 19th August1892, in connection with the Sea-Voyage Movement, Calcutta: ‘Indian Daily News’ Press, 1892. Fyzee, Atiya Begum, Iqbal, Lahore: Aina-I-Adab, 1947. Gandhi, M. K. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi I(1884–1896), Delhi: Government of India, 1958. An Autobiography, London: Penguin, 2001. Gandhi, Sonia (ed.) Freedom’s Daughter: letters between Indira Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, 1922–39, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1989. Garnett, David, The Golden Echo, London: Chatto & Windus, 1953. Ghose, Manomohan, The Open Competition for the Civil Service of India, London: Trubner & Co 1866. Ghose, Nagendra Nath, Indian Views of England: the effects of observation of England upon Indian ideas and institutions, Calcutta: Thacker, Spink and Co, 1877. Ghose, Sarath Kumar, The Prince of Destiny: the new Krishna, London: Rebman Ltd, 1909. Gupta, J. N. Life and Work of Romesh Chunder Dutt, London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1911. Haldar, Rakhal Das, The English Diary of an Indian Student, 1861–2, Dacca: Ashutosh Press, 1903. Hasan, Mushirul (ed.) My Life: a fragment. An autobiographical sketch of Maulana Mohamed Ali, Delhi: Manohar, 1999. Hidayatullah, M. My Own Boswell, New Delhi: Arnold-Heinemann, 1980. Hilliard, Edward (ed.) The Balliol College Register 1832–1914, Oxford: University Press, 1914. ‘A Hindu’, Three Years in Europe being Extracts from letters sent from Europe, Calcutta: Thacker, Spink & Co 1873. Indian Gymkhana Club, The Indian Gymkhana Club, Chiswick: Broad and Co n.d.. Indian Students in the Fight for Unity, London: University Labour Federation and Federation of Indian Students, 1942. India’s Students, Leeds: Federation of Indian Student Societies in Great Britain and Eire, 1946. Jaini, Jagmenderlal, compiled by M. Amy Thornett, Fragments from an Indian Student’s Notebook, London: Arthur H. Stockwell, 1934. Jayakar, M. R. The Story of My Life, Volume One 1873–1922, Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1958. Karaka, Dosabhoy Framji, The Pulse of Oxford, London: J. M. Dent And Sons, 1933. I Go West, London: Michael Joseph, 1938. Then Came Hazrat Ali: autobiography 1972, Bombay: n.p., 1972. Kaul, T. N. Reminiscences: discreet and indiscreet, New Delhi: Lancers Publishers, 1982. Khan, Badshah, My Life and Struggle, Delhi: Hind Pocket Books, 1973. Khan, Mohammad Ayub, Friends Not Masters: a political autobiography, London: Oxford University Press, 1967.

Bibliography

167

Khan, Nawabzada Nasrullah, The Ruling Chiefs of Western India, Bombay: Thacker & Co 1898. Khosla, G. D. Memory’s Gay Chariot: an autobiographical narrative, New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 1985. Kirk, Kenneth E. ‘Indian Students in England: another point of view’, Nineteenth Century and After, 66, 392, 1909, pp. 598–606. Kirpalani, Santdas Khushiram, Fifty Years with the British, London: Sangam Books, 1993. Knight, J. B. ‘Syed Ahmed Khan, C.S.I’, Journal of the National Indian Association, 180, December 1885, pp. 577–583. London Indian Society, The Report of the Annual Conference of all Indians Resident in the United Kingdom: 28 December 1898, London: A. Bonner, 1899. Majumdar, Janaki Agnes Penelope, Family History, edited by Antoinette Burton, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003. Malabari, Behramji M. The Indian Eye on English Life or Rambles of a Pilgrim Reformer, London: Archibald Constable and Company, 1893. Mangat Rai, Edward Nirmal, Commitment My Style: career in the Indian Civil Service, Delhi: Vikas Publishing, 1973. Masani, Minoo, Bliss was it in that Dawn: a political memoir upto Independence, New Delhi: Arnold Heinemann, 1977. Mehta, K. L. In Different Worlds: from haveli to head hunters of Tuensang, New Delhi: Lancers Books, 1985. Menon, K. P. S. Many Worlds: an autobiography, London: Oxford University Press, 1965. Moraes, Dom, My Son’s Father: an autobiography, London: Secker & Warburg, 1968. Moraes, Frank, Witness to an Era: India 1920 to the present day, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973. Mukharji, T. N. A Visit to Europe, Calcutta: W. Newman & Co 1889. Mukherjee, Manicklal, W. C. Bonnerjee: snapshots from his life and his London letters, Calcutta: Deshbandu Book Depot, 1944. Naoroji, Dadabhai, London Indian Society: General Meeting Proceedings, 1865, London: William Stevens, 1866. Narayan, B. K. General JN Chaudhuri, an autobiography, as narrated to BK Narayan, New Delhi: Vikas Publishing, 1978. National Indian Association, ‘Indian Students in England’, Journal of the National Indian Association, 169, January 1885, pp. 1–9. Nehru, B. K. Nice Guys Finish Second, New Delhi: Viking, 1997. Nehru, Jawaharlal, Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, I, New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1972. The Discovery of India, Delhi: Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund, 1981. An Autobiography, with Musings on Recent Events in India. New Foreword by Mark Tully, London: The Bodley Head, 1989, and New Delhi: Penguin, 2004. Noon, Firoz Khan, From Memory, Islamabad: National Book Foundation, 1993. Nowrojee, Jehangeer and Merwanjee, Hirjeebhoy, Journal of a Residence of Two Years and a Half in Great Britain, London: W. H. Allen and Co 1841. Oxford University, Colonial and Indian Students at Oxford, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903. Pal, Bipin Chandra, ‘The Forces Behind the Unrest in India’, Contemporary Review, XCVII, 1910, pp. 225–236. Memories of My Life and Times, Calcutta: Bipinchandra Pal Institute, 1973.

168

Bibliography

Panikkar, K. M. An Autobiography, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1977. Panjabi, Kewal L. (ed.) The Civil Servant in India, Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1965. Paranjape, Makarand (ed.) Sarojini Naidu: selected letters, 1890s to 1940s, New Delhi: Kali for Women, 1996. Paranjpye, R. P., Eighty-Four, Not Out, Delhi: Publications Division: 1961. Pavate, D. C. Memoirs of an Educational Administrator, New Delhi: Prentice-Hall, 1964. Pennell, Mrs Theodore, Doorways of the East: an Indian novel, London: John Murray, 1931. Pinhey, Mary A. ‘England as a Training Ground for Young India’, Journal of the National Indian Association, 245, May 1891, pp. 228–232. Prasad, Rajendra, Autobiography, Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1957. Pratt, Hodgson, University Education in England for Natives of India: considered with a view to qualify them for the learned professions or the public service: and to create a class who shall mediate between the Indian people and their English rulers, London: James Ridgway, 1860. Rahmat Ali, Choudhary, Pakistan: The Fatherland of the Pak Nation, Cambridge: Pakistan National Liberation Movement, 1947. Ranga, N. G. Fight for Freedom, Delhi: S. Chand & Co 1968. Rao, S. L. (ed.) The Partial Memoirs of V. K. V. R. Rao, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002. Ray, Prafulla Chandra, Autobiography of a Bengali Chemist, Calcutta: Orient Book Company, 1958. Ray, Renuka, My Reminiscences: social development during Gandhian era and after, New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 1982. Reddy, Justice P. Jaganmohan, Down Memory Lane: the revolutions Ilived through Hyderabad: Booklinks Corporation, 2000. Richards, H. C. ‘An Indian Hostel in London’, East and West, 1, 9, July 1902, pp. 920–924. Roy, Amrita Lal, Reminiscences English and American, Calcutta: Roy Publishing House, 1888. Rustomji, Nari, Enchanted Frontiers: Sikkim, Bhutan and India’s North-Eastern Borderlands, Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1971. Salter, Joseph, The East in the West or Work Among Asiatics and Africans in London, London: S. W. Partridge & Co 1895. Sanyal, Ram Gopal, A General Biography of Bengal Celebrities, Both Living and Dead, edited by Swapan Majumdar, 1889; Calcutta: Rddhi, 1976. Satthianadhan, Krupabai, Saguna: the first autobiographical novel in English by an Indian woman, edited by Chandani Lokugé, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998. Satthianadhan, Samuel, ‘Indian Students and English Universities’, Journal of the National Indian Association, 119, November 1880, pp. 603–616. Four Years in an English University, Madras: Srinivasa Varadachari & Co, 1893. Scholes, Theophilius E. Samuel, Glimpses of the Ages, or the ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ races, socalled, discussed in the light of science and history, ii, London: John Long, 1908. Sen, R. N. In Clive Street, Calcutta: M Sen, 1981. Sen, Sushama, Memoirs of an Octogenarian, New Delhi: Chatterjee and Son, 1971. Seshadri, P., The Universities of India, London: Oxford University Press, 1935. Shoddy, ‘Ode to the Boden Scholar’, Shotover Papers,1, II, March 1874, p. 24. Singh, Jagatjit, ‘The Education of Indian Princes’, Nineteenth Century and After, 61, 359, January 1907, pp. 52–55.

Bibliography

169

Singh, Khushwant, Truth, Love and a Little Malice: an autobiography, New Delhi: Viking, 2002. Sorabji, Cornelia, India Calling, London: Nisbet & Co 1934. Standing Committee on the Hindu Sea Voyage Question, The Hindu Sea Voyage Movement in Bengal, Calcutta: Banerjee Press, 1894. Sud, Babu Lal, How to Become a Barrister and Take a Degree at Oxford and Cambridge, Kapurthala: Babu Lal Sud, 1917. Suhrawardy, Shahid, ‘Tagore at Oxford’ in Calcutta Municipal Gazette: Tagore Memorial Special Supplement, first published 13 Sept. 1941, Kolkata: Kolkata Municipal Corporation & New Age Publishers, 2002. Tagore, Rabindranath, Reminiscences, 1st edition 1912, Madras: Macmillan, 1980. On the Edges of Time, 1st edition 1958, Kolkata: Visva-Bharati, 2003. Tandon, Prakash, Punjabi Century, 1857–1947, London: Chatto & Windus, 1961. Punjabi Saga (1857–2000), New Delhi: Rupa & Co 2000. Tyabji, Badr-ud-din, Memoirs of an Egoist, New Delhi: Roli Books, 1988. Vox Studentium, VIII, July–Sept. 1931. Vurgese Thomas, K ‘Indian Students in England’, The Student Movement, XXV, 5, February 1923, pp. 104–105. Wasti, Syed Razi (ed.) Memoirs and Other Writings of Syed Ameer Ali, Lahore: People’s Publishing House, 1968. With Indian Students in London, being the Sixteenth Annual Report of the Indian Students’ Union and Hostel (Indian National Council of YMCA’s), London: Garden City Press, 1935. Zachariah, K. ‘An Indian in England: An Impression’, The Student Movement, XXIII, 1, October 1920, pp. 6–8. Printed secondary works Abbasi, Muhammad Yusuf, London Muslim League (1908–1928): An Historical Study, Islamabad: National Institute of Historical and Cultural Research, 1988. Abse, Joan (ed.) My LSE, London: Robson, 1977. Adams, Pauline, Somerville for Women: an Oxford College 1879–1993, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Adi, Hakim, ‘West African Students in Britain, 1900–60: the politics of exile’, Immigrants and Minorities, 12, 3, 1993, pp. 107–128. Ahmad, Ziauddin (ed.) Quaid-I-Millat Liaquat Ali Khan: leader and statesman, Karachi: The Oriental Academy, 1970. Ali, Abid, The Indian Communists, New Delhi: Indian National Trade Union Congress, 1965. Allen, Charles (ed.) Plain Tales from the Raj: images of British India in the twentieth tentury, Oxford: Clio Press, 1986. Altbach, Philip G. ‘The Transformation of the Indian Student Movement’, Asian Survey, 8, 6, Aug. 1966, pp. 448–460. Arnold, David, Science, Technology and Medicine in Colonial India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Arora, K. C. Indian Nationalist Movement in Britain (1930–1949), New Delhi: Inter-India Publications, 1992. The Steel Frame: Indian Civil Service since 1860, New Delhi: Sanchar Publishing House, 1996.

170

Bibliography

V. K. Krishna Menon: A Biography, New Delhi: Sanchar Publishing House, 1998. Ashby, Eric, Universities: British, Indian, African, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1966. Assayag, Jackie, and Bénéï, Véronique (eds) At Home in Diaspora: South Asian scholars and the West, Delhi: Permanent Black, 2003. Basu, Aparna, The Growth of Education and Political Development in India, 1898–1920, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1974. G. L. Mehta: a many splendoured man, New Delhi: Concept, 2001. Bayly, C. A Beckert, Sven, Connelly, Matthew, Hofmeyr, Isabel, Kozol, Wendy and Seed, Patricia, ‘AHR Conversation: On Transnational History’, American History Review, 111, 5, Dec. 2006, pp. 1440–1464. Bayly, Susan, Caste, Society and Politics in India: from the eighteenth century to the modern age, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. ‘The Evolution of Colonial Cultures: Nineteenth Century Asia’, in A. Porter (ed.) The Oxford History of the British Empire. Volume III: The Nineteenth Century, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 447–469. Bhabha, Homi, ‘Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse’, October, 28, Spring 1984, pp. 125–133. Bhattacharya, Tithi, The Sentinels of Culture: class, education, and the colonial intellectual in Bengal (1848–85), New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005. Bonnerjee, Sadhona, Life of W. C. Bonnerjee: first president of the Indian National Congress, Calcutta: Bhowanipore Press, 1944. Brasted, Howard, ‘Indian Nationalist Development and the Influence of Irish Home Rule, 1870–1886’, Modern Asian Studies, 14, 1, 1980, pp. 37–63. Brock, M. G and Curthoys, M. C. (eds) The History of the University of Oxford. Volume VII. Nineteenth Century Oxford, Part 2, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Broomfield, J. H. Elite Conflict in a Plural Society: Twentieth-Century Bengal, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968. Brown, Judith M. ‘Gandhi A Victorian Gentleman: an essay in imperial encounter’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 27, 2, 1999, pp. 68–85. Nehru: a political life, London: Yale University Press, 2003. Global South Asians: introducing the modern diaspora, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Buettner, Elizabeth, Empire Families: Britons and Late Imperial India, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Burton, Antoinette, ‘Making a Spectacle of Empire: Indian travellers in fin-de-siècle London’, History Workshop Journal, 42, 1996, pp. 126–146. At the Heart of the Empire: Indians and the colonial encounter in lateVictorian Britain, London: University of California Press, 1998. Dwelling in the Archive: women writing house, home and history in late colonial India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003. Carey, A. T. Colonial Students: a study of the social adaptation of colonial students in London, London: Secker & Warburg, 1956. Carroll, Lucy, ‘The Seavoyage Controversy and the Kayasthas of North India, 1901– 1909’, Modern Asian Studies, 13, 2, 1979, pp. 265–299. Chakrabarty, Dipesh, Provincializing Europe: postcolonial thought and historical difference, Woodstock: Princeton University Press, 2008. Chandan, Amarjit, Indians in Britain, New Delhi: Sterling Publishers, 1986.

Bibliography

171

Chatterjee, Partha, ‘Five Hundred Years of Fear and Love’, Economic and Political Weekly, 33, 2, May 30, 1998, pp. 1330–1336. Dahrendorf, Ralf, LSE: a history of the London School of Economics and Political Science, 1895–1995, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Das, Manoj, Sri Aurobindo: Makers of Indian Literature, New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 1972. Dasgupta, Surajit Kumar, West Bengal’s Jyoti Basu: a political profile, New Delhi: Gian Publishing House, 1992. Desai, Shantinath K. Bhabani Bhattacharya, New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 1995. Desh, Kolkata: Anandabazar Group, Autumn 2004. Deslandes, Paul R. ‘“The Foreign Element”: Newcomers and the Rhetoric of Race, Nation, and Empire in “Oxbridge” Undergraduate Culture, 1850–1900’, The Journal of British Studies, 37, 1, Jan. 1998, pp. 54–90. Dewey, Clive J. ‘The Education of a Ruling Caste: the Indian Civil Service in the era of the competitive examination’, English Historical Review, 88, 347, Apr. 1973, pp. 262–285. Anglo-Indian Attitudes: the mind of the Indian Civil Service, London: The Hambledon Press, 1993. Dunlop, Anne and Miles, Robert, ‘Rediscovering the History of Asian Migration to Scotland’, Immigrants and Minorities, 9, 2, July 1990, pp. 145–167. Dutt, Sachin, J. M. Sengupta, New Delhi: National Book Trust, 1983. Eells, Walter Crosby, ‘How Colored Communist Leaders are made in England’, The Journal of Higher Education, 26, 4, Apr. 1955, pp. 187–194 & p. 230. Elliot, Ivo (ed) Balliol College Register, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953. Featherstone, Mike (ed.) Global Culture: nationalism, globalization and modernity, London: Sage, 1990. Fisher, Michael H. Counterflows to Colonialism: Indian travellers and settlers in Britain 1600–1857, New Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004. ‘Migration to Britain from South Asia, 1600s1850’, History Compass, 3, 2005, AS 180, 1–9. Fishlock, Trevor, ‘When a Child of the Raj Could Find an Ever Open Door’, The Times, 16 Oct. 1982, p. 8. Forbes, Geraldine, Women in Modern India, Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Frank, Katherine, Indira: the life of Indira Nehru Gandhi, London: HarperCollins, 2002. Fraser, Peter D. ‘Observing the Empire: Gandhi, Malabari, Tagore and Edun, 1888– 1928’, Indo-British Review: A Journal of History, xvi, 2, June 1989, pp. 7–15. Fryer, Peter, Staying Power: the history of Black people in Britain, London: Pluto Press, 1984. Gauba, K. L. The Rebel Minister: the story of the rise and fall of Lala Harkishen Lal, Lahore: Premier Publishing House, 1938. George, T. G. S. Krishna Menon: A Biography, London: Jonathan Cape, 1964. Ghose, Benoy (ed.) Selections from English Periodicals of 19th Century Bengal: Volume VIII 1875–80, Calcutta: Papyrus, 1981. Ghose, Lotika, Manmohun Ghose: Makers of Indian Literature, New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 1975. Ghose, Sankar, The Western Impact on Indian Politics, 1885–1919, Calcutta: Allied Publishers, 1967. Ghosh, Kali Chandra, The Roll of Honour: anecdotes of Indian martyrs, Calcutta: Vidya Bharati, 1965.

172

Bibliography

Ghosh, Suresh Chandra, ‘English in Taste, in Opinions, in Words and Intellect: indoctrinating the Indian through textbook, curriculum and education’ in J. A. Mangan (ed.) The Imperial Curriculum: racial images and education in the British colonial experience, London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 175–193. Gilbert, Irene A. ‘The India Academic Profession: the origins of a tradition of subordination’, Minerva, X, 3, July 1972, pp. 384–411. ‘The Organization of the Academic Profession in India: the Indian educational services, 1864–1924’ in Susanne Hoeber Rudolph and Lloyd I. Rudolph (eds) Education and Politics in India: studies in organization, society and policy, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972. Gilbert, Martin, Servant of India: a study ofImperial Rule from 1905 to 1910 as told through the correspondence and diaries of Sir James Dunlop Smith, London: Longmans, 1966. Gould, Harold A. Sikhs, Swamis, Students and Spies: the India lobby in the United States, 1900–1946, New Delhi: Sage, 2006. Grewal, Inderpal, Home and Harem: nation, gender, empire and the cultures of travel, London: Leicester University Press, 1996. Gundara, Jagdish S. and Duffield, Ian (eds) Essays on the Histories of Blacks in Britain: from Roman times to the mid-twentieth century, Aldershot: Avebury, 1992. Gupta, V. P. and Gupta, Mohini, A Dictionary of Freedom Fighters, New Delhi: Radha Publications, 1999. Hargreaves, John D. Academe and Empire: some overseas connections of Aberdeen University, 1860–1970, Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1994. Haridasan, V. Dr John Matthai 1886–1959: a biography, Cranganore: Sunil, 1986. Hay, Stephen, ‘The Making of a Late-Victorian Hindu: M. K. Gandhi in London, 1888–1891’, Victorian Studies, 33, 1, Autumn 1989, pp. 74–98. Heehs, Peter, Nationalism, Terrorism, Communalism, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998. Herz, Nicole, ‘It’s Personal Before It’s Political: ambition and angst in the lives of Indian civil servants, 1880–1950’, Essays in History, 40, 1998: http://etext.lib.virginia. edu/journals/EH/EH40/herz40.html, accessed 9 May 2005. Hinnells, John R. Zoroastrians in Britain, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Hollis, Christopher, The Oxford Union, London: Evans Brothers Ltd, 1965. Holmes, Colin, John Bull’s Island: immigration and British society, 1871–1971, London: Macmillan, 1988. Hosain, Attia, Sunlight on a Broken Column, London: Virago, 1961, 1988. Hunter, Kathleen, History of Pakistanis in Britain, Norwich: Page Bros 1962. Ingham, Kenneth, Politics in Modern Africa: the uneven tribal dimension, London: Routledge, 1990. Innes, C. L. A History of Black and Asian Writing in Britain, 1700–2000, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Joshi, Sanjay, Fractured Modernity: making of a middle class in colonial North India, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001. Kamath, M. V and Kher, V. B. The Story of Militant but Non-Violent Trade Unionism: a biographical and historical Study, Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1993. Kaplan, Caren, Questions of Travel: postmodern discourses of displacement, Durham: Duke University Press, 1996. Karlekar, Malavika, ‘Education of a Civil Servant’s Daughter: readings from Monica Chanda’s memoirs’, Feminist Review, 65, Summer 2000, pp. 127–144.

Bibliography

173

Kaul, Chandrika, Reporting the Raj: the British Press and India c.1880–1922, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003. Keer, Dhananjay, Savarkar and His Times, Bombay: A. V. Keer, 1950. Khan, Gulfishan, Indian Muslim Perceptions of the West During the Eighteenth Century, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1998. Khilnani, Sunil, The Idea of India, London: Hamish Hamilton, 1997. Kiernan, V. G. ‘Mohan Kumaramangalam in England’, Socialist India, 23 Feb. 1974, pp. 5–7, p. 36; 2 Mar. 1974, pp. 13–17, p. 24. Kishore, Nilanjana, Sri Prakasha:a political biography, New Delhi: Uppal Publishing House, 1999. Kitchlew, F. Z. Freedom Fighter: the story of Dr Saifuddin Kitchlew, Bognor Regis: New Horizon, 1979. Kopf, David, The Brahmo Samaj and the Shaping of the Modern Indian Mind, New Delhi: Archives Publishing, 1988. Kosambi, Meera (ed.) Pandita Ramabai through her own words: selected works, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000. Krishnaswarmy, N., and Burde, Archana S. The Politics of Indians’ English: Linguistic Colonialism and the Expanding English Empire, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998. Krüger, Horst (ed.) Kunwar Mohammad Ashraf: An Indian Scholar and Revolutionary, 1903–1962, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1966. Kumar, Amitava (ed.) Away: The Indian Writer as Expatriate, New York: Routledge, 2004. Kumar, Deepak, Science and the Raj: 1857–1905, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1995. Lahiri, Shompa, Indians in Britain: AngloIndian encounters, race and identity, 1880– 1930, London: Frank Cass, 2000. Lelyveld, David, ‘Three Aligarh Students: Aftab Ahmad Khan, Ziauddin Ahmad and Muhammad Ali’, Journal of Modern Asian Studies, 9, 2, 1975, pp. 227–240. Aligarh’s First Generation, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978. Lipton, Michael and Firn, John, The Erosion of a Relationship: India and Britain since 1960, London: Oxford University Press, 1975. Lok Sabha, Bhupesh Gupta: Eminent Parliamentarians Monograph Series, New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat, 1990. Rajkumari Amrit Kaur: Eminent Parliamentarians Monograph Series, New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat, 1992. Maan, Bashir, The New Scots: the story of Asians in Scotland, Edinburgh: John Donald, 1992. McCully, Bruce T. ‘The Origins of Indian Nationalism According to Native Writers’, The Journal of Modern History, 7, 3, Sep. 1935, pp. 295–314. English Education and the Origins of Indian Nationalism, New York: Columbia University Press, 1940. McLane, John R. Indian Nationalism and the Early Congress, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977. MacMillan, Margaret, Women of the Raj, London: Thames and Hudson, 1988. Majeed, Javeed, Autobiography, Travel and Postnational Identity, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006 Majumdar, R. C. History of the Freedom Movement in India. Volume II, Calcutta: Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay, 1963. The Majlis Magazine, Hilary 1986.

174

Bibliography

Markovits, Claude, Pouchepadass, Jacques and Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (eds) Society and Circulation: Mobile People and Itinerant Cultures in South Asia 1750–1950, Delhi: Permanent Black, 2003. Marston, Daniel P., Phoenix from the Ashes: the Indian army in the Burma campaign, Westport: Praeger, 2003. Martyn, Margaret, Married to the Raj, London: BACSA, 1992. Masani, Zareer, Indian Tales of the Raj, London: BBC Books, 1987. Mason, Philip, The Men Who Ruled India, London: Jonathan Cape, 1985. Mehrotra, S. R. The Emergence of the Indian National Congress, Delhi: Vikas Publications, 1971. Merton College, ‘An Indian at Merton 1912–1915’, Postmaster and the Merton Record, Oct. 1991, pp. 85–90. Merton College Register, 1900–1964, Oxford: Blackwell, 1964. Minault, Gail, Secluded Scholars: women’s education and Muslim social reform in colonial India, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998. Misra, B. B. The Indian Middle Classes: their growth in modern times, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1961. The Bureaucracy in India: an historical analysis of development up to 1947, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1977. Misra, Maria, Business, Race, and Politics in British India, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Mookerjee, Girish K. The Indian Image of Nineteenth-Century Europe, London: Asia Publishing House, 1967. Mukherjee, Meenakshi, The Perishable Empire: essays on Indian writing in English, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000. Mukherjee, Sumita, ‘“The Land of Gold and Silver”: Indian students and their perceptions of Britain, 1907–1939’ in Robert J. Blyth and Keith Jeffery (eds) The British Empire and Its Contested Pasts, Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 2009. Murshid, Ghulam, Lured by Hope: a biography of Michael Madhusudan Dutt, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003. The Heart of a Rebel Poet: letters of Michael Madhusudan Dutt, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004. Naidu, M. A. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, Hyderabad: M. A. Naidu, 1975. Nanda, Reena, Kamaladevi Chattopadhyaya: a biography, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002. Nandy, Ashis, The Intimate Enemy: loss and recovery of self under colonialism, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1983. Alternative Sciences: creativity and authenticity in two Indian scientists, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1995. Niven, Alastair (ed.) The Commonwealth Writer Overseas: themes of exile and expatriation, Bruxelles: Didier, 1976. Nurullah, Syed, and Naik, J. P., A History of Education in India (During the British Period), Bombay: Macmillan & Co 1951. O’Malley, L. S. S. The Indian Civil Service, 1601–1930, London: Frank Cass, 1965. Overstreet, Gene and Windmiller, Marshall, Communism in India, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959. Palit, D. K. Major General A. A. Rudra: his service in three armies and two world wars, New Delhi: Reliance Publishing House, 1997. Parliament of India, Who’s Who 1950, New Delhi: Government of India Press, 1950.

Bibliography

175

Potter, David C. India’s Political Administrators, 1919–1983, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986. Purani, A. B. Sri Aurobindo in England, Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 1956. Raghavan, G. N. S. M. Asaf Ali’s Memoirs: the emergence of Modern India, Delhi: Ajanta, 1994. Rajkumar, N. V. Indians Outside India, New Delhi: All-India Congress Committee, 1951. Rani, K. Suneetha, ‘Travelogue as (post) colonial satire: Mokkapati Narasimha Sastry’s Barrister Parvatheesam’, Jouvert 7, 2, 2003: http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/jouvert/v7i2/ ksrani.htm, accessed 25 Apr. 2006. Ray, Prithwis Chandra, Life & Times of C. R. Das, London: Oxford University Press, 1927. Ray, Rajat Kanta, ‘Evolution of the Professional Structure in Modern India: older and new professions in a changing society’, The Indian Historical Review, IX, 1–2, July 1982 Jan. 1983, pp. 121–192. Mind Body and Society: life and mentality in colonial Bengal, Calcutta: Oxford University Press, 1995. Raychaudhuri, Tapan, ‘Europe in India’s Xenology: the nineteenth-century record’, Past and Present, 137, The Cultural and Political Construction of Europe, Nov. 1992, pp. 156–182. Europe Reconsidered: perceptions of the West in nineteenth-century bengal, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002. Riedi, Eliza, ‘Women, Gender, and the Promotion of Empire: the Victoria League, 1901–1914’, The Historical Journal, 45, 3, 2002, pp. 569–599. Robinson, Andrew, ‘Selected Letters of Sukumar Ray’, South Asia Research, 7, 2, November 1987, pp. 169–236. Rothermund, Dietmar, The Phases of Indian Nationalism and Other Essays, Bombay: Nachiketa, 1970. Said, Edward W. Orientalism, London: Penguin, 2003. Sareen, Tilak Raj, Indian Revolutionary Movement Abroad (1905–1921), New Delhi: Sterling Publishers, 1979. Sarkar, Hem Chandra, A Life of Ananda Mohan Bose, Calcutta: A. C. Sarkar, 1910. Sarkar, Mahua, Justice in a Gothic Edifice (The Calcutta High Court & Colonial Rule in Bengal), Calcutta: Firma KLM, 1997. Sarkar, Sumit, The Swadeshi Movement in Bengal, 1903–1908, New Delhi: People’s Publishing House, 1973. Sarkar, Susobhan Chandra, Essays in Honour of Prof. S. C. Sarkar, New Delhi: People’s Publishing House, 1976. Sathyamurthy, T. V. ‘Victorians, socialisation and imperialism: consequences for postimperialism’ in J. A. Mangan (ed.) Making Imperial Mentalities: socialisation and British imperialism, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990, pp. 110–126. Seal, Anil, The Emergence of Indian Nationalism: competition and collaboration in the later Nineteenth Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Sen, Satadru, ‘The Politics of Deracination: empire, education and elite children in colonial India’, Studies in History, 19, 1, 2003, pp. 19–39. Migrant Races: empire, identity and K. S. Ranjitsinhji, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004. Sen, Simonti, Travels to Europe: self and other in Bengali travel narratives, 1870–1910, Hyderabad: Orient Longman, 2005. Shah, A. B. (ed.) The Letters and Correspondence of Pandita Ramabai, compiled by Sister Geraldine, Bombay: Maharashtra State Board, 1977.

176

Bibliography

Shils, Edward, The Intellectual Between Tradition and Modernity: the Indian situation, The Hague: Mouton & Co 1961. ‘The Academic Profession in India’ in Edmund Leach and S. N. Mukherjee (eds) Elites in South Asia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970, pp. 172–200. Singh, Amar Kumar, Indian Students in Britain: a survey of their adjustments and attitudes, London: Asia Publishing House, 1963. Singh, Jyotsna G. Colonial narratives/Cultural Dialogues, London: Routledge, 1996. Srinivas, M. N. Social Change in Modern India, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969. Starfield, Jane, ‘A Dance with Empire: Modiri Molema’s Glasgow years, 1914–1921’, Journal of Southern African Studies, 27, 3, 2001, pp. 479–503. Subrahmanyam, Sanjay, ‘Taking Stock of the Franks: South Asian views of Europeans and Europe, 1500–1800’, The Indian Economic and Social History Review, 42, 1, 2005, pp. 69–100. Symonds, Richard, The British and their Successors, London: Faber and Faber, 1966. Oxford and Empire: the last lost cause?, London: Macmillan, 1986. Far Above Rubies: the women uncommemorated by the Church of England, Leominster, Gracewing, 1993. Talbot, Ian, Pakistan: a modern history, New York: St Martin’s Press, 1998. Talukdar, Mohammad H. R. (ed.) Memoirs of Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, with a brief account of his life and work, Dhaka: University Press Limited, 1987. Taylor, A. J. P. English History, 1914–1945, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965. Thomas, Nicholas, Colonialism’s Culture: anthropology, travel and government, Oxford: Polity Press, 1994. Trivedi, Harish, Colonial Transactions: English Literature and India, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995. Tyabji, Husain B. Badruddin Tyabji, a Biography, Bombay: Thacker & Co 1952. Useem, John and Useem, Ruth Hill, The Western-Educated Man in India: a study of his social roles and influence, New York: The Dryden Press, 1955. Vadgama, Kusoom, India in Britain: the Indian contribution to the British way of life, London: Robert Royce Limited, 1984. Venn, J. A. Alumni Cantabrigienses, Part II 1752–1900, ii, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1944. Visram, Rozina, Ayahs, Lascars and Princes: Indians in Britain, 1700–1947, London: Pluto Press, 1986. Asians in Britain: 400 Years of History, London: Pluto Press, 2002. Viswanathan, Gauri, Masks of Conquest: literary study and British rule in India, London: Faber and Faber, 1989. Vittachi, Tarzie, The Brown Sahib, London: Andre Deutsch, 1962. Wali, Kameshwar C. Chandra: a biography of S. Chandrasekhar, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. Walsh, Judith E. Growing up in British India: Indian autobiographers on childhood and education under the Raj, New York: Holmes & Meier, 1983. Who was Who 1900–1980, New Delhi: Durga Das Pvt, 1985. Wolpert, Stanley, Jinnah of Pakistan, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. Young, Robert J. C. Colonial Desire: hybridity in theory, culture and race, London: Routledge, 1995. Zinkin, Maurice and Zinkin, Taya, Britain and India: Requiem for Europe, London: Chatto & Windus, 1964.

Bibliography

177

Unpublished theses Gooptu, Suparna, ‘Cornelia Sorabji 1866–1954: a woman’s biography’, Oxford: D. Phil. thesis, 1997. Lahiri, Shompa, ‘Metropolitan Encounters: a study of Indian students in Britain 1880–1930’, London University: PhD thesis, 1995. Other material Batho, G. R. ‘Morison, Sir Theodore (1863–1936)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/35108, accessed 28 Oct 2005. Narayanan, K. R. ‘The Tata scholarship shaped my personal and professional life’: http://www.tata.com/0aboutus/history/lastinglegacies/20040811knarayan.htm, accessed 12 Nov 2005. Woking Muslim Mission, England, 1913–1968: http://wokingmuslim.org/history/woking. htm, accessed 16 May 2006.

Index

Africans 2, 10, 24, 81, 92 Ahmed, Fakhruddin Ali 55–56, 135 Ali, Chaudhri Mohammad 11, 109 Ali, Choudhary Rahmat 47 Ali, Syed Ameer 90, 108, 136 Ali, Torick Ameer 39–40, 67 All-India Women’s Conference 45, 109 Ambedkar, B. R. 3, 53, 109 Amritsar massacre 46, 92, 98, 128 Anand, M. R. 3, 101 Anglo-Indians (Eurasians) 135 Annual Indian Conference in Derbyshire 85, 106–7 Anthony, Frank 109, 135 army see Indian Army Ashraf, K. M. 102 Baig, M. R. A. 73–74, 85 Baig, Tara Ali 73–74 Banerjea, Surendranath 14 Banker, Shankerlal 33 Bar 15–16, 38–39, 58, 66–67, 93–94, 97, 111, 117, 133, 135 Basu, Jyoti 103–4 Bengal 16, 18, 32, 39–40, 50, 53, 102–3, 106–7, 120 Bhownaggree, M. M. 62–63, 111 Bhuyan, S. K. 38 Bombay 16, 67–68, 72–74, 130, 138 Bonarjee, N. B. 95, 128–29 Bonnerjee, R. C. 88 Bonnerjee, W. C. 14, 67, 88, 122, 124, 128 Bose, Ananda Mohun 14 Bose, Jagadish Chandra 37 Bose, Sarat Chandra 109, 129 Bose, Subhas Chandra 3, 37–38, 46, 64, 98, 101, 129, 141 Brahmo Samaj 74, 108

Britain: Indian expectations of 6–8, 21–22, 30, 48, 75, 82, 95; Indian literary representations of 30, 40 Britain and India Association 79, 92 British in India 54–55, 65, 73, 94, 114–16, 122–23, 133, 137; the Club 54–55, 124, 128, 130–31, 134 Cambridge University 20, 22–23, 55, 57, 104, 113; Indian experiences of 32, 44–47, 56, 63–64, 66, 69–71, 84–85, 87–89, 91, 93–94, 96, 108, 128–31, 134 Cambridge Majlis see majlis caste 7, 18, 31–34, 53; see also Hindus Central Association of Indian Students 101–2, 106 Chagla, M. C. 86, 135 Chandrasekhar 3, 88–89 Chatterjee, Raj 122–23 Chattopadhyaya, Harindranath 44–45 Chattopadhyaya, Kamaladevi 3, 45 Chattopadhyaya, Virendranath 44 Chaudhuri, J. N. 67–68, 124–25 Chettur, G. K. 84–87 Chowdry, K. 91 Christianity see Indian students: Christian class 3, 9, 13, 22–23, 50, 53, 57–58, 60–61, 63–64, 79–80, 140 Congress see Indian National Congress commerce 36, 122–23 Commonwealth 94, 136–39 communism 99–105, 110, 133 Communist Party of Great Britain 103–4 cricket see sports Dayal, Lala Har 98 Dayal, Rakeshwar 63–64

Index Deshmukh, C. D. 129 Dharmavira see Vira, Dharam Dhingra, Madan Lal 19, 96–97 Duleepsinhji 71 Dutt, Michael Madhusudhan 3, 16 Dutt, Rajani Palme 103 East India Association 66, 83 Edinburgh 17–18, 44, 59, 93 Edinburgh Indian Association 17–18, 59 education: in Britain 9–10, 19, 21–22, 29, 48, 55, 79–82, 90–91, 113–14, 116–19, 121, 126, 139–41; in India 8–9, 13–14, 16–17, 50, 114, 119, 137, 139–40 Egyptians 24, 92, 102, 110 England-returned: marriages 42–43, 60–62, 65, 70–72, 129; the term 1–2, 35, 40, 115; westernization 7–8, 39, 42–43, 50–52, 65–70, 72–78, 136, 142 Europe 18, 25, 37, 45, 69, 72, 76, 97, 131 Faraqui, N. A. 130 finances see Indian students: finances First World War 21, 23, 55, 64, 111, 126, 128 Gandhi, Indira 3, 109, 135 Gandhi, Mohandas K. 3, 16, 27, 89, 108, 111–12, 141; as student 31, 66 Gauba, K. L. 71 General Strike 101 Ghadr 98 Ghose, Aurobindo 45, 93, 96–97 Ghose, Manomohan 55 Glasgow 58–59 globalization 11–12, 142 Gokhale, G. K. 94 Gopalaswami, R. A. 130–31 Gupta, Bhupesh 103 Harrow School 93–94 Hidyatullah, M. 33 Hindus 31–32; see also Indian students: Hindu homesickness 5, 44–45, 84 housing 15, 58, 61, 83–84 Husain, Fazl-I 91, 131 Husain, M. Azim 131–32 Husain, S. K. 67 Iqbal, Muhammad 3, 47, 136 India Home Rule League 91 India House, Highgate 44, 97–98, 116

179

India Office 15, 17–20, 24–25, 27–28, 60, 64, 87, 95–96, 104–5, 113, 115, 130, 140 Indian Army 23–24, 64, 73, 123–26 Indian Civil Service 13–14, 16, 20–23, 38–39, 40–42, 56, 111, 126–34; age limit 14, 126; preparation for 17, 86, 119, 126 Indian Educational Service 100–101, 117–19 Indian Industrial Commission 120 Indian National Army 98, 125 Indian National Congress 10, 14–15, 25, 82, 91, 94, 98, 100, 114, 127, 135 Indian princes 9–10, 60, 71, 88 Indian students: Christian 52, 68, 72, 117; Hindu 16, 18, 34, 60; female 3, 25, 28, 52–53; finances 15, 21–22, 27, 33, 113; Muslim 16, 18, 34, 47, 60, 67, 107–8, 136; Parsi 16, 36, 105; Sikh 38 Indian Students’ Department 17, 22, 24–28, 88, 113–14, 121 Indian Students’ Union and Hostel, Gower Street 46–47, 92, 104 Indian universities 13–14, 16, 29, 119–20, 139 Indianization 29, 54, 77, 122–23, 126, 130 Industrial and Scientific Association, Calcutta 18, 122 industry 18–19, 28, 119–23, 139 Inns of Court see Bar Irish 91–92, 110 Jayakar, J. 34–35 Jayakar, M. R. 34–35, 44, 117 Jinnah, Muhammad Ali 3, 16, 112, 135–36, 141, 151 Kabir, Humayam 88 Karaka, D. F. 43, 63, 74–75, 88 Kaul, T. N. 76 Kaur, Rajkumari Amrit 109 Keynes, J. M. 63, 84 Khan, Liaquat Ali 11, 39, 109 Khan, Mohammad Ayub 107–8, 110, 124–25 Khan, Mohammad Said 42, 69, 106 Khosla, G. D. 70–71, 127, 129–30 Kirpalani, S. K. 38, 86, 128 Kitchlew, S. 66 Krishnavarma, S. 97, 116 Kumaramangalam, M. 104

180

Index

Lala, Harkishen Lal 71 Laski, Harold 99 Latifi, Danial 133 law see Bar Lee-Warner Report 17–18, 58, 83, 96 Legislative Assembly 26, 37 London 13, 15–17, 20, 28, 33, 62–63; Indian experiences of 41–42, 45–47, 52, 58, 67, 74–76, 90–92, 95–97, 101–5, 108–9, 115, 133 London School of Economics 36, 85, 87, 99, 105, 109, 122 Lytton Report 17, 21–23, 26, 33, 91–93, 121–22 Mahmud, Syed 109 majlis: Cambridge 84–85, 87–88, 93–94, 96, 104, 129; London 104; Oxford 72, 84, 86–88, 100, 107, 109, 131 Malik, A. R. 93 Manchester 87, 91, 123 Masani, Minoo 105–6 Masani, Zareer 68 Matthai, John 135 Mehta, K. L. 62, 87 Mehta, Pherozeshah 14 Menon, K. P. S. 38–39, 62, 86, 95–96, 154 Menon, V. K. Krishna 3, 105 migration 2, 4–6, 11–12, 140 mimicry 7–8, 51, 66, 78–79 Mirza, Iskander 110 mixed marriage 39–40, 59–62, 77, 79 see also England-returned: marriage Moraes, Frank 72–73 Morison, T. 19 Muslim League 90, 105, 108, 127, 135 Muslim students see Indian students: Muslim Nag, N. K. 122 Naidu, Sarojini 3, 44, 125–26 Naoroji, Dadabhai 63, 151 Narasimhan, C. V. 134 Narayan, K. R. 53 National Indian Association 15–17, 83, 95, 153 nationalism: in theory 9–11, 46–47, 49; in practice 49, 53–54, 74, 81–82, 87–96, 105–12, 114, 127 nationalist leadership 3, 29, 81–82, 111–12, 136 Nazimuddin, K. 11, 109 Nehru, B. K. 31, 40–42, 62, 85, 99

Nehru, Jawaharlal 27, 41, 43–44, 48, 94, 101, 109, 112, 127, 135–36, 141; as student 3, 93–94, 113 Nehru, Motilal 41 newspapers: on the England-returned 36–37, 90–91, 107, 117; England-returned employed in 73, 106, 118 Noon, Firoz Khan 11, 68–69, 110 non-cooperation 41, 82, 95, 108 Northbrook society 17, 83, 153 Nottingham University 106 occidentalism 6–7 Officer Training Corps 63–65, 124–25 Oxford University 22–23, 28, 55, 92, 100, 139; Indian experiences of 33–35, 39, 41, 52, 62–64, 67–69, 72, 74, 76, 85–88, 97–98, 102, 107, 109, 117–18, 123, 125, 128, 131–32, 134–35 Oxford Majlis see majlis Oxford Union 63, 76, 88, 135 Pakistan 28–29, 132–33, 135–36, 138–42; Prime Ministers 11, 109–10, 136 Pal, B. C. 89–90 Palit, D. K. 125 Panikkar, K. M. 118 Pant, Apa B. 62, 64, 102–3 Paranjpye, R. P. 46 Parsi see Indian students: Parsi Pataudi, Nawab 88 Pathans 106 Patel, Vallabhbhai 3, 31, 109, 125, 127 Pollen, John 66, 83, 91 Punjab 16, 23–24, 65, 106, 124, 128, 132 racial discrimination 57–59, 61–65, 66, 75–76 Rahmatullah. S. 134 Rai, Lala Lajpat 94 Ramanujan, S. 3, 37 Ranga, N. G. 33 Ranjitsinhji 3, 58–59, 88 Rao, V. K. R. V. 34 Ray, Prafulla Chandra 119 Ray, Renuka 99 Reddy, Justice P. J. 71–72 Round Table Conference 89, 132 Roy, Amrit Lal 51 Roy, Dilip Kumar 32 Royal Commission on Public Services 114–15, 119, 127 Rustomji, N. 69–70

Index Sadler, M. 91 St Pauls School 96, 125 Saklatvala, Shapurji 59, 100–102, 156 Sandhurst 23–24, 64, 73, 78, 107–8, 110, 123–26 Sarkar, B. K. 63, 84 Sarkar, S. C. 100–101 Savarkar, V. D. 44, 97, 141 Second World War 27–28, 100, 105, 116, 123–25, 139 Sen, R. N. 123 scholarships 1, 15, 53, 98, 114, 116, 119–22, 139–40; technical scholarships 1, 15, 18–19, 119–22 Scotland Yard see surveillance Shukla, J. D. 131 Singh, Jaipal 88 Singh, Khushwant 42–43, 115–16 Singh, Udham 98 Sondhi, G. D. 118–19 Sorabji, Cornelia 52 spies see surveillance sports 59, 71, 88 Srivastava, Susheela 56 student societies 9, 82–88, 110; see also majlis Sud, Babu Lal 58, 117 Suhrawardy, H. S. 11, 107, 109–10 surveillance 19, 25–26, 97, 100–102, 105–7

181

Student Movement House 115 Swaminathan, Govind 56 Tagore, Rabindranath 3, 30, 33, 50 Tagore, Satyendranath 14–15, 55 Tandon, Prakash 77, 87, 106, 123 technical scholarships report 19, 21–22 terrorism 96–99 Tilak, B. G. 79, 93 travel 4–6, 11–12, 21, 43–44, 49 travel-writing 4–6 Trevelyan, Mary 115 Tyabji, Badruddin 14, 67, 133, 136 Tyabji, Badr-ud-din (grandson of Badruddin) 67 unemployment 113–15, 127 University Labour Federation 104 U. P. 86, 128 vegetarianism 33 Venkatachar, C. S. 134 Vira, Dharam 133–34 women see Indian students: female Wyllie, W. H. Curzon 15, 19–20, 25, 96–97 Zachariah. K. 68, 85–86, 117–18 Zaidi, Colonel 69, 94–95