From the history of Anglo-Indian political satire of the XIX century: "India in 1983" by T. Hart-Davis

Nikitin Dmitrii PhD in History Leading Bibliographer, National Research Tomsk State University 634050, Russia, Tomskaya oblast', g. Tomsk, ul. Lenina, 36 nikitds33@gmail.com Other publications by this author

The specific historical conditions prevailing in India in the second half of the XVIII – XIX centuries – its transformation into a colonially dependent territory, the creation and strengthening of the English administrative apparatus, the penetration of English capital and missionary activity – contributed to the emergence of an Anglo-Indian community in the country. The community, consisting of Englishmen who moved to live in India, and their children born already in the colonies, occupied a special position in Indian society, and this had a serious impact on the perception of the world, awareness of their place in the world, relations with the indigenous population of the country, which, among other things, found expression in memoir literature and art works.

One of the important features of the Anglo-Indian community was its isolation, separation from the indigenous population in conditions of constant interaction with it. If in the XVIII – first half of the XIX century the British who lived in India partly adopted the external side of the Eastern way of life, then in the second half of the century the Anglo-Indian community refocused on the emphasized preservation of European identity, its "civility" and "dissimilarity" to the Indians. One of the reasons for this was probably the popular uprising of 1857-1859, which English contemporaries often called the "Great Rebellion" ^{[1, 2, 3]}. At the initial stage, the uprising called into question the continued existence of British rule in India, and therefore (despite the fact that it was eventually suppressed) the fear of its possible repetition increased distrust between Anglo-Indians and local residents. This led to the fact that any riots that occurred in different parts of the country were perceived as the ground for a new "Great Rebellion", and fears about this were used by the colonial authorities as a basis for suppressing various kinds of popular demonstrations ^{[4, p. 175]}. However, the dislike of the conservative part of the Anglo-Indian community equally extended to the political movement of the Indian intelligentsia, which demanded an increase in the share of Indians in the governance of the country. The ideological basis of these demands was the Manifesto of Queen Victoria in 1858, which appeared as a result of the "Great Rebellion" and proclaimed free access to public service for all subjects of the empire, therefore the nascent national movement openly advocated the preservation of British rule, believing it necessary to correct some of its shortcomings by peaceful, constitutional means. This, in turn, was perceived by the Anglo-Indians as an encroachment on their privileges.

An important stage in the intensification of contradictions between the Anglo-Indian community and the national movement was the public discussion around the Ilbert Bill in 1883. The bill proposed to eliminate from criminal proceedings "any judicial discrimination based solely on racial differences" ^{[5, p. 421]}. Thus, Indian judges had to get the right to judge Europeans, which they had not previously possessed. This proposal provoked violent protests from the Anglo-Indian community. To protect the interests of the community, the Anglo-Indian Defense Association was created, which, through rallies, appeals to the Viceroy and the British Parliament, exerted pressure on the Indian government to preserve the status quo ^[6]. The example of self-organization shown by the Anglo-Indians allowed them to achieve a change in the provisions of the bill, but the discussion around the Ilbert bill had several important consequences. Firstly, he contributed to the growth of tension between Indians and Anglo-Indians. In particular, the "Indian Leaflet", distributed by several patriotic associations, reported: "The personal and class interests of Anglo-Indians are often in direct conflict with the goals that all reformers, whether Indians or Englishmen, have in mind… Their fanatical opposition to [Viceroy] Lord Ripon ... is reflected in the opposition of representatives of their class to all governors-general and statesmen whose memory is most dear to the Indian people" ^{[7, p. 1]}. Secondly, the Ilbert Bill to a certain extent became an important milestone in the development of Indian nationalism ^{[8, p. 552]}, accelerating the unification of patriotic forces in the country, which two years later led to the creation of the Indian National Congress (INC) – the most effective force in the developing national movement.

These factors led to the fact that Ilbert's bill, as well as the rule of the liberal Viceroy Ripon as a whole, remained in the memory of Anglo-Indians for a long time as an example of "wrong" policy that does not reflect British interests in the colonies. Journalism and literature became one of the forms of expressing dissatisfaction with Ripon's policy. In the 1880s, satire, ridiculing the national movement and its English supporters, became a noticeable phenomenon in Anglo-Indian literature. Ilbert's bill, in particular, had a noticeable influence on the worldview of the young Rudyard Kipling. His father Lockwood called Ripon a "terrible disaster" and claimed that only his resignation in 1884 prevented the Anglo-Indians from "going mad with annoyance and fear" ^{[9, p. 23]}. Rudyard himself was also outraged by the bill, according to which "native judges could judge white women" ^{[10, p. 28]}, and subsequently repeatedly turned to criticism of the national movement in India ^{[11, 12]}.

A notable Anglo-Indian literary monument of the period of "agitation for the Ilbert Bill" ^{[13, p. 3]} was the "futuristic" anonymous pamphlet "India in 1983", which survived several reprints at the end of the XIX century – two in 1883, 1888 and 1896. The pamphlet tried to present a picture of the Indian future without the British, which It will be the result of encouraging the "Bengali babus" ^{[14, p. 10]} – the capital's intelligentsia, demanding the expansion of the rights of Indians in governing the country. The author assumed that the ideas of parliamentary democracy in India would be untenable, and the country would plunge into a state of war, in the "good old days of two hundred years ago": "The looting and burning of Bombay was long afterwards sung in Marathi ballads...The combined forces of Russians and Afghans invaded Punjab, sacked Lahore and marched on Delhi, while General Ahmed Shah, who quickly strangled the old commander-in-chief, and then proclaimed himself the head of the troops, and subsequently the emperor of Delhi, slowly advanced from the east to meet them" ^{[13, p. 137]}. The "native Parliament" consists almost entirely of "babu and the league of educated Hindu bachelors" ^{[13, p. 47]}, and only five parliamentarians represented other categories of society. Among them, the last remaining Englishman in India stands out – A. O. Yumbaug, "a deputy from Simla, unanimously elected by the inhabitants of the Ripon Hospital, now turned into a madhouse – almost the only building on this once festive mountain station" ^{[13, p. 49-50]}. Under this name, the pamphlet displays a retired official of the Indian Civil Service, Allan Octavian Hume, who later became one of the founders of the National Congress and is widely known as the "father of INC." ^[15].

"India in 1983" experienced a short but turbulent period of popularity. The leading Indian newspaper, The Times of India, wrote that there is "not a single boring page" in the pamphlet, and it is able to draw public attention to the danger of "neglecting the main races of India for the benefit of Bengali babus" ^{[16, p. 2]}. In 1892, the Anglo-Indian columnist of the Times of India recalled some passages from the pamphlet ^[17] in connection with A. O. Hume's scandalous letter on the danger of a popular uprising in India ^{[18, pp. 317-321]}. At the beginning of the XX century, researcher E. F. Outen called the pamphlet one of the "achievements of Anglo-Indian literature" ^{[19, p. 128]}. In turn, for the Indian periodical press, the publication of the pamphlet became another reason to declare the problems and demands of the people. The newspaper "Nibandh Chandrika", in particular, wrote: "We do not know when the golden age under discussion will come. The current situation of the country is such that the people are crushed by the heavy burden of taxes; the trust placed in us by our rulers is such that they do not allow us to hold even a stick in our hands… Hopes for a golden age in the future... may prove to be true. But in anticipation of future happiness, one cannot avoid current troubles" ^{[20, p. 5]}.

Although the pamphlet was published anonymously, the author's name subsequently became known. It turned out to be Thomas Hart-Davis (1849-1920), an official of the colonial administration, who served for twenty–eight years in various posts in the Bombay presidency (mainly in Sindh). Despite the criticism of the national movement in the 1880s, when the cabinet of G. Campbell-Bannerman came to power in Great Britain, Hart-Davis was elected to the House of Commons from the Liberal Party and joined the active supporters of the Indian National Congress, becoming a member of the British Committee of the INC. In Parliament, Hart-Davis repeatedly supported the expansion of local self-government in India and the adoption of the Indian Councils Act, later known as the "Morley-Minto Reform", which caused great surprise to former colleagues ^{[21, p. 127]}. However, in the Indian conditions of the 1880s, the pamphlet "India in 1983" could rather harm the nascent national movement in the country, since it contributed to the formation of a misconception among the Anglo-Indian community about the goals, objectives and methods of the movement, which at that time was loyal to British rule and colonial administration. The result of this was that a significant part of Anglo-Indians of conservative views not only did not contribute to the expansion of democratic freedoms in India, but, on the contrary, consistently advocated the suppression of the national movement. This position revealed the Anglo-Indian community's fears for the preservation of its privileges and special position in the country, as well as its isolation, which did not allow it to accept the changes advocated by the patriotic part of the Indian intelligentsia. In these circumstances, literature and journalism, especially of a satirical nature, were an important tool for expressing the interests of a community that resisted encroachments on its rights.