Lost in the Shuffle: Sikhism and the Partition of India

On a warm June day in 1984, a large military force made up of Indian soldiers under the command of Sikh General Kuldip Singh Brar, made their way through the Punjab Region to the city of Amristar. Their goal: the removal of Sikh militants loyal to Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, a religious and political revolutionary who had been a vehement advocate for Sikh sovereignty. In what became known as Operation Blue Star, the Indian military swiftly and violently attacked Sikhs throughout the city. The military operation even saw soldiers forcibly attacking Sikh leaders located inside of the Harmandir Sahib (the Golden Temple), the holiest of Sikh edifices. In total, the carnage brought on by Operation Blue Star ended the lives of at least 500 Sikh civilians, and subsequently ignited the fires of further anti-Sikh riots. In the end, it would be considered one of the greatest massacres of Sikhs since the Sikh Holocaust of 1762 (Deol 101-103).

 India’s violent opposition made manifest through Operation Blue Star is far from the only occasion in which Sikhs have found themselves in the crosshairs of their enemies. Dating all the way back to the early critical formative years of the Partition of India (and even earlier), Sikhs have been engaged in a virtual tug-o-war with their Muslim and Hindu neighbors. It was during the formation of both modern day Pakistan and India that Sikhs found themselves desperately trying to pick up any and all scraps of what little remaining sovereignty they could, but for the most part, their efforts proved futile and even paved the way for future hostilities.

To better understand why Sikhs have experienced such vicious animosity from their neighbors, we must endeavor to uncover the nucleus of where and how hostilities began. First, it is important to recognize that Sikhs have a long and proud history in the Punjab Region dating back to the early 15th century. As historian Eleanor Nesbitt points out in her book, Sikhism: A Very Short Introduction: Sikhs’ sense of community is not just a matter of interacting with, and feeling distinct from, the other major religious constituencies of North India. It also has strong regional roots. The family origins of almost all Sikhs, wherever in the world they now live, are in Punjab…Any exposition of ‘Sikhism’ that omits the significance of Punjab for Sikhs is incomplete, especially as Punjab has come to be regarded as the spiritual homeland for Sikhs everywhere (8).

It is of paramount importance that we recognize the special place Punjab carries in the hearts of Sikhs the world over. As a Sikh Mecca of sorts, Punjab serves as both the historical and religious homeland for Sikhs. Without it, the religion and its adherents would have a difficult time establishing their unique heritage and culture.

When Partition became a reality, the natural concern for Sikhs centered on the fate of their native land and the place they would have in it. It is no mystery that the Punjab Region played a center stage in the drama of Indian partition. Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus all boasted the right to govern the region. In his article, “Sikh Failure on the Partition of Punjab 1947,” Akhtar Hussain Sandhu states: Muslims and Sikhs had both been ruling communities of the Punjab, therefore both were confident to claim their political inheritance when the British decided to depart from India…Islam came from Arabia and many Muslims from other countries had settled in the Punjab, while Sikhism was an indigenous religion and its followers were purely local people, which convinced them to claim the region as Sikh homeland (215). And though Sikh claims to the Punjab on the basis of it being their native soil were legit, they did not pacify Muslim or Hindu assertions for control of the Punjab Region. Both India and Pakistan laid claim to the area and fought vehemently for control over it. Historian Yasmin Khan alludes to this fact in her book, The Great Partition, when she writes: “Punjab…was the bloody battlefield of Partition where by far the greatest number of massacres of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims occurred" (Khan, Introduction).

Though having made strong initial claims for their right to control the Punjab Region, Sikhs were finding themselves increasingly on the fringe of the Partition debate. A lack of cohesiveness throughout their ranks, coupled with poor leadership stymied any hope Sikhs might have had of advancing their hopes and desires. As Akhtar Hussain Sandhu states: The land of the five rivers could not produce a leader of national caliber in all the communities, and this resulted in havoc at the critical juncture of history. The Punjabi leadership seemed satiated with their personal benefits in the domains of the Punjab. The Sikh leadership also became victim of this traditional weakness. Moreover, they had to deal with the competent leadership of M. A. Jinnah, M. K. Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, which put them in a defensive position (227).

This general lack of leadership and direction on the part of Sikh authorities made any push for sovereignty a futile enterprise. Sikh officials, who spent more time arguing with one another as opposed to asserting any push for actual sovereignty, saw their chances at shaping Partition in their favor slip right through their fingers.

Instead of using the Partition debate as a platform to assert Sikh sovereignty, Sikh leaders began jockeying for position between the emerging Pakistani and Indian players in an effort to determine which nation would better support Sikh interests. Extreme skepticism of Muslim intentions, particularly those of the Muslim League, sparked contentions between Sikh leaders and Muslim leadership. As a result, Sikhs felt more comfortable in supporting Indian claims and advocated for a division of the Punjab Region that would include Indian control. Simply put, Indian interests were far more in harmony with Sikh desires (Sandhu 224).

It therefore comes as no surprise to discover that tensions between Sikhs and Muslims in Punjab became contentious and downright violent in the wake of Partition negotiations. And while the majority of the violence manifested itself as a Hindu/Muslim dispute, Sikhs were far from exempt from the brutality. In fact, this tragic tale of violence is very much at the “core of any history of Partition” (Khan, Chapter 7). Countless scores of refugees fell victim to the killings, rapes and mutilations that will forever stain the history of Partition. The rape accounts alone are hideous enough to make even the coldest blood boil. Stories of women’s corpses, their genitalia dismembered with teeth marks buried deep into their skin are more common than one would expect (Khan, Chapter 7).

And though they were regular recipients of this kind of aforementioned violence, Sikhs were far from having their own hands clean. Violence was a regular tool on both sides, and many Sikhs resorted to using aggressive measures against their Muslim neighbors “on an unprecedented scale” that could only be rivaled by the violence of the 18th century (Nesbitt 122). Sikh violence would continue even into the post-Partition era, and transition from Muslim to Hindu foes. A good example of Sikh violence would be the retaliation for Operation Blue Star which came in the form of the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by two of her Sikh bodyguards (Deol 91).

For Sikhs, what emerges from this long history of violence during Partition is a sense of lost opportunity. Not only did Sikh leadership fail to take a more active role during the Partition debates, but they failed to unify Sikhs themselves. It would take several more years before Sikhs became galvanized to a collective cause under newer, more inspired leadership. But by then India (and Pakistan) had emerged as the dominant players, while Sikhs were little more than a decent sized minority group. Nevertheless, Sikhs had evolved “from an ethnic community into a nation” by the latter years of the 20th century (Deol 4). By the time of Operation Blue Star, Indian authorities were well aware that Sikhs were beginning to assert their desire for greater sovereignty.

But the question remaining is, has the ship already sailed on the issue of Sikh sovereignty? Did Sikhs miss their opportunity when Britain pulled out of its former colonies and relinquished control to local communities? The relatively recent push for greater sovereignty seems to suggest that at the very least Sikhs recognize that they squandered a golden opportunity to have better secured their interests. The question now is, will Sikhs seize the opportunities afforded them in the here and now to bolster support for their cause? If anything is certain from the history of Indian Partition it is this: the matter seems far from resolved. Only time will tell how future generations of Sikhs seek to protect their interests in their land of the five rivers.

Works Cited:

Deol, Harnik. Religion and Nationalism in India: The Case of the Punjab. New York: Routledge Press, 2000. Print.

Khan, Yasmin. The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan. London: Yale University Press, 2007. Amazon Kindle edition.

Nesbitt, Eleanor. Sikhism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print.

Sandhu, Akhtar Hussain. “Sikh Failure on the Partition of Punjab in 1947.” Journal of Punjab Studies vol. 19, no. 2. (2013): Pp. 215-232. Web. . Accessed 15 August, 2015.

The Forgotten Half: Women of the British Empire

The European continent is home to one of the richest and most diverse cultures in world history.  It has been at the forefront of tremendous change and influence that has both blessed and cursed millions throughout the world.  One of the most influential of all these nations is the little island to the north known as Great Britain. Few would have thought that what started as a relatively small nation would eventually become one of the largest empires in world history yet for all its achievements and conquests, the British Empire is still greatly misunderstood.  Throughout the course of early historiography, the British Empire has been seen and understood through the lenses of male-domination and masculinity.  Rarely if ever is the role of women mentioned within the historiography of the British Empire.  One would think that such an oversight would be foolish, being that half of a given population is essentially discarded.  Yet despite this massive oversight, the role of women in the British Empire is paramount to the understanding of how Britain managed to succeed as an empire.  Though often overlooked, British women played an essential role in the empire by protecting family life, maintaining British culture, and preaching Christian values in the colonies.       

During the early years of colonization, British women played a very small role in the founding of colonies.  In fact, women were rarely seen in many of Britain’s earliest colonies.  In Jamestown for example, the first settlers were exclusively men, being that the most urgent need was for skilled “manly” labor.[1]  Once women began arriving in the various American colonies, most were obligated to suffer under the practice of indentured servitude.  Those who were free, however, married young and began families as soon as possible.[2]  In India, women again were not to be found amongst the earliest colonizers.  In fact, early British colonizers preferred the absence of European women.  They believed that relationships between British men and Indian women actually aided in bridging the gap between the two cultures.[3]  The presence of British women (in their eyes) would only hurt that balance.  The basic rule for women, in terms of British colonization, was that where rule and conquest were the goals, women were a hindrance.  Where settlement and colonization were the aspirations, women were beneficial.[4]

When women finally did make their way to the colonies, their arrival was often met with hesitation and concern.  Though the arrival of women helped to establish and secure British the family culture, it also ushered in an era in which men longed for the “good old days” of concubinage with native women.[5]  No longer were the British men free to mingle with indigenous women, as they had been accustomed.  This change, however, ushered in a new day for British colonizers.  British women brought to the colonies the established customs of European family values.  In turn, women worked to spread such values by networking with one another in their respective colonies.  As one women stated, “An Indian household can no more be governed peacefully, without dignity and prestige, than an Indian empire.”[6]  In short, women strongly embraced the idea that to secure a British-style home within the colonies was the surest way to secure the empire as a hole. 

Life was not easy for the majority of British colonial women.  Leaving one’s home, though exciting, was tremendously stressful as well.  To make matters more difficult, women that entered the colonial world found themselves in more mundane activities than those of men.  As one historian points out, “The colonial world was definitely a man’s world, and women were not allowed to play a meaningful role in it except as petty traders and farmers.”[7]  To help secure the British family structure within the colonies, women worked tirelessly and received little recognition for their efforts.  Within the walls of their homes, women labored as homemakers, wives and mothers.  They were responsible for almost all of the behind the scenes activities that helped to maintain a typical British family.  Whether in the Caribbean, India or Africa, European women faced the every day struggles that were expected on a “proper” British woman. 

As difficult as life may have been as a colonist, it was not without some benefits.  Upon their arrival, many British women were quickly taken as wives.  Since the population of men in a colony was usually twice that of women, many women who came to work in the colonies were quickly married to a willing male.  Their marriage actually proved beneficial, since fewer jobs were available in the colonies than back home.  In fact, fewer women worked outside the home in the colonies than in Britain.[8]  Though not typically working outside the home, colonial women found themselves with more than enough to keep them busy.  The daily tasks of maintaining the home and rearing children were extremely time-consuming.  Fortunately, many colonial women also enjoyed a more luxurious life than their counterparts back home.  A typical middle class family could afford three to six servants in the colonies, whereas back in Britain they could only afford one if they were lucky.[9]

As pleasant as life might have been for some colonial women, it would be a gross overstatement to say that all women shared in the joy.  The reality of colonial life for many women was far from blissful.  For some, the hope for a family of their own was shattered by the horrors of reality.  While trying to escape the struggles of life back home, many women were forced to make their living in the various colonies as prostitutes.  The sex slave trade that grew in the British colonies reached staggering levels.  Some women were even forced to average four customers a night, which provided tremendous revenue for the various brothels.[10]  One can only imagine the struggles of such a life.  The difficulties that accompanied this type of a lifestyle must have been appalling.  In the male-dominated society that was the British Empire, women were often seen (and trafficked) as expendable commodities.  Clearly life as a colonial woman was not as easy as hoped.  Whether working behind the scenes as a housewife or forced to endure the vile conditions as a sex slave, the efforts of colonial women were often forgotten, since women clearly took a back seat in such a society.

Family life was only one of the many ways in which British colonial women were able to make an impact.  Along with the struggles that attend womanhood, was the pressure to maintain and cultivate British culture.  The idea of what it meant to be British was deeply rooted into the lifestyles of many of its citizens.  Not only did it carry the aura of superiority to others, but it also carried masculine overtones.  As Linda Colley put it, “Quite simply, we usually decide who we are by reference to who and what we are not.”[11]  For British women, this meant protecting the British family system from the “corruption” and influence of native populations.  It also meant that women were taught to comply with the idea that a masculine British Empire was the supreme goal. 

One example of the emphasis placed on spreading British culture was the establishment of Empire Day.  Celebrated on May 24 (the birthday of Queen Victoria), Empire Day was a spectacle that was commemorated in nearly 6,000 schools across the empire.[12]  Children across the empire were taught to glory in being British.  Young girls in particular could often be seen singing patriotic songs that celebrated soldiers, while young boys engaged in athletic and warrior patriotism games.[13]  Such activities molded the minds of young boys and girls to embrace the idea of a masculine/warrior society, where women worshipped their fighting men from the sidelines.

In the colonies, the expansion of British culture often grew into full-blown racism. Again, the concept of “Britishness” created an aura in which British citizens felt superior to indigenous people, based on their religion, customs and beliefs.  The British superiority complex was more than evident in India, where the ruling class was exclusively British.  Zareer Masani points out that during the mid 18^th century, the British reserved all high offices of administration while, “The subordinate ranks of administration remained entirely Indian.”[14]   By maintaining exclusive control of high offices, the British Empire created yet another means by which British identity was shaped amongst the masses.  The belief in British superiority began to take a very strong hold in the hearts of its citizens.

For women, this idea of British superiority was defended vigorously.  As the empire continued to branch out, women were quickly integrated into the expansion of British ideology.  As teachers, British women were able to help as educators in India, where they worked hard to help “civilize” the local people.[15]  In Africa, British women were also used to help educate and establish British culture in the area.[16]  For the most part, women took these responsibilities very serious, and were often sympathetic to the needs of the native peoples.  British women proved vital in relocating British culture to the colonies.  As Margaret Strobel states, “in the colonies, as in Britain, women were particularly responsible for carrying out these rituals…women’s work was to maintain the status of the family and preserve social boundaries between Europeans and indigenous people”[17] In essence, women were the gatekeepers of British cultural norms.

For all the good done by women in the colonies, there was still a level of xenophobia that permeated British colonials.  British women were quick to put their guard up in defense of their families.  Women even regularly feared the use of native wet nurses for their children, believing that, “the milk of a native woman should contaminate an English child’s character.”[18]  Women were also quick to point out the “savagery” of indigenous men, who were seen essentially as, “would-be rapists or seducers.”[19]  As one African native put it, “The overall European policy in Africa may be summed up in these two words: white supremacy.”[20]  British men were quick to point out the iniquity that lurked if a “savage” was able to seduce a white woman.  In such cases, British leaders (who were men) failed to recognize any wrongdoing in relationships between European men and native women.  Clearly a double standard had been created. 

Along with the concern for the well being of their women, British men were quick to point out how their culture treated its women with much more respect.  According to the British intellectual James Mill, a society could be judged based on its treatment of women.  As Strobel points out, “In Mill’s view, the status of women progresses from low to high, associated with the evolution of ‘civilization.’”[21]  Based on Mill’s estimation, the British felt vindicated in their assessment that they were more “civilized.”  The novel Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe provides a perfect example of this belief.  The story’s main character, Okonkwo, regularly beats his wives for mundane issues.  In one particular part, he even beats his wife Ojiugo for failing to have dinner ready.[22]  For the British, this would be ample evidence of their superiority, even though it would be reasonable to assume that even Britons were guilty of committing the same acts on their wives.

Another important aspect of British culture was its religious convictions.  For the British, this was one of the major distinguishing factors that uniquely made them British.  As Linda Colley points out, Britons were able to unite more on the issue of their Protestant faith than on any other issue.[23]  For British women, this belief was passionately embraced, since women were traditionally the religious pulse of the family.  In their quest to follow God’s will, British women became zealous missionaries in the colonies.  Their yearning to convert and aid the various native populations made them powerful tools to the empire.  British women were active in establishing villages for runaway slaves, in protesting the ritual burning of native widows, and in seeking an end to the practice of clitoridectomy.[24]  Female missionaries were also successful in areas like India, where they were able to offer education to indigenous women and were able to effectively establish British customs.[25] 

The efforts made by female missionaries convinced many of them that they were capable of branching out and helping even more people.  Women like Dr. Annie Besant, who led the Madras Theosophical Society, helped to inspire much of the nationalist movement in India.  She was able to inspire her followers to unite and, “seek common ground between Indian and European religious and cultural traditions.”[26]  Other women sought to break the patriarchal chains with which they were restrained.  To expand their ability to help, female missionaries in India banded together to create the Ladies Association for the Promotion of Female Education Among the Heathen.[27]  Their goal was to create an organization that would convince the male colonial leaders that a women’s society could organize, convert, and sustain itself.  The measure met with limited success. 

The desire that European women had to branch out and help indigenous people of the various colonies was often met with ridicule, accusation and scorn.  In Africa for example, female missionaries regularly bumped heads with their male superiors in the church.  The male-dominated British social structure had little time or patience to deal with women’s issues effectively.  In one particular instance, the experience of Mary Pigot is very telling of how conflicting male leaders could be with their female subordinates.  While running an orphanage in Calcutta, Miss Pigot was criticized by her male superior, Rev. William Hastie, for how she chose to run the institution.  When Miss Pigot refused to submit to his authority, Rev. Hastie simply accused her of sexual immorality with an Indian man.  Miss Pigot was dragged through six years of legal proceedings, but finally found not guilty.  Despite making false accusations, Rev. Hastie was never reprimanded in any way.[28]  As difficult as things may have been for female missionaries, there is no doubt that their efforts helped numerous people in the various colonies of the Empire.  Their influence helped further the education of countless people within the Empire. 

The British Empire was a vast and diverse world.  For British women, it was a world that offered little recognition for their efforts, and even less praise for their contributions.  In the male-dominated culture that was Great Britain, women took an unfortunate back seat, and their labors received virtually no praise as a result.  Despite the regrettable lack of appreciation for their efforts, British women have left a long-lasting imprint on the legacy of the British Empire.  Through their efforts, British women were able to successfully protect and nurture their families, maintain and cultivate the British culture, and spread the message of Christianity.  Their assistance to the various indigenous populations within the British colonies deserves as much praise as the male missionaries enjoy.  For British women, it was their ability to overcome the chauvinistic atmosphere of male domination that permeated the British Empire.  In the end, this is their greatest legacy.    

---

[1] Lawrence James, The Rise And Fall of the British Empire (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1994), 39-40.

[2] Ibid, 38.

[3] Margaret Strobel, European Women and the Second British Empire (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1991), 3.

[4] Ibid, 2.

[5] Ibid, 4.

[6] Ibid, 17.

[7] A. Adu Boahen, African Perspectives on Colonialism (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1987), 107.

[8] Margaret Strobel, 19.

[9] Ibid, 19.

[10] Ibid, 28-29.

[11] Linda Colley, “Britishness and Otherness: An Argument,” Journal of British Studies (October, 1992): 309-329.

[12] Lawrence James, 328.

[13] Ibid, 329-330.

[14] Zareer Masani, Indian Tales of the Raj (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987), 8.

[15] Ibid, 71-72.

[16] A. Adu Boahen, 104-106.

[17] Margaret Strobel, 13.

[18] Ibid, 18.

[19] Zareer Masani, 55.

[20] Ndabanangi Sithole, Imperialism’s Benefits by an Anti-Imperialist African, taken from the online packet. Chapter 9, page 253.

[21] Margaret Strobel, 49.

[22] Chinua Achebe, Things Fall Apart (New York: Random House Inc., 1959), 29-31.

[23] Linda Colley, 317.

[24] Margaret Strobel, 50-51.

[25] Ibid, 53. 

[26] Zareer Masani, 78.

[27] Margaret Strobel, 53-54.

[28] Ibid, 54.

Did Zheng He "Discover" America?

Today marks the 665th anniversary of legendary Chinese explorer Zheng He's (鄭和 / 郑和) first epic journey to explore the world. Chances are that most Americans (heck, most people in the western world) have never heard of Zheng He, and to be honest, I knew nothing about him until very recently.

Zheng He was an interesting cat to say the least, and his life story would make for one incredible Hollywood movie. As the descendant of a devout Muslim family (his grandfather and great-grandfather even made the haaj to Mecca. No small feat in the Medieval world), Zheng He was exposed to a world that few in 14th century Asia could possibly imagine. Not only was he a follower of a minority religion in China, Zheng had the unique opportunity to travel a large part of the Asian world. With the backing of a wealthy family, Zheng was fortunate to experience things that few of his contemporaries could possibly imagine.

But Zheng's life would change dramatically. After being attacked by a rival clan (a battle in which his father was killed), Zheng was captured by a group of Ming Muslims and eventually made a eunuch. But despite his terrible misfortune, Zheng rose to a position of great favor with the Ming emperor and was hailed for his bravery and fierceness in battle (some accounts state Zheng was close to 7 feet tall but that is probably more the stuff of legend than reality).

As years past, Zheng He eventually became a prominent figure in the growing Chinese naval/merchant world. His voyages throughout the "Western Sea" (Indian Ocean) were well chronicled, and the riches he brought home are the stuff of legend.

But this is the least of Zheng He's accomplishments...at least, according to some.

In his best-selling book, 1421: The Year China Discovered America, author Gavin Menzies makes the bold claim that 14th and 15th century Chinese merchant ships may have landed in the "New World" nearly 70 years before Christopher Columbus. And one of Menzies' chief explorers in none other than the legendary Zheng He.

And though I agree with Menzies' assertion that Zheng He's explorations went much further than the confines of the Indian Ocean (quite possibly all the way to Eastern Europe and certainly to Africa) there is little or no evidence that he made it to the Americas. In fact, Menzies offers extremely shaky evidence that most historians completely reject. For example, his assertion that American Indian DNA can be traced to Asian origins proves little. The overwhelming majority of archaeologists/scientists attribute this to the land bridge from modern Russia and Alaska during the last Ice Age, and the subsequent migration of those Asian people to the "New World." In addition, there are ZERO Chinese artifacts, writings or other documents that were found in America as Menzies claims. This is a complete and total lie and why he would make such a claim is preposterous. In fact, Menzies has had to retract his bogus claim that the remnants of Ming ships have been found in Greenland and North America. Again, a complete fabrication. And finally, Menzies makes the ridiculous claim that Zheng He and his fellow explorers somehow possessed the knowledge that the world was round and were even successful in their mapping and charting of North and South America. This is another complete lie. None of Zheng's maps show anything resembling current geography, nor did Ming voyagers believe the world was round in the 15th century. The following is a typical map from Ming explorers of the world they understood. As you can see, it doesn't resemble anything we might recognize as being North or South America.


Long story short: Zheng He was an INCREDIBLE explorer and his story is worthy of further study by all. However, Zheng He, DID NOT discover America. He didn't even come close. This myth, which is sadly being embraced by some who I am guessing read the title of Menzies' bogus book and take it at face value, is based on nothing.

It's a fraud.

***For more info on Menzies' bogus book click here.***

Book Review: Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency

Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India. By Ranajit Guha. (London: Duke University Press, 1999. Pp. 215).


The historiography surrounding Indian peasantry and rebellion has been a source of ardent debate for historians. Being able to add clarity to the labyrinth of Indian peasant history is no small task for any writer. Ranajit Guha, however, effectively provides strong and convincing evidence that adds a new perspective to the time period and the historiography of Indian studies. In this book, Guha focuses on the critical formative development and understanding of subaltern studies to convince his audience that the elementary aspects of peasant historiography are to be found in the subaltern themselves, and not the traditional British colonial history of years past.

In defense of his work, Guha points out that the traditional understanding of peasant historiography has generally come from a very Eurocentric position, which labels Indian peasants and their rebellions as being wild, ferocious and violent outbursts that required the strong arm of European might to control. In this sense, the “discourse of power,” as Guha put it, places an emphasis on the “rebel conscience” and not the “liberated conscience” (11). To support such a claim, Guha makes special note of several Indian rebellions (ranging from the 18th century to the 20th) and how each rebellion demonstrated a unique consciousness and development, which, for Guha refutes the notion that these various rebellions were the acts of impulsive warmongers (4). And since the rebellions indicate that a strong sense of development and planning went into them, Guha insists that a continued Eurocentric understanding of Indian peasantry and its rebellions will render an incomplete history and continue to deny the subaltern a voice.

It is Guha’s emphasis on the role of the subaltern that renders his work to be highly praised. Instead of automatically labeling the actions of peasant rebels as ferocious, violent, etc., Guha is left free to uncover the psychology behind the burnings and lootings of British homes, stores, etc. In so doing, Guha uncovers the methodical, predetermined objectives behind these rebel attacks (144). It therefore comes as no surprise that Guha’s focus on the subaltern involves the role of class division, which was taken advantage of by the British at every opportunity. However, as the subaltern became more aware of his place in society, the desire to “fight for prestige” and “abolish the marks of his own subalernity” became the principle motive behind the revolts themselves (75). And as Guha continually reminds us throughout the book, this is a reality that cannot be discovered through a continued Eurocentric view of Indian history.

And while Guha’s central thesis rests upon the notion that the subaltern (in this case, Indian peasants) have a discernable voice that is to be recognized by historians, it is interesting to note that much of his research and defense rests upon Western concepts and perspectives. For example, Guha sites and draws upon Marxist ideas to support the dichotomy that existed in the social classes (165-166). However, in so doing, Guha seems to distance himself from his original thesis, which is that a subaltern should be taken at face value, without the influence of (in this case) Eurocentic concepts and ideas, which tend to distort the historical record. By using Marx as a source for his illustration of class distinction in India, Guha draws in the very Eurocentric ideology he claimed to shun.

Yet, this apparent flaw in Guha’s thesis actually adds a measure of credibility to the book’s argument. As Guha points out, the traditional understanding of subalterns tends to be from the perspective of the “dominant” civilization, in this case the British (219). However, by using a traditionally Eurocentric source like Marx, Guha is able to illustrate to a European audience how the subaltern came about seeking an improvement in their social status, which, in turn, helps his audience understand the elementary aspects of peasant insurgencies.

In summation, Guha’s Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency is a striking summation of the “behind the scenes” events that triggered a plethora of peasant rebellions in India. By focusing on the subaltern, Guha presents his audience with an alternative perspective to traditional, Eurocentric Indian historiography. The appeal of his work should therefore be seen through the lens of the often-voiceless subaltern, who, according to Guha, have left behind and indelible impression on Indian history. And though many of his conclusions are likely to be challenged, Guha’s work is sure to remain relevant to the discussion of Indian peasantry and subaltern studies for many years to come.

Tea Parties: 18th Century v. 21st Century

Unless you have been living under a rock, you are aware of the sudden emergence of the "tea party" movements that have captured the attention of many "super conservatives" this past year. In the spirit of the original tea party of old, many of these new activists fancy themselves as revolutionaries who are crying out in the dark for freedom from oppression and tyranny.

But just how similar are the "tea parties" of today with those of old?

Comparing the Boston Tea Party to the various tea parties that have taken place across the nation in recent months is complex to say the least. After all, we're trying to compare 18th century America with today's society. Most of the social, cultural, and technological norms are completely different now. The majority of early Americans wouldn't even recognize modern America as being their "stomping ground." This is probably the most important (and obvious) distinction to make, especially when we consider just how much tea party pundits (most notably Glenn Beck) have tried to cast the founders in a modern light.

With that said, here are a few specific differences between the tea parties of today and the original tea party of 1773:

1. First off, the legacy of the Boston Tea Party (1773) has been used on a number of occasions. In fact, Mahondas Gandhi (not Mahatma Gandhi) invoked the legacy of the Boston Tea Party in 1908 by inspiring his fellow Indians to burn British registration cards. In the early 1970s there were a large number of gatherings that called themselves "tea parties." At one “I Love America” rally led by the Reverend Jerry Falwell, followers were asked to burn bags of tea, symbolizing the people’s anger over the newly-enacted Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade. In 1973, the 200th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, protestors gathered at the White House to call for the impeachment of then President Richard Nixon by throwing bags of tea on the White House lawn. In 1998, two conservative US Congressmen put the federal tax code into a chest marked "tea" and dumped it into the harbor. And finally, in 2006 a breakoff of the Libertarian Party called the “Boston Tea Party” was founded.

2. The motivations behind today’s tea parties and the original tea party of 1773 are completely different. The Boston Tea Party (1773) was actually a protest AGAINST a corporate tax cut, as opposed to today’s tea parties which protested rising taxes and an increase of government spending, etc. In 1773, The British East India Company was nearly bankrupt and instead of providing a "bailout" or government loan, Parliament passed the Tea Act, which eliminated for this company the duty on tea exported to America. As a result, smaller merchants in the colonies were expected to suffer, since they didn’t received the same tax cuts as the East India Company. The Boston Tea Party was the peak of a boycott against a company that got huge corporate tax cuts granted to them by the government. Once the ships from the East India Company arrived in Boston’s harbor, men like Samuel Adams and John Hancock were quick to seize the opportunity and turn it into a political advantage by rallying local Boston merchants to their cause. On December 16, after assembling at the Old South Church to express their grievances, Samuel Adams stood and gave the “secret message” to his devout “Sons of Liberty” (and Masons) to assemble at the docks, where they had their “tea party.” 342 chests of tea (property of the East India Company) were seized and dumped into Boston Harbor.

Now, this is often contrary to what many people know about the Boston Tea Party. After all, most Americans believe that the American Revolution was the result of taxes being levied against them by Britain. This isn’t 100% accurate. To understand the role that taxes played in the American Revolution we must go back to 1765. The British Empire, fresh of its complete rout of the French in the French and Indian War, was faced with a mounting debt as a result of that war. As a result, Parliament decided to levy a small tax (roughly one percent) against the colonists in America. Parliament believed that the colonists needed to play off a small portion of Britain’s debt, since the war had been fought to protect the colonists in the first place. As a result, the STAMP ACT was passed. However, the colonists exploded in anger and protested the act. Led by Boston Revolutionary Samuel Adams, the colonists succeeded in having the Stamp Act repealed. One of the main reasons for their success was their usage of the old propaganda phrase, “No taxation without representation,” which had been coined in 1750 by Reverend John Mayhew. By repealing the Stamp Act, the colonists believed they had succeeded and that everything would be ok.

The colonists’ excitement, however, was to be short-lived. In 1766 Parliament passed the often forgotten DECLARATORY ACT, which stated that Parliament had the right and power to govern its colonies, “in all cases whatsoever.” In essence, this became the catalyst for the revolution. It created a “showdown” between the legitimacy of Parliament’s rule and the sovereignty of the colonies. In fact, Thomas Jefferson would quote the Declaratory Act several times in the Declaration of Independence.

So, while taxes were an issue early on, it is important to recognize that they played a very limited role in bringing about the American Revolution.

3. The Boston Tea Party was an illegal action of a mob that committed assault, theft, destruction of property, etc. The tea parties of today did no such thing (at least to my knowledge). The Boston Tea Party was literally an act of defiance to the laws of the British. The participants were willfully and knowingly being insubordinate to the will of King and country. The results of their actions caused the British to impose a complete blockade of Boston Harbor. Today’s tea parties, while an expression of anger/intolerance of current government decisions, do not invoke the same response nor do they take the same radical steps of defiance.

4. Today’s tea party participants claim that their petition was a “grass roots” movement led and organized by the people, a claim that is hotly debated by many. The Boston Tea Party, however, was not. It was led by prominent and influential Bostonians like Samuel Adams and the VEEEERY rich John Hancock, who, interestingly enough, stood to lose a fortune by the East India Company. His motives were not as pure as we are often taught.

5. The Boston Tea Party was NOT assembled out of a growing concern over the size of government, government spending, etc. Instead it was assembled on issues like colonial sovereignty v. Parliamentary rule, corporate tax breaks, and a lack of government funding for the development of the American merchant class. In fact, this last point (the development of the American merchant class) was a fundamental issue for Thomas Paine in his extremely influential pamphlet, “Common Sense.” It’s worth noting that political activist Glenn Beck has quoted Thomas Paine on several occasions, especially during the tea parties of the last year. However, Beck neglects to recognize the fact that Paine was IN FAVOR of bigger government, more government spending, higher taxes, welfare programs, etc.

And while the differences between the tea parties of today and the Boston Tea Party of 1773 are vast, it’s important to remember that at the heart they share the same basic principle: that the people are where sovereignty and power ultimately reside…at least that is the hope of its participants, whether in the 18th or 21st century. And it’s likely that we haven’t seen the end to the legacy of the Boston Tea Party!!!

Unitarianism and the Brahmo Samaj

It Didn't Just
Impact America

Over at my other blog (American Creation) we have discussed at great length how "infidel" or "heathen" forms of Christianity became a major player in early American society. Many of the traditional forms of Christian orthodoxy were challenged during the founding era -- and even before -- in a way that caused some of our founders to question the traditional forms of Christian worship of their day.

With that said, it would be a grave mistake to say that "Infidel" religion is exclusively the domain of Christianity. Of course all major religions have their "heretics" who, from time to time, challenge many of the traditional beliefs of their respective religions. Whether it's Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc., all religions have had their "revolutionaries" who have sought to reform the long-held beliefs of their society and creeds.

It is in this light that I want to mention the case of the BRAHMO SAMAJ and its impact on modern Hinduism and Indian society. First, it is likely that most Americans are unfamiliar with the Brahmo Samaj. Until my recent grad school class on India I was also completely unfamiliar with it, but it has captured my attention and interest as of late. As a result, permit me to give a brief history and background on the Brahmo Samaj, which I hope will be of benefit and interest to the reader:

The Brahmo Samaj is arguably one of the most influential movements in the history of modern India. Simply put, it is a social order of people committed to a "metaphysical rigor and intellectual discipline of the Brahmo Religion." Their creed consists of the following fundamental beliefs:

1.) On God: There is always Infinite (limitless, undefinable, unperceivable, indivisible) Singularity - immanent and transcendent Singular Author and Preserver of Existence - He who is manifest everywhere and in everything, in the fire and in the water, in the smallest plant to the mightiest oak.

2.) On Being: Being is created from Singularity. Being is renewed to Singularity. Being exists to be one (again) with Loving Singularity.

3.) On Intelligent Existence: Righteous (worshipful, intelligent, moral) actions alone rule (regulate[preserve]) Existence against Chaos (loss [decay, return, pervading emptiness]). Knowledge (Intelligence[reason, sentience, intuition]) of pure Conscience (light within) is the One (Supreme) ruler (authority[law, dharma]) of Existence with no symbol (creation [scripture, book, object]) or intermediary (being[teacher, messiah, ruler]).

4.) On Love: Respect all creations and beings but never venerate (worship) them for only Singularity can be loved (adored, worshipped).

The origins and development of the doctrine of the Brahmo Samaj are complex to say the least. As a result, we must travel back to the early 1800s -- to the beginnings of the Samaj -- in order to appreciate its unique development as a legitimate religious influence in modern India.

Originally born in the Hindu-dominated society of India, the Brahmo Samaj was the "brain child" of Ram Mohan Roy, a young man who had been exposed to a plethora of religious ideas while in his youth. During his early years, Ram Mohan Roy had adopted a preference for monotheism, predominantly the result of his exposure to Islam. In addition, Roy worked closely with several British Christian missionaries who used Roy to "upset" some of the traditional Hindu believers in the region -- must to the benefit of the East India Company and British investors of course. It was during this time that Roy became close allies with Baptist preacher William Carey, whose influential book, An Enquiry Into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens was a stereotypical pro-British, xenophobic work of his era. The book presents an ultra-pro Christian perspective while at the same time condemns the "heathen" religions of India as "idolatrous," "works of the devil," etc.

It was while under the tutelage of Carey that Roy not only learned English, but continued to harden his personal devotion to monotheism. In fact, his insistence on monotheistic belief became so dominating that it caused Roy, with the help of Carey and others, to manufacture the fraudulent work, Mahanirvana Tantra (Book of Great Liberation), which was passed off as ancient scripture that supposedly upheld the belief in "the one true God" -- an idea that obviously flew in the face of traditional Hindu doctrine. Naturally, both Carey and Roy had opposing motives for creating the fraudulent document. Carey hoped to use the document to promote Christianity and its one true God -- Christ. Roy, however, hoped to expose what he saw as lasciviousness, laziness, and idolatry on the part of the Hindu clergy.

So you are probably asking yourself, "why in the world are we talking about India on a blog devoted to the American founding? The reason centers on the doctrine of Unitarianism -- a topic that we have regularly discussed on this blog. As many of our former posts have pointed out, Unitarianism became a powerful and very influential doctrine during the founding era, and many of the key founders found its creed to be to their liking. As historian Sydney Ahlstrom points out in his book, A Religious History of the American People:

God’s grace and mercy were needed, to be sure; yet with regard to the nature of man and human ability, these liberal ministers showed perhaps a greater measure of confidence than any significant group of churchmen in Reformed tradition. And what buoyed their confidence above all was the exhilaration of national independence, the economic and social advances of the American people, and the great destiny (already manifest) of this New World democracy. The idea prevailed widely that “this new man, this American” was a new Adam, sinless, innocent – mankind’s great second chance. Nowhere was it given so well-rooted a Christian interpretation as among these New England liberals, whose ideas on man were far more determinative than the ideas about Godhead which later won them the name “Unitarian.”

It is the doctrine of Unitarianism, born in Europe and exported to the United States...AND INDIA that shaped and solidified Roy's Brahmo Samaj. For example, John Morrison -- a British writer who observed many of the social and religious changes brought to India in the 19th century -- stated that Roy, "had taken to Unitarian doctrine with such vigor that he even set up a church of his own which he called 'the Hindu Unitarian Church.'" In addition, historian Lynn Zastoupil's masterful article, Defining Christians, Making Britons: Rammohun Roy and the Unitarians from Victorian Studies, demonstrates just how powerful Unitarian teachings were on Roy. In fact, Zastoupil points out that Roy was specifically courted by various Unitarian ministers -- in both Britain and the United States -- for his devotion to human rights issues like the removal of the Indian Caste system, the dowry system, and the doctrine of Sati.

Even by comparing the two sets of doctrine -- from the Unitarians and the Brahmo Samaj -- one can gain an appreciation for just how influential Unitarian ideology was on Roy and the B. Samaj:

- Brahmo Samaj embraces truth, knowledge, reason, free will and virtuous intuition (observation) as guides.
- Brahmo Samaj embraces secular principles but oppose sectarianism and imposition of religious belief into governance (especially propagation of religious belief by government).
- Brahmo Samaj embraces the co-existence of Brahmo principles with governance, but oppose all governance in conflict with Brahmo principles.
- Brahmo Samaj rejects narrow theism (especially polytheism), idolatry, ascetism and symbolism. - Brahmo Samaj rejects the need for formal rituals, priests or places (church, temple, mosque) for worship.
- Brahmo Samaj rejects dogma and superstition.
- Brahmo Samaj rejects scripture as authority.
- Brahmos reject revelations, prophets, gurus, messiahs, or avatars as authority.
- Brahmo Samaj rejects bigotry and irrational distinctions like caste, creed, colour, race, religion which divide beings.
- Brahmo Samaj rejects all forms of totalitarianism.
- Brahmos examine the prevalent notion of "sin".
- Brahmos examine the prevalent notions of "heaven" or "hell".
- Brahmos examine the prevalent notion of "salvation". [Click here for link].

And now, for comparison, here are some of the basic beliefs of Unitarianism:

- The inherent worth and dignity of every person
- Justice, equity and compassion in human relations
-Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations
- A free and responsible search for truth and meaning
- The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large
- The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all
- Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part
Unitarian Universalism (UU) draws from many sources:
- Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit
- Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

Simply put, the development of the Brahmo Samaj is anything but a native movement within India. In the same way that Unitarianism influenced the founding generation in America, Ram Mohan Roy and the Brahmo Samaj were, arguably, even more influenced by Unitarian ideology. Unitarianism's influence throughout Europe, the United States, AND India demonstrates just how powerful its doctrine was during the 18th and 19th centuries.