Anurag > Recent Status Updates

Given such disparities it even a slight condescension could be refreshing - for example - by Mary saying that Hindoo women - once "developed" by the West - might not be very different from Western women.

That Lady carpenter could take a letter from India and send it to the somebody in the US - tells us of an obvious mismatch of institutional power in the empire.

It's always interesting to read the women's perspective towards the empire - as it offers a clear escape from the talk of military subjugation and allows us to look at the empire as an exchange of ideas. That women had higher status in England cannot be doubted. That it allowed the empire to claim moral superiority needs to be therefore acknowledged.

British rule through Parsis is also evident in Mary's notes.

Mary has noted that men in the (native) Student's society itself had taken up the cause of education for women in the Bombay presidency (men who were educated in Elphinstone college).

The ignorance of those days can be entertaining - Mary finds that the Indians have a Greek goddess which they call with a slightly different (corrupted) name.

It's the first time I have heard - for example - that not wanting to view Indians as fit to self-govern, the Victorians often portrayed women as unmanageable. 1. I don't think this tendency has been given up in the modern media either 2. There was a lot else that was wrong with how Victorians perceived Indians that may be more relevant in the context.

The author seems obsessed with masculinity and race a bit too much at times. More than what Keshab had to say, it seems as if the author seems to draw a lot of conclusion from the English expectation of manliness (masculinity) from Keshab.

The point about Bengali elite finding a new avenue of self-improvement after realising that economic independence wasn't possible within the colonial framework is the root of Hindu nationalism.

It is remarkable that so wound up is the writing in literature-referencing that very little of what Keshab was saying seems to be of interest to the author.

I feel that in an attempt to connect his research with the existing literature on a modern understanding of the Victorian mindset and masculinity, the author has treaded on ambiguity throughout the book. He doesn't seem to have any original ideas - merely an idea of how his observations fit into other ideas.

"Gentlemen of his race are noted for possessing a fatal fluency on platforms."

The relation of nonconfirmist disappointment with the separation of religion and politics with the guilt of slavery (which was a result of political action) is very well argued.

Except in a sense that would appear bizarre to the communism-inspired modern India, Cotton seems to be praising the attributes of Hindoo polytheism - which he finds - "is a present basis of moral order, and rests upon foundations so plastic that it can be moulded into the most diverse forms, adapting itself equally to the intellect of the subtle metaphysician and to the emotions of the unlettered peasant".

At times the book reads like a blueprint of the modern Indian republic - that was to be set up nearly half a century after Mr Cotton would have written this book.

His views are far too left for the today's world when he says that India is too poor to pay for its debts (and therefore the expensive expenditure on its infrastructure is likely to ever be repaid).

The fatal defect of India's administration by the Englishmen is its expensive nature. Issues such as these are much modern problems.

He notes the contradiction in celebrating the colonial institutions and then hating those natives who get too Anglicised.

Mr. Cotton find the petty racism of the Anglo-Indian community rather unfortunate - almost as a a sign of the end-days of the empire - where officers have become too lazy and corrupt to rule.

Mr. Cotton find the petty racism of the Anglo-Indian community rather unfortunate - almost as a a sign of the end-days of the empire - where officers have become too lazy and corrupt to rule.

He argues that the loyalty or disloyalty is meaningless in a dependency like India.

It's interesting to see that Mr. Cotton has almost a game-theoretic view of the options the nationalists face. He asks the government to look at the economic meaning of loyalty - Indians may want British rule but not because they love the British - probably only because the opportunity cost is very high.