Like Atanu, I’m fond of Christopher Hitchens’ writings for simple reasons: clarity, lucidity, and a care-a-damn attitude. So here’s a delightful piece tantalizingly titled Victoria’s Secret. He uncovers more dirt on the British empire through a book review and shows how ultimately, the proud and efficient Brits were essentially insecure males.
. And in the wake of this came the dreaded memsahib: the wife and companion and help meet of the officer, the district commissioner, the civil servant, and the judge. She was unlikely to tolerate the pretty housemaid or the indulgent cook. Worse, she was herself in need of protection against even a misdirected or insolent native glance. To protect white womanhood, the British erected a wall between themselves and those they ruled. They marked off cantonments, rigidly inscribing them on the map. They built country clubs and Anglican churches where ladies could go, under strict escort, and be unmolested.
While the sahibs:
Meanwhile, they were encouraged to pick up the custom of the country,acquire a bit of the lingo, and develop a taste for “native” food,but—this in a bit of a whisper—be very careful about the local women.Things in that sensitive quarter could be arranged, but only with themost exquisite discretion.
I disagree with Hitchens when he says
…that the British stayed too long and left too soon. The date on which it became evident that the game was up is a date that every Indian still knows: April 13, 1919. Maddened by a report of a mob attack on (yes, it had to be) an Englishwoman, Brigadier General Reginald Dyer ordered his soldiers to fire into a crowd in the public square in the northern city of Amritsar.
How soon is too soon? But I agree with this, which is both tragic and a slap on the empire’s face.
Daphne’s great-aunt, Lady Ethel Manners, the widow of a former governor, is outraged by Lord Mountbatten’s hasty agreement to partition: The creation of Pakistan is our crowning failure. I can’t bear it … Our only justification for two hundred years of power was unification. But we’ve divided one composite nation into two.
This may be unconnected but what explains the fact that a majority of the teeming terrorists in England today unsurprisingly hail from Pakistan or are children of Pakistani immigrants?
Hitchens again only slightly reveals his bias:
The Raj Quartet, as these excerpts help to make plain, is not so much about India as it is about the British. To understand how they betrayed their own mission in the subcontinent…
What exactly was the British "mission" in the subcontinent except civilized looting and carefully-planned genocide.
One Comment
I too used to like Hitchens. He is good in certain areas. But he takes that as a license to talk about everything else too, without doing any research into things. Lately it seems he came across this website showing how there were 15 saviours throughout history before Jesus that were born of a virgin, had 3 wise men come to them, were crucified etc. And the authors had included Krishna as one of these 15 saviours. So Hitchens says, “I do not believe in Jesus just as I do not believe that Krishna or any of the other saviours were born of virgins.”
Krishna was the 8th child of his mother. Just because lots of saviours had motifs in their lives based on popular myths does not mean Krishna was one of them. Hitchens should think twice before talking about Hindus if he wants this Hindu as a fan. If he does not believe in any religion, fine. But get your facts, or myths, whatever he calls them–straight.