In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • The Imperial Idea: Ideas of Honor in British India
  • Steven Patterson

Studies of the British Empire have always had to deal with the ambiguity of the term empire and the somewhat amorphous nature of the system built by England to administer its scattered possessions. Although the empire was held together by various means, few imperialists during the apogee of empire in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century questioned the benefits of British dominion over palm and pine, and even if methods of rule may have differed greatly throughout the empire, the British generally sought to impose rule that was more regular and more defined than the perceived inferiority of “native” rule.1 Yet, for all the various methods of coercion and rule employed in ruling the empire, at least one common thread of imperial thought could be found wherever one traveled in the Empire. Most simply, the superiority of British institutions and customs was rarely publicly questioned, at least not by those who served in an official capacity.2

Individually, imperialists of all classes almost always had more power than Britons back home of equal rank, and imperial lives, with their heightened sense of power, seemed to be much more dramatic because of this superiority, which was itself dutifully cloaked in Kiplingesque terms of the burden of ruling others fairly for little reward. Because of this almost autocratic power, and the apparent predisposition of many “natives” towards hero worship, one of the greatest imperial temptations was the individual tendency towards despotism, which ran against the increasing liberty of hundreds of years of English history. Yet, failure to preserve one’s authority was the gravest of imperial sins, and for small communities of Britons living abroad, especially in British India after 1857, the tendency was towards a homogenous culture always wary of another revolt, a feeling that bound the “aliens under one sky” together for the sanctity of the Raj. Power therefore had to be embraced in ways that were not too “nakedly illiberal,”3 using methods that preserved the somewhat delicate balance of ruling others despotically while still claiming to be morally superior.

Yet, what was the basis of this superiority? Where did this perceived superiority spring from and what was its foundation? How was it learned and maintained? What was the danger in abandoning or changing such a belief? Who could claim imperial power based on such notions of supremacy and who could not? How much of this power rested solely with the British and how much could be shared? The answers to these questions are not straightforward, to the degree that they are answerable at all, but this sense of superiority was keenly felt by Britons ruling abroad during the late Victorian and Edwardian era, especially in the area that is the focus of this paper, British India.

By definition, empires are built and maintained by superiority, notions of which are carefully cultivated in as many different realms as possible, including political, economic, cultural, and martial. Consequently, studies of empire must account for the basis of the superiority of British institutions—both perceived and real—since empires rely on an unequal distribution of power, and the Raj was no exception to the rule. While the wielding of power has long been a concern of both imperialists and imperial historians, until recently power has been measured in political, military and economic terms.4 More recent approaches to empire focus on social and cultural power and the microprocesses of everyday rule, but as Dane Kennedy shrewdly points out, all approaches to empire must take into account the systematic effort by the British to “impose their will on other peoples.”5 Power is never employed without emotion, and Anglo-Indians6 spent much energy trying to convince Indians, the British back home, the rest of the world, and even themselves, that the interests of the subcontinent were best served by the Anglo-Indian rule. Like a suitor continually wooing his prize, the Raj sought to proclaim its honorable intentions toward the subcontinent and that the relationship could be beneficial for both societies.

Like most relationships, however, there was a stronger and weaker partner, and the sense of superiority found outlets...

Share