European Intruders and Changes in Behaviour and Customs in Africa, America and Asia before 1800

Evelyn S. Rawski, Murdo J. MacLeod, Murdo J. MacLeod

• Éditeur: Routledge
• Année: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351938532
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: History
• Sous-sujet: World History

European intrusions had many impacts on invaded peoples, but less attention has often been paid to changes brought about by the encounter in everyday life and behaviour, both for the Europeans and the other cultures. What changed in diet, dress, agriculture, warfare and use of domesticated animals, for example? To what degree were attitudes, and thus behaviours affected? How did changes in the use of types of firearm reorder power structures, indeed lead to the rise and fall of competing local states? Even the design and planning of houses and cities were affected. This volume looks at such changes in the early centuries of European expansion.

11
Cloths, Clothes, and Colonialism: India in the Nineteenth Century

Bernard S. Cohn

In 1959, Mr. G.S. Sagar, a Sikh, applied for a position as a bus conductor with Manchester Transport. His application was rejected because he insisted that he wanted to wear his turban rather than the uniform cap prescribed by the municipality for all its transport workers. Sagar argued that the wearing of the turban “was an essential part of his religious beliefs” (Beetham 1970:20). He didn’t understand why, if thousands of Sikhs who had fought and died for the empire in the two World Wars could wear their turbans, he couldn’t do so. The transport authorities argued that “if an exception to the rules of wearing the proper uniform were allowed there was no telling where the process would end. The uniform could only be maintained if there were no exceptions” (Beetham 1970:19).

At its most obvious level, this was a dispute about an employer’s power to impose rules concerning employee’s dress and appearance, and the employee’s right to follow the injunctions of his religion. Early in the dispute, which was to last seven years, a distinction was made between such items of attire, as the kilt of a Scotsman, which were expressions of national identities—a “national costume” that could be legally prescribed for workers—and those items of dress that were worn as the result of a religious injunction. The advocates of allowing the Sikhs to wear their turbans on the job said that to prevent them from doing so was an act of religious discrimination. The Transport worker’s union supported management in the dispute, on the grounds that an individual worker could not set the terms of his own employment, which they saw as a matter of union-management negotiation.

At another level the dispute was about working-class whites’ resentment of dark-skinned, exotically dressed strangers, whom they saw as “cheap” labor allowed into their country, to drive down wages and take pay packets out of the hands of honest English workingmen. The fact that many of these British workers preferred easier, cleaner, or higher-paying jobs did not lessen their xenophobic reactions. Similarly, some of the middle class saw the immigrants from the “new” commonwealth as a threat to an assumed homogeneity of British culture. The turban, the dark skin, and the sari of Indian and Pakistani women were simply outward manifestations of this threat.

In short, the dispute over the Sikh’s turban can be seen as a symbolic displacement of economic, political, and cultural issues, rooted in two hundred years of tangled relationships between Indians and their British conquerors. In order to understand this conflict, I will explore the meaning of clothes for Indians and British in the nineteenth century; the establishment of the categorical separation between dark subjects and fair-skinned rulers; the search for representations of the inherent and necessary differences between rulers and ruled as constructed by the British; and the creation of a uniform of rebellion by the Indians in the twentieth century.

TURBANS OF IDENTITY

The dispute over Mr. Sagar’s turban also echoed the growing sense of loss of power being felt by the British as they rapidly divested themselves of the Empire in Asia and Africa, and heard their former subjects demanding their independence and some form of equity with their former rulers. The whole social order at home also appeared to the middle and upper classes to be changing, with the revolution being acted out in terms of clothes. The youth of the under class was setting the styles for their elders and betters, and mocking many former emblems of high status by turning them into kitsch and fads for an increasingly assertive new generation.

There is an irony that a Sikh’s turban should be involved in the final act of a long-playing drama in which the costumes of the British rulers and their Indian subjects played a crucial role. For the British in nineteenth-century India had played a major part in making the turban into a salient feature of Sikh self-identity.

Sikhism was a religious movement that grew out of syncretic tendencies in theology and worship among Hindus and Muslims in North India in the fifteenth century. Guru Nanak, its founder, whose writings and sayings were codified in a holy book called the Granth Sahib, established a line of successors as leaders and interpreters of his creed. Through much of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Sikhs faced increasing persecution from their political overlords, the Mughals, as much for their strategic location across the traditional invasion route of India in the Punjab as for their growing religious militancy.

This militancy was codified and restructured by the tenth and last in succession of the Gurus, Gobind Singh. He created a series of distinctive emblems for those Sikhs who rallied into a reformed community of the pure, the Khalsa, from among the wider population, which continued to follow many Hindu and Muslim customs. In a dramatic series of events in 1699, Guru Gobind Singh chose five of his followers as founding members of this new brotherhood. Those selected had shown their willingness to have their heads cut off as an act of devotion to their guru.

Guru Gobind Singh issued a call for large-scale participation in the celebration of the New Year in 1699. Those Sikh males attending were enjoined to appear with their hair and beards uncut. As the festivities developed, there was no sign of the Guru, who was waiting in a tent, until he suddenly appeared brandishing a sword, and called upon the assembled Sikhs to volunteer to have their heads cut off as a sign of their devotion. One volunteered and accompanied his Guru back to the tent. A thud was heard and the Guru reappeared with a bloody sword. The apparent sacrifice was repeated with four other volunteers, and then the side of the tent was folded back to reveal the five still alive and the severed heads of goats on the ground.

These five were declared the nucleus of the Khalsa. They went through an initiation ritual in which they all drank from the same bowl, symbolizing their equality, and then the chosen five initiated the Guru. Next, they promulgated rules: Sikh males would wear their hair unshorn; they would abstain from using alcohol and tobacco, eating meat butchered in the Muslim fashion, and having sexual intercourse with Muslim women. Henceforth they would all bear the surname Singh. In addition to unshorn hair (kes), they would wear a comb in their hair (kangha), knee-length breeches (kach), and a steel bracelet on their right wrist (kara), and they would carry a sword (kirpan) (MacLeod 1976:14–15; K. Singh 1963:83–84).

J.P. Oberoi has analyzed these symbols as well as an unexpressed sixth one, the injuction against circumcision, as establishing the total separation of the Sikhs from Hindus and Muslims. In addition he sees them as two opposed triple sets: The unshorn hair, sword, and uncircumcised penis representing “amoral”, even dangerous power; the comb, breeches, and bracelet expressing constraint. In the totality of the two sets, he sees an affirmation of the power and constraint inherent in humanness (Oberoi 1967:97).

Note that this excursus on the formation of the Sikhs and their symbology does not mention the turban as part of their distinctive costume and appearance. Most scholars who have written about the history of the Sikhs and their religion are silent on the question of when and how the turban became part of the representational canon of the community. M.A. Macauliffe, translator of and commentator on the sacred writings of the Gurus, noted in a footnote, “Although the Guru [Gobind Singh] allowed his Sikhs to adopt the dress of every country they inhabited, yet they must not wear hats but turbans to confine their long hair which they are strictly enjoined to preserve” (1909, V:215). W.H. MacLeod notes that the turban is the one post-eighteenth-century symbol added to the “Khalsa code of discipline” (1976:53). The wearing of turbans, though lacking “formal sanction … during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries has been accorded an increasing importance in the endless quest for self identification” (1976:53).

Early nineteenth-century representations by European and Indian artists of the “distinctive” headdress of the Sikhs showed two different types. One was a tightly wrapped turban of plain cloth, which was either thin enough or loose enough on the crown to accommodate the topknot of the Sikh’s hair. The second type of turban worn by the Sikhs in the early nineteenth century was associated with rulership. This turban was elaborately wrapped and had a jigha, a plume with a jewel attached, and a sairpaich, a cluster of jewels in a gold or silver setting. As will be discussed below, these ornamental devices were symbols of royalty, popularized in India by the Mughals.

In the eighteenth century, Mughal political and military power declined. The Punjab went through a period of invasions and the emergence of contending Sikh polities, which were combined under the leadership of Ranjit Singh by the early nineteenth century into a powerful state. With the death of Ranjit Singh in 1839, the state came under increasing pressure from the East India Company, which in a series of wars finally conquered and annexed the former Sikh state in 1849.

Although the Sikh state was fragmenting, the Sikh armies proved formidable; despite their defeat by the East India Company, Sikhs were treated more as worthy adversaries than as a defeated nation. Those British who fought against the Sikhs were highly impressed by their martial qualities. Unlike many of their conquered subjects, who struck the British as superstitious and effeminate, the Sikhs were considered manly and brave. Their religion prohibited “idolatry, hypocrisy, caste exclusiveness … the immurement of women” and immolation of widows, and infanticide (Macauliffe 1909, I:xxiii). Captain R.W. Falcon, author of a handbook for British officers in the Indian army, described the Sikh as “manly in his warlike creed, in his love of sports and in being a true son of the soil; a buffalo, not quick in understanding, but brave, [illegible data] and true” (1896:Preface). In short the Sikhs, like a few other groups in South Asia (the Hill peoples of Nepal, the Gurkhas, and the Pathans of the Northwest Frontier) who came close to defeating the British, were to become perfect recruits for the Indian army.

Within a year of their defeat, Sikhs were being actively recruited for the East India Company’s army, and the officers who had just fought the Sikhs “insisted on the Sikh recruits being “Kesadhari,” from among the Khalsa Sikhs who were unshorn (Singh 1953:83). Only those Sikhs who loo...

Table des matières

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• General Editor’s Preface
• Introduction
• European Impact in America and Africa
• European Impact in Asia
• Index