PDF Version[1]
Introduction
Behramji Malabari begins his journal, An Indian Eye on English Life, with a quote stating, “A trip to London has been a dream of mine for years, a hope long deferred.”[2] Malabari was not alone in this wish. Many other wealthy Indian men were quite hopeful to make a trip to England, some calling similarities to a white man’s Grand Tour in Europe or labeling it a “trip to the Motherland.”[3] This was a different outlook on reaching England than that of the lascars, South Asian seamen working on British ships, who found themselves working long, grueling hours, with little understanding of the language and culture, isolated on these ships, and again when they reached shore. Both demographics of South Asian men were not traveling to the metropole to become immigrants—lascars came for work, and wealthy men for pleasure. They came from the same subcontinent, some even from the same city, yet these men had very different introductions to and lifestyles during their stay in England.
This paper examines questions of class and race that South Asians navigated while residing in England. It asks what role class played in a world dictated by white supremacy in the very racialized world that was the British Empire and, more specifically, in the metropole. Who were the South Asian men in the metropole, and why were they there? Were the differences between classes more critical than those of ethnicity? How did each of these demographics interact with the white population of England? What were the implications of the residence of these demographics separated by class and gender on the endurance of colonial ties between Britain and India? How did each demographic navigate life throughout their time in Britain?
For primary sources on lascars, I mainly relied on accounts by observers. This includes Joseph Salter’s book The Asiatic in England: Sketches of Sixteen Years’ Work Among Orientals. Salter was a missionary working under this “Strangers’ Home,” which was meant to provide lodging for Asian, African, and other foreign sailors who ended up in England. I also used newspapers and Parliamentary reports speaking of the lascars and their conditions during their stay in England. For wealthy South Asian individuals, I used the travelogues and journals of these men, who shared their firsthand experiences and reflections on their travels in England. I used the journals of Behramji Malabari, T. N. Mukharji, and Mehdi Hasan Khan, all of whom lived in England in the nineteenth century. Both Malabari and Mukharji were wealthy Indians: Malabari, a Parsi from Gujarat, and Mukharji, from Bengal. Mehdi Hasan Khan was the Chief Justice of Hyderabad in South India. Though from different geographical areas, with other languages and even different ethnicities, the three had similar experiences, as shown in their writings and thoughts about England. Through these sources, I attempt to determine each demographic’s autonomy and agency in the British Empire and how each population interacted with the Empire.
Historians like Norma Myers have analyzed the travels of wealthy South Asian men in England through their written accounts. Others, like Ravi Ahuja, have analysed the lascars in Britain– their path to London, their lives on the ships, and the continual repression they faced despite being British subjects through various unofficial laws and practices. All these historians offer insightful accounts of the experiences of these demographics. This paper attempts to combine the two to investigate the importance of class for South Asians in the British Empire, which was structured by a racial hierarchy, and the effects of this hierarchy on their autonomy, by comparing them. This paper attempts to address this in three sections. The first speaks of the residences and treatment of lascars during their stay in England. The second focuses on the wealthier South Asian men who travel throughout England at their own will. The last attempts to tie the two together by speaking of the autonomy they had during their time in England and the differences in the relationship each demographic had with the British Empire.
Lascars: The Historical Context Of Lascars In Maritime Trade
Lascars were South Asian seamen who worked aboard English ships during the British period in South Asia. They were generically labeled “Indian” but later on came to become an umbrella term for many Asian seafarers from China, Malaysia, and West Asia.[4] These seamen worked out of numerous ports all around South Asia. They were typically hired by ghat serangs, meaning “chief,” and defined as “dock or landing head men.”[5] These men did not always go to sea. Sometimes they negotiated a contract with the seafarers and the captain of the ship and would assemble a crew for these English captains. [6] The ghat serang often received compensation for each ‘head’ they produced, from the captain, but got a continual allowance from the seamen, usually around three percent of their wages. The ghat serangs were particularly useful to the British because they often negotiated allowances for the lascar crew far below those of their European counterparts. In 1815, the Report from the Committee of Lascars and Other Asiatic Seamen was released, in which the British Parliament examined the East India Company’s treatment of its Asian seamen in abominable ways. The Report stated that the “practice of obtaining lascars” was regretful and that there were “abuses incident to this system of procuring men.” Ghat serangs were moving with little restriction under an unregulated legal and economic sector. Still, general protective powers continued to allow what the ghat serangs did to profit the British and the British colonial powers. Their middleman position, benefiting from colonial recruiters and lascars, was often scrutinized, aside from during the Report, for their essential role and their acquisition of cheap labor for the British. Because of the coercive circumstances under which the lascars were hired, it often led them to receive low wages for their work, especially compared to their British counterparts, who received anywhere from 30-50% more than the lascars.[7] For this, the British took almost no responsibility, claiming this was an Indian problem, despite the ghat serangs being British employees, India being a British colony, and the ships working for or under the British Empire.
Economic Contributions and Challenges Faced by Lascars
While working long hours at sea, Indian seamen also faced linguistic and cultural differences with other cabin crew that caused violent confrontations.[8] Many of the seamen spoke little to no English and worked only on the ship, speaking their own languages. As a result, they were often abused by their captains. Chief mates flogged and beat men on their trips and died from “consequence of severe treatment”[9] One English captain, Captain Robert Eastwick, “considered lascars as virtual animals, easily panicked, useless in a crisis, and not worth saving in a wreck” and when his ship sank, “Eastwick remorselessly used an oar to beat off as many lascars as he could, so that the lifeboat in which he saved himself would not swamp”.[10] This, he wrote unapologetically in his journal. These men were not seen as individuals with identities of their own. After Trade Unionists in India argued for a fairer wage gap, British laws of the time were altered to place lascars on the same scale of accommodation as European sailors who worked for the British, but rarely were these rules and laws enforced by British authorities, whose laws are rooted in a racial hierarchy.[11]
The Report from the Committee on Lascars and Other Asiatic Seamen stated that the lascars do not receive reasonable accommodations with due regard to health, cleanliness, and comfort. The Report also claims that the accommodations for the sick were “wanting” because of the lack of hospitals and doctors, with the only reparation for the sick being a blanket or a rug to sleep with on the floor.[12] Joseph Salter was a missionary who worked with migrants, specifically lascars in London.[13] He wrote two books on his relationships with people in the Strangers’ Home for Asiatics, Asians, and South Sea Islanders. The abuses from the report continue into the late nineteenth century, when Salter claims that the lascars are in desperate need of the House because they are selling their little items or resorting to criminality to stay alive.
Despite the conclusions that Parliament came to, the East India Company claimed that “many lascars quickly spent their pay and fell into destitution,” to which the Parliament agreed.[14] Though Parliament acknowledged that lascars needed help with the creation and contents of the report, it was never carried out because of the East India Company’s power over Parliament, which enabled it to secure wealth through maritime trade across the Empire. Parliament concluded that they were not worthy of this help. The final statement of the Report was:
On the whole, though the system appears … to be capable of improvement, and that some new arrangements on the part of the East India Company as well as Legislative provisions, are certainly necessary, yet such as the system is, they have found no cause to be dissatisfied with the Conduct of it.[15]
From Salter’s book, which shows lascars in continual destitution almost fifty years later, we can assume that the East India Company and other naval time corporations that employed lascars made little to no change in their treatment. Essentially, Parliament was negligent, as it was both complicit in and profited from the East India Company’s exploits and the use of lascars.
Cultural Exchange and Assimilation
The streets of England did not take well to the South Asian seafarers when they landed in their ports. There were repeated large-scale riots where South Asian lascars were rioting against poorer British seamen and workers.[16] Because there was little to do on the ship after it had docked in Britain, the lascars were allowed to find work on the docks or other ported ships. However, British workers claimed lascars were stealing work from them, which incited fights and riots between the two groups of workers.
Lascars had a “high potential for mobility” both on and off the ship, especially with the increase of trade-unionist pressure, but it was rare for lascars to climb above wage discrimination.[17] Various devices and regulatory spheres were created to restrict lascars’ freedom of movement. The British authorities and the general public viewed South Asian seamen as “docile” and induced the idea of a British and white authoritarian paternalism that needed to control them.[18] The lascars, subjects of the British Empire, were consistently belittled as such–paternalized in a way that exemplified Britain’s view that they were inferior and needed a British conqueror.
In terms of adjusting to the culture of England, lascars remained largely ignorant of the English language and therefore faced difficulties with communication upon their arrival in England.[19] These men were often only associated with those of their caste, religion, or region, creating further barriers between them and the English populace.[20] Because of this, lascars had difficulty communicating and integrating into the general population and were stranded in an alien environment waiting for a ship to return them home to India.[21] During their time in England, many often lived in destitution, with lascar death estimated at around one hundred and thirty a year in 1814. That year, there were an estimated 2500 lascars in the country.[22] They died from the climate, resorted to begging and crime, and often had to sell bedding and clothing to scrape by.[23] With their meager wages from the trip to England, the lack of money upon arrival, and the hostility they often faced in the ports, it is little surprise that lascar crews suffered high rates of mortality.
Upon the increase in the influx of South Asian seafarers who were sometimes stranded or just temporarily in London, the Strangers’ Home for Asiatics, Africans, and South Sea Islanders opened in 1857.[24] It was a residential home that tried to offer reprieve to these migrants and would “assume functions of maintaining and managing the lascars and arranging for lascar employment or passage home.”[25]When Salter describes the treatment of these lascars and why there was a necessity for the House, he says that the lascars were “herded like cattle—six or wight in a single room or cellar without bedding, or chairs, or tables…” Salter continues that some escaped the ships to be street sweepers, but that would only pay a meager wage and would not push them out of the extreme poverty they were facing in the metropole.[26] Yet even when social programs were created for poorer people of color in England, many English people criticized these programs, claiming that these poorer people of color were taking advantage of them.[27]
Affluent Indian Visitors: Motivations and Backgrounds of Affluent Indian Visitors
In contrast to lascars who traveled to and from Britain at the behest of ship captains and ghat serangs, affluent Indian travelers could choose when and how they visited the United Kingdom. After the Colonial and Indian Exhibition in 1886,[28] there was a significant increase in travel literature to the United Kingdom from wealthy South Asian men.[29] All of these affluent men traveled to the U.K. for leisure, whether for work, recreation, or political activities. Some wanted to travel to see the “motherland,” whether for enjoyment and leisure or as a form of social activism and politics.
A peripheral British education and being raised in a colony that clearly created a racial colony that painted the British as superior, many wealthy Indians became anglophiles. These men labeled their trip to England a “trip to the Motherland,” and described it as a pinnacle of modernity and the blueprint and center point for what India should be, but was inferior to. Some label it the Grand Tour, reminiscent of the tour across Europe taken by aristocratic men after they have finished their education. Many wealthy, South Asian men visited England in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, focused on London due to its position as the heart of the British Empire.[30]
My paper explores three wealthy men from India who travelled to the metropole for different purposes. Behramji Malabari was a Parsi writer and social activist who travelled to London for political reasons. He wanted to speak to British officials about forced widowhood and child marriages in India.[31] T.N. Mukharji was a Bengali author who traveled through England and Europe in 1886 to help create the Colonial and Indian Exhibition in London after being deputed by the Government of India.[32] Mehdi Hasan Khan was the Chief Justice of the princely state of Hyderabad and traveled to England in 1888 to “study the question of difference of nationality, to see the broad principles, political and social, wherein the Indian races differ from the English.”[33] None of these men were in England to stay for long periods. These were temporary and lavish travels.
Engagements with the British Population
These men engaged with England and the English public for many reasons. This exploration, driven by intellectual pursuits, social activism, or even just plain enjoyment, often resulted in journals that tried to explain the dynamics between India and Britain. Wealthy men toured Britain and explored places like Madame Tussauds, the Scottish Highlands, the British Museum, and Shakespearean landmarks—some even noted famous theater actors of the time.[34] However, his activities were not limited to recreational activities of travel. During his time in Britain, he helped fund the Strangers’ Home for Asiatics, Africans, and South Sea Islanders. Hence, Joseph Salter speaks of him fondly in his journals and even dedicates his first book to the Maharaja. Some wealthy men who studied in the United Kingdom had already adjusted to the language and culture of the upper classes in India during their time there. One such man was Amrit Lal Roy, who was a student at the University of Edinburgh. He was taken with London, describing it as a “center of a worldwide empire, a reservoir of wealth, and a whirlpool of activity.”[35]
Though many wealthy men considered living in Britain a spectacle, it was not easy for everyone, and living in the metropole may have been tough for Malabaris. Malabari had come to Britain to campaign for social reforms of child marriage and forced widowhood. Due to his reverent belief that Britain was the pinnacle of modernity and morality, he believed that Britain would restrict child marriage and anyone who “resisted colonial legislation was ‘unmanly.’”[36] Yet, it was in London that Malabari realized that the unnatural economic constraints imposed on India caused “the semi-starvation of 40 million in India year after year.”[37] The constraints also resulted in the depletion of India’s resources. He asserted that it was the peasantry who bore the brunt of this suffering.
These men also interacted with each other. Mehdi Hasan Khan acknowledges that many other wealthy South Asians have taken trips to England and have written about their experiences, but claims that there was only one fascinating account:
The only interesting account of a trip to Europe is the one which was written by my friend, Sir Syed Ahmed, when he visited England in 1872, but as he was absorbed by his interest in the subject of education, he observed very little that lay beyond the scope of his theme.[38]
In all these publications, Mukharji, Malabari, and Khan discuss their interactions with the British public and their perceptions of it. Malabari speaks of the railway system, Khan speaks of the roads, and Mukharji speaks of the markets in London. They observed British infrastructure and related it to its modernity. During their interactions with the British, it was clear that South Asian men could observe rather than just be observed. Yet, their anglophilic point of view from the colony makes their observations as though they were watching from the other side of a telescope; they can still see, but it is warped by influence, even when they can discern details. These men were able to criticize English society. Malabari stated that there was little organization in transportation around England, whether buses or trains, and often complained about the weather. However, their critiques were basic observations that could have been agreed upon by much of the English population at the time, exposing how, despite their freedom to observe and critique, they remained aware of their position as “other” and as a broad colonized population within a white society.
Cultural Encounters and Impact on British Society
When writing their travel journals, Malabari and Khan, while trying to make it a sort of ethnographic accounting of England, recorded first impressions of the city, their interactions with the people, the traffic, the weather, and the women. They recorded how those things were similar and how they were different. They show two sides of what they believe is the same coin and try to compare them on equal terms. Unlike the lascars, these wealthy newcomers often found themselves being welcomed into British society—Malabari had stated multiple times that he was received with welcoming arms even on public transportation.[39] Khan talks numerous times throughout his journals about the utmost hospitality with which he was received—at social functions, at dinner, and even on the street.[40]
However, this extreme hospitality shows the blurred lines between insider and outsider experiences that these men faced. They were welcomed as British imperial citizens and yet welcomed with a generosity so extreme their “exotic” background clearly caused it– something Antoinette Burton labels as an “intrusive benevolence.”[41] The blurred lines between citizens and foreigners were exemplified by their clothing—many of the men wore traditional South Asian attire, highlighting the visible differences between them and the general English population. Some men chose to assimilate into their new social environment, while others felt no need to, claiming it was part of their identity. Yet, despite their attire, all the men were still markedly different from the other white Englishmen. Malabari, Khan, and Mukharji were approached on the streets by various curious people, who they claim were often well-intentioned. However, there were times when these men had more hostile encounters. In his insistence that the English were kind to him, Mukharji emphasizes that there was only one instance where he had a rude encounter with an Anglo Indian but does detail that this man called him a “slave” and demanded to take him a man’s office and would not stop his harassment until Mukharji stated he worked for the Government of India and was engaged with a white companion that would not allow him to fulfil the man’s request.[42] By mentioning this detail at all, Mukharji offers his acknowledgement of white Britons’ belittlement of India, but in his reverence, he highlights Britain as superior. However, he fits into this circle of superiority.
Connections to the British Empire: Power Dynamics and Agency: Lascars in Movement
The lascars in this period had autonomy, but a complex web of constraints marked it. The agency that they exhibited is often invisible to official records. These men were dealing with erasures of their individuality and identity. This section explores how lascars asserted their agency while simultaneously facing systemic obstacles and the denial of their full identities.
We rarely discover the origins of the lascars in a crew. Most lascars served under Europeanized or culturally ambiguous names commonly labeled with the generic “Indian” as opposed to their hometown or port.[43] Because of this, the native languages and regions of many lascars remain unknown. Even Joseph Salter, who worked with and extensively documented the awful conditions the lascars faced, rarely referred to them by name. In his book detailing the sixteen years he worked with at the Strangers’ House, Salter often refers to the lascars as “the crew”, “Mohammedans”, or “Orientals”.[44] Exposing that despite his philanthropic efforts, he himself continues to hold a paternalistic position, infantilizing the lascars due to their race further reinforcing a racial and classist imbalance of the British empire. While it would have been impossible to name all the sailors who took refuge in the Home due to his numerous decades working at the Strangers’ House, there are far fewer references to these men by name and ethnicity than expected. Despite the insight of a man who had worked at the Home for decades, we still have a minimal idea of the identities of many lascars or how they perceived their environment. This is unlike the richer Indian men who had and were able to portray entire personalities. We know Malabari was Parsi and that Mehdhi Khan spoke Urdu and was from Lucknow. However, the very term “lascar” masks the identities and histories of the South Asian seafarers.
Despite the numerous ways lascars could have ended up as nameless, unknown men who rarely appeared in official records and court documents, it was lascars who contributed to the development of an “Oriental Quarter.” These were formed by the lascars who often jumped ship or deserted their ships.[45] These communities served as anchor points in “chain migration” networks, where those who had successfully deserted ships facilitated the arrival of others. These acts, however insignificant they may have been at the time, demonstrate the lascars’ ability to navigate a system that sought to control their mobility. But even after these communities were formed, they were rarely acknowledged—they are not accounted for in census reporting with no indication of Hindu or Muslim affiliated religions in London, which we know is false.[46] In this way, they are stripped of their individuality and their faith.
The limitations the lascars had to face were endless, even and especially when they had the legal right to work and reside in Britain. In 1919, the Aliens Restriction Act “restricted the employment rights of aliens resident in Britain, barring them from certain jobs (in the civil service, for example), and had a particular impact on foreign seamen working on British ships.”[47] Yet, because South Asians were imperial subjects, they had a right to work and stay in Britain. However, in practice, they found it very difficult to find work in ports and around England, both because of other white seafarers and apprehension that the English had about hiring foreigners.[48] Many had to resort to selling their clothes and belongings or even to criminality.[49] In an everlasting feedback loop, this further pushes migrants into the British belief that all poor South Asian immigrants were criminals or taking advantage of poor relief social projects.
The autonomy of the lascars was constrained, erasing their individuality and identity. Unlike their affluent counterparts, lascars often existed in various documents, both personal and political. Lascars are referred to in groups– “Orientals”, “Asiatics”, and “Lascars”. They are rarely given names, and the abuse they faced before and after arriving in London is shown as a common practice that is associated with the demographic. Lascars become a poor and ethnically homogenous demographic that is related to a state of destitution, leaving behind their identity in both their name and the intricacies of culture when joining the crew, simply becoming another Asian sailor.
Though lascars demonstrated agency through the formation of communities, such as the “Oriental Quarters,” these communities were overlooked, perpetuating the erasure of lascars’ individuality and religious affiliations during their time in England. The intersection of their identity as both poor and South Asian in their occupation as lascars removed their identity and diverse backgrounds with the homogenizing term “lascar.”
Affluent Visitors as Agents of Change: Autonomy
Unlike lascars, South Asian men often enjoyed their stay in England. Their wealth ensured a more engaging and seamless visit, with their arrivals and residencies proceeding smoothly in accordance with the plans they created. The affluent men encountered far fewer obstacles and navigated their time in England with ease, benefiting from the resources and opportunities afforded by their class. By the time these wealthy men arrived in England, they were fluent in English, well acquainted with English culture, and very knowledgeable about the British Empire. Affluent Indian men who had already experienced a British India under the British Raj, and were often entrenched with British culture before they had even set foot in the United Kingdom. These men were largely Anglophiles, believing that Britain was the superior state as a pinnacle of modernity in both morals and technology. Falling into the idea that, because of this, affluent travellers had a much easier time navigating around the country.
Mehdi Hasan Khan’s diary offers insight into his movement throughout England as he recorded most days during his time in the country. He was up and around for things such as theatres and dinners, both on his own and at the requests of friends and acquaintances. He had a limitation in the form of “gout” but was still able to go horseback riding, visit Parliament, and travel across the continent at whim.[50]Such an illness would have been disastrous for a lascar, who would not have been able to find work or afford the resources to heal it, with little time and space to rest. Though the EIC should have provided these, hundreds of lascars, when they were not working on the ship, were placed in dilapidated dwellings with no doctors, little food, and highly unsanitary conditions.[51]
Malabari’s diary offered a similar sentiment. He was able to live in an apartment that an English lady rented out, but eventually left, blaming it on the fact that his landlady disliked his manservant, whom he calls Crocodile, describing him as “the eldest son of a gentleman at large, trained to nothing in particular, and accustomed from his infancy to a shabby-genteel existence.”[52] “He claimed that their departure was prompted by the fact that Mrs. M did not approve of Crocodile, who ate more food than she felt Malabari was paying for. She also complained that Crocodile “went about half dressed”—an accusation that implies the sexual danger of such intimate shared interiors.[53] Yet, his own previous records of events make this claim slightly unbelievable, as he seems to have had unfavorable interactions with the landlady. Either way, this incident was quickly brushed over when they found a new residency and was seen as just a hiccup. Malabari was quickly able to move from one residency to another with little to no problem. In fact, he blames it on his lower-class, nameless servant, who is “more Indian” in his half-dressed nature, who will not be able to defend himself or his story. In his final foreword to an Indian Eye on English Life back in India, it is clear that Malabari has a slight disdain for London, but he does not explain why in the foreword or the journal. But by this point, he has gained contempt for Britain due to his realization that Britain was causing economic harm to India.[54] His agency is his ability to print his ideas and leave countries based on his beliefs and not on a larger authority.[55]
Mukharji also writes his journal—A Visit to Europe—and speaks of his Colonial and Indian Exhibition.[56] During the nineteenth century, there was a proliferation of cultural exhibitions in Europe to attract international audiences and showcase colonial culture. They were “seemingly apolitical, these panels were self-conscious emblems for the language and consequent roles of industrialism, labor, and race in defining the cultural hierarchy and connections of the British Empire”.[57] Mukharji was a creator as a colonial subject but with an understanding of British culture. He talks about the visitors and the interactions he has with them. They praise him for his work organizing and directing the Exhibition. In return, he influenced various English-speaking audiences about life and culture in India. His time in England is only temporary—defined by his work on the Colonial and Indian Exhibition. Still, he can interact with various people with little obstructions, able to offer food and drink to his visitors, and they can do the same to him.[58] In a way, Mukharji’s situation is similar to a lascar’s. They are both temporary residents in London due to work. But Mukharji can move around freely, stay in a furnished place, and write about his experiences, offering a narrative in his own voice through his perception, reflecting his background. His autonomy in moving around London, England, and Europe reflects his desires, while the lascars’ movements rarely reflected theirs.
The autonomy of affluent South Asian men during their stays in England is a stark contrast to that of lascars. The more accessible movement offered to affluent South Asian men highlights the profound impact of wealth and class. While lascars faced numerous hardships, affluent South Asians enjoyed a much less jarring experience due to their wealth and familiarity with English culture. Khan, Malabari’s, and Mukharji’s travelogues provide insights into their lives and depict their autonomy, adaptability, and agency as they navigate England and Europe. It was their preferences that shaped their experiences, rather than outside forces, as was often the case for lascars. Affluent men could emphasize their autonomy within the broader context of the British Empire. Khan, Malabari, and Mukherji were all able to return to India and had preferences for when they would return to England. These individuals, though sometimes rejected by portions of English society, were able to negotiate their identities and autonomy with the British Empire with far more freedom than lascars simply because of their class.
The Role of the British Empire in Shaping the Experiences of Both Groups
The early 20th century witnessed two distinct experiences of travel for Indian men in England: the affluent traveler and the Lascar seaman. These journeys, though occurring within the same period and geographical space, were marked by vast disparities in language, social acceptance, cultural immersion, and ultimately, autonomy. Lascar seamen formed the backbone of the British trade, which was the “lifeblood of expanding the British world system.”[59] These men were working for the British ships and occupied the Indian Ocean terrain, through its lowest ranks, at the height of British colonialism in India and Britain’s continued imperialism of countries around the globe, and yet had to fight for their right to proper food and warm clothing.
There is a recurring theme of difference in the pattern of behavior toward Indians between the English “at home” in England and the English in India. Mehdi Hasan Khan, Chief Justice of Hyderabad, regarded the ‘privileged treatment’ as a brother given to Indians in England as a ‘recompense for the humiliations’ they had to undergo in India…It is very gratifying to find that we Indians in England are the pet subjects of the Queen, and privileged brothers of the English.”[60] He claimed that any Indian “who could afford it” should come to Britain “every five years to refresh their admiration for the English people.[61] Malabari said he could admire the British but not their pretentious imperial power.[62]
All these wealthy men were fluent in English and the nuances of English society when they arrived in England. They understood the Empire and wanted to change it, influence it, or observe it, and sometimes liberate themselves from it. The lascars did not have that chance because they were often illiterate, did not speak English, and were unable to integrate into society despite creating wealth for the Empire. The power dynamics and agency of both lascars and affluent Indian visitors were linked to the imperial influence of the British Empire. Lascars contributed to the imperial economy through labor, and affluent visitors through tourism as consumers and cultural ambassadors.
The affluent Indian men who had already experienced British rule under the British Raj were often already entrenched in British culture before they had even set foot in the United Kingdom. These men were largely Anglophiles and had a desire to see Britain and experience new sights.[63] The lascars appeared as a collective mass rather than individuals. They were sometimes coerced into becoming lascars, rarely received fair treatment despite their service to the empire, and experienced a completely different form of Britain both in India and in England.
Conclusion
This article has placed the journeys of the lascars and affluent South Asian men at the heart of the Empire to explore the intersectionality of race and class. It highlighted the similarities and differences in the two experiences, how their shared racial background led to different experiences with the English public due to class status, and how both demographics interacted with imperial power. The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries offered very different realities for the two groups of South Asian men who ventured into the heart of the British Empire. Affluent men were driven by curiosity and a desire to experience the “motherland” and its recreational opportunities, so their experiences were marked by social interaction with the broader British public. Their wealth afforded them the comfort and freedom to explore London on their own terms. Due to their higher class status, they were seen as curiosities rather than threats. These men, despite being motivated by political activism and intellectual curiosity, enjoyed stays full of recreation. These men, while still navigating some level of exclusion, were still able to carve out their identities and influence in British society. This stands in stark contrast to the lascars’ hardships, who were unfamiliar with British culture before embarking on their journey and often remained ignorant of it even after they arrived in Britain. Their understanding of British culture was instead shaped by their work on boats, which often brought together various cultures, religions, and hierarchies, homogenized into a single demographic of “Oriental,” a stark contrast with the “culture” the wealthy South Asians experienced in India. Their interactions with the general British public were often marked by violence and poverty. This disparity stems from the intersectional relations of race and class in Britain at this time. Lascars were valued for their labor but treated as expendable. In contrast, affluent visitors were seen as potential consumers and allies and received preferential treatment.
While the two were welcomed into the country very differently, it was clear that both differed markedly from their British counterparts. For the affluent men, fundamental interactions, like riding public transportation, could be met with stares and questions. As for lascars, they were shunned by British society, often unable to get jobs because of the intersection of their poor class and South Asian race. The experiences of South Asian men in Britain during this era were shaped by power dynamics created by the British Empire, with the lascars contributing to the imperial economy by funding their naval trade through labor and the affluent Indian men being marked by the Empire as British citizens due to their integration within British culture and engagement with the English economy through tourism and other recreational activities. Khan’s observation of the English’s extremely welcoming nature, in contrast to the “humiliations” faced in India, exposes the hypocrisy of the British Empire. This “otherness” stemmed from the power dynamics established by the British Empire that both the lascars and the wealthy South Asians funded and contributed to. Both groups portrayed autonomy differently, with the various restrictions they faced. Lascars managed to be autonomous in some ways, creating the “Oriental Quarter” and a network of lascars in Britain. However, the extreme ease with which wealthier South Asian men travelled throughout Britain, showcasing their autonomy, underscores the importance of class for South Asians in London, a defining feature from a nameless sailor to someone able to observe and critique English society. Understanding intersectionality is vital in understanding the multifaceted nature of South Asian experiences in Britain during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
[1] Sujitha Polimera is a graduate of the University of California, Santa Barbara with a bachelor’s in Economics & History. She wrote “The Autonomy of Lascars and Wealthy South Asian Travelers in Britain in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries” as part of her senior year course work.
[2] Behramji M. Malabari, The Indian Eye on English Life, (Apollo Printing, 1895), p. 29.
[3] Rozina Visram, Asians in Britain: 400 Years of History, (Pluto Press, 2002), p. 110.
[4] Michael H. Fisher, “Working across the Seas: Indian Maritime Labourers in India, Britain, and in Between, 1600–1857,” in International Review of Social History 51 (2006): pp 21-45.
[5] “Report from the Committee on Lascars and other Asiatic Seamen,” 1814-15, House of Commons. pp 1-8.
[6] “Report from the Committee on Lascars and other Asiatic Seamen.” pp 1-8.
[7]“Report from the Committee on Lascars and other Asiatic Seamen.” pp 1-8.
[8] Fisher, “Working across the Seas.” pp. 21- 45.
[9] Norma Myers, “The Black Poor of London: Initiatives of Eastern Seamen in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” Immigrants & Minorities 13:2–3 (1994): pp. 7–21.
[10] Fisher, “Working across the Seas.” pp 21-45.
[11] “THE LASCAR AS A SEAMAN.” The Times of India, (1861-2010), Aug 13, 1910.
[12]“Report from the Committee on Lascars and other Asiatic Seamen.” pp 1-8.
[13] Joseph Salter, The Asiatic in England: Sketches of Sixteen Years Work Among Orientals, (Seeley, Jackson, and Holliday, 1873). pp. 1-37.
[14] “Report from the Committee on Lascars and other Asiatic Seamen.” pp 1-8.
[15] “Report from the Committee on Lascars and other Asiatic Seamen.” pp 1-8.
[16] Myers, “The Black Poor of London.” pp. 7–21.
[17] Ravi Ahuja, “Mobility and Containment: The Voyages of South Asian Seamen, c. 1900-1960,” International Review of Social History 51 (2006): pp. 111-41.
[18] Ahuja, “Mobility and Containment.” pp. 111-41.
[19] Myers, “The Black Poor of London,” pp. 7–21.
[20] Fisher, “Working across the Seas,” pp. 21 – 45.
[21] Myers, “The Black Poor of London,”pp. 7–21.
[22] M.Dorothy George, London Life In The Eighteenth Century, (Kegan Patil, Trench, Trubner and Co. Ltd, 1925), p. 143.
[23] George, London Life in the Eighteenth Century, p. 143.
[24] Salter, The Asiatic in England. pp. 1-37.
[25] Fisher, “Working across the Seas,” pp. 21 – 45.
[26] Salter, The Asiatic in England. pp. ii.
[27] Myers, “The Black Poor of London,” pp. 7–21.
[28] William Clowes and Sons, Colonial and Indian Exhibition : Official Guide, (Printers and Publishers to the Royal Commission, 1886), p. 6.
[29] Visram, Asians in Britain, p. 110.
[30] Visram, Asians in Britain, p. 110.
[31] Malabari, The Indian Eye on English Life, p. 29.
[32] T. N. Mukharji, A Visit to Europe, (W. Newman & Co., 1889). pp. i-xii.
[33] Mehdi Hasan, Fathah Nawaz Jung, Extracts from the Diary of the Nawab Mehdi Hasan Khan Fathah Nawaz Jung, (Talbot Bros., 1890). p. 3.
[34] Visram, Asians in Britain, p. 111.
[35] Visram, Asians in Britain, p. 114.
[36] Antoinette Burton, At the Heart of the Empire: Indians and the Colonial Encounter in Late-Victorian Britain (University of California Press, 1998). p. 162.
[37] Visram, Asians in Britain, p. 114.
[38] Hasan, Fathah Nawaz Jung. p. 3.
[39] Malabari, The Indian Eye on English Life, p. 29.
[40] Hasan, Fathah Nawaz Jung. p. 9, 92, 116.
[41] Burton, At The Heart of the Empire. p.111.
[42] Mukharji, A Visit to Europe. p. 107.
[43] Fisher, “Working across the Seas.” pp. 21–45.
[44] Salter, The Asiatic in England. pp. 81-109.
[45] Ahuja, “Mobility and Containment,” pp. 111-41.
[46] Ahuja, “Mobility and Containment,” pp. 111-41.
[47] Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, 4 & 5 Geo. 5, ch. 12.
[48] Ahuja, “Mobility and Containment.” pp. 111-112.
[49] Salter, The Asiatic in England. pp. 89.
[50] Hasan, Fathah Nawaz Jung. pp. 19-22
[51] Ahuja, “Mobility and Containment.” pp. 111-41.
[52] Malabari, The Indian Eye on English Life. p. 29.
[53] Burton, At The Heart of the Empire. p.179.
[54] Visram, Asians in Britain, p. 114.
[55] Malabari, The Indian Eye on English Life, p. 29.
[56] Mukharji, A Visit to Europe. pp. 64-138.
[57] Peter Hoffenberg, An Empire on Display: English, Indian and Australian Exhibitions from the Crystal Palace to the Great War (University of California Press, 2001).
[58] Mukharji, A Visit to Europe. pp. 64-138.
[59] Fisher, “Working Across the Seas,” pp. 21–45.
[60] Hasan, Fathah Nawaz Jung. p .104.
[61] Visram, Asians in Britain, p. 114.
[62] Visram, Asians in Britain, p. 114.
[63] Julie F. Codell, “Reversing the Grand Tour: Guest Discourse in Indian Travel Narratives,” Huntington Library Quarterly 70:1 (2007): pp. 173–89, https://doi.org/10.1525/hlq.2007.70.1.173.