One of the frequently-voiced myths about Gandhi’s non-violent strategy for leading the Indian independence movement is that it only had a chance of success because of the civilized restraint practiced by the British colonial government. Such techniques, the myth goes, would never have worked against a brutal enemy unrestrained by principles of humanity.
The image that people seem to bring to mind about the British empire is people with well-trimmed mustaches in white suits sitting straight in their wicker chairs over tea quietly discussing where to put the cricket field. It’s something that was borrowed from literature and imported into Hollywood and that capitalizes on centuries-old American feelings of inferiority compared to the mother country.
In fact, massacres and brutality were part of the British imperial project in India and elsewhere. Here’s a report from :
British Tax-Gatherers in India.
The friends of peace have had many assailants, who have laughed at them as
Utopian enthusiasts; but we have never heard even the most reckless opponent
attempt to defend the existence of an army, or the practice of war, except as
a dreadful necessity, and only to be legitimately employed in defence against
invasion, or some threatened peril of life or province. What, however, will
be said by the war party in reference to the news received by the last mail
from India; by which it appears that British soldiers have been employed to
collect taxes at the point of the bayonet, and that three villages have been
razed to the ground, and several hundreds of the natives
slaughtered, because the chief had neglected to pay his tribute?
What would be the state of public feeling in this country, if we heard from
Ireland that, because some board of guardians had neglected to refund one of
the Government loans, their town had been sacked and burned to the ground,
and a couple of thousand poor Irish men and women massacred on the spot? It
is impossible to conceive the indignation which would be excited by such a
revolting outrage, if perpetrated at home; but what is there to alter the
character of the foul deed because it has been perpetrated in India instead
of Ireland? Yet the newspapers thus cooly narrate some of the incidents of
this bloody tragedy:— “The practice of the artillery was very good and
pretty. The whole business was over by ten o’clock. The rebels had
immense numbers killed; and lost flags, swords, and matchlocks without end.
At about three o’clock, the three villages having been razed, the force
retired to the level ground, and, on being drawn up, the brigadier thanked
his army, and seemed pleased with their achievements.”
When will the eyes of the people be opened to the real character of our
military achievements in India? It is scarcely twelve months since the
newspapers were filled with the revolting details of our great battles with
the Sikhs. In one action alone, twenty-six British officers were killed, and
sixty-six wounded, whilst 2500 men were slain or disabled, besides the
fearful slaughter of the Sikhs; and yet, even the
Times, writing of this, spoke of it as “a
needless affair.”
An officer engaged in one of those actions, thus describes the conduct of our
troops, the servants of a Christian nation, be it remembered:— “The
cavalry charged in amongst the enemy, and the horse-artillery rattled on at a
gallop, mowing them down in heaps, while we took possession of their guns and
camp, leaving the cavalry to deal with the fugitives; and awful execution
they did amongst them, pursuing them for ten miles. Not a rein was drawn till
the horses could go no farther; their sabres drank deep of blood that
day, and they returned, wearied and jaded, and gutted with
slaughter. The whole line of their flight was strewed with dead; for but
little quarter, I am ashamed to say, was given; but, after all, it was a war
of extermination.”
Are these the deeds of which a Christian people should boast? Are the actors
in such scenes to be the especial objects of national honour and reward?
from The British Friend, .