|
|
|
|
|
||
Chapter 9
Echo of British Anti-Sikh Propaganda
The British imperialists who saw themselves as “new Romans” with the
mandate to “civilise and enlighten” the newly conquered people kept changing
their views of Indian people in order to justify their subjugation and
exploitation of them:
What Thomas Trautman describes as ‘Indomania’ began in the
eighteenth century with educated European gentlemen unreservedly enthused by
the study of Sanskrit; in the similarities of Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin,
they saw intimate kinship between British and Indian civilizations. The earliest
Orientlist, most notably Freidrich Max Muller looked to the ancient Vedas to
understand the origin of this kinship. Through their analysis of Vedic sources,
the Orientalists concluded that Indian civilization was older and more original
than that of Greece; the authority of the scripture stemmed from its
independence and antiquity in comparison to the Bible. … Still Hinduism in its
contemporary context was the enigmatic link to the wisdom of Vedic antiquity
and was thus a domain worthy of dutiful attention. …
With the nineteenth century came the radically diverging
Evangelical and Unitarian movements. … In conjugation the two movements
constituted the prevailing Anglicist policy of the nineteenth century. Trautman
characterizes the profound change in British attitudes in the early nineteenth
century as a move from ‘Indomania’ to ‘Indophobia’.1
The British imperialists
accomplished their objectives by dividing the Indian people into various groups
in order to play one group against the other. Noble Aryans of the North versus
the loathsome, morally corrupt and effete race of Dravidians of the South, the
martial versus non-martial races,2 the
“brave, active and cheerful, without polish, but neither destitute of sincerity
nor attachment” Khalsa Sikhs versus “full of intrigue, pliant, versatile and
insinuating” non-Khalsa Sikhs;3 agriculturists
versus non-agriculturists; the effeminate Bengali babus versus the unpolished though manly frontiersman in the newly
annexed British colony of Punjab; Hindus versus Muslims; Hindus versus Sikhs;
Sikhs versus Muslims, Sikhs versus Sanatan Sikhs (Hindus disguised as Sikhs),
Arya Samajists versus Sanatan Hindus and so on.4
Even after recognizing the
modus operandi of the British, Jakobsh has no compunction in using the writing
of the same imperialists to malign the Sikhs:
Somewhat
hesitantly, given the tenuous politics of similarity between the British and
the Sikhs, the latter were often portrayed by the British as intrinsically
immoral, most particularly with regard to their sexual mores. British
administrators, steeped in a Victorian ethos with its exaggerated oppositions
of masculinity and femininity and corresponding puritanical sexual codes, were
troubled by what they perceived as sexual depravity among Sikhs. Cunningham5 in the mid-nineteenth century explained this
sexual depravity thus:
[T]he sense of
personal honour and the female purity is less high among the rude and ignorant
of every age than among the informed and the civilised; and when the whole
peasantry of a country suddenly attain to power and wealth, and are freed from
many of the restraints of society, an unusual proportion will necessarily resign
themselves to seduction of pleasure, and freely give way to their most depraved
appetites (1990: 159).6
Besides
commenting on the absence of honour among Sikhs in relation to their womenfolk,
Cunnigham was presumably referring to homosexual practices observed among the
Sikhs, especially in the court of Maharajah Ranjit Singh. Princep (1834: 85)
had earlier commented on the prevalence of homosexual activities in the court,
and among Sikhs in general.7
Jakobsh has no problem
putting words in Cunningham’s mouth. Cunningham made absolutely no reference to homosexuality among
Sikhs anywhere. It is disingenuous on Jakobsh’s part to conceal the main thrust
of Cunningham’s observation about Sikhs’ sexual morals, which is contrary to
what she has stated. After discussing Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s marriages,
Cunningham says:
Such were the
domestic relations of Ranjit Singh, but he shared largely in the opprobrium
heaped upon his countrymen as the practitioners of every immorality, and he is
not only represented to have frequently indulged in strong drink, but to have
occasionally outraged decency by appearing in public inebriated, and surrounded
with courtesans. In his earlier days one of these women named Mohra, obtained
great ascendancy over him and, in 1811, he caused coins or medal to be struck
bearing her name; but it would be idle to regard Ranjit Singh a habitual
drunkard or as one greatly devoted to sensual pleasers; and it would be equally
unreasonable to believe the mass of the Sikh people as wholly lost to shame and
as revelers in every vice which disgraces humanity.
Doubtless the
sense of personal honour and the female purity is less high among the rude and
ignorant of every age than among the informed and the civilised; and when the
whole peasantry of a country suddenly attain to power and wealth, and are freed
from many of the restraints of society, an unusual proportion will necessarily
resign themselves to seduction of pleasure, and freely give way to their most
depraved appetites. But such excesses are nevertheless exceptional to the
general usage, and those who vilify the Sikhs at one time, and describe their
long and rapid marches at another, should remember the contradiction, and
reflect that what common-sense and the better feelings of our nature have
always condemned, can never be the ordinary practice of a nation. The armed
defenders of a country cannot be kept under the same degree of moral restraint
as ordinary citizens, with quiet habits, fixed abodes, and watchful pastures,
and it is illogical to apply the character of a few dissolute chiefs and
licentious soldiers to thousands of hardy peasants and industrious mechanics,
and even generally to that body of brave and banded men which furnishes the
most obvious examples of degradation.
The husband-man
of the Punjab, as of other provinces in Upper India, is confined to his cake of
millet or wheat and a draught of water from the well; the solider fares not
much matter, and neither indulge in strong liquors, except upon occasions of
rejoicing. The indolent man of wealth or station, or the more idle religious
fanatic, may seek excitement, or a refuge from the vacancy of his mind, in
drugs and drink; but expensiveness of diet is rather a Muhammadan than an
Indian characteristic, and the Europeans carry their potations and the
pleasures of the table to an excess unknown to the Turk and Persian, and which
greatly scandalize the frugal Hindu.8
From the above narrative it
is abundantly clear that Cunningham’s description of Sikh sexual ethos is
contrary to what Jakobsh says and he makes no mention of homosexuality among
Sikhs. Besides, homosexuality is “universal” and Sikhs are no more prone
compared with any other religious, racial or ethnic group. However, Indian
homosexuals like heterosexuals keep their sexual mores private. Even in the
21st century, Indian movies do not show simple lip kissing not to speak of more
serious romantic overtures. We know that Maharaja Ranjit Singh employed a
number of European officers. We have on record that Europeans and non-Europeans
had written about Ranjit Singh and the Sikhs. However, except for Princep, none
has mentioned the “prevalence of homosexual activities in the court, and among
Sikhs in general.” Could it be simply a
part of British campaign to defame and malign the Sikhs before declaring war on
them or that Princep himself was a homosexual (effeminate) who came to Punjab
looking for “hypermasculine Khalsa”9 but was utterly disappointed
and frustrated when he did not find what he was looking for and, had to be content
with his fantasy? Besides, Jakobsh
herself is following the tactics of leading the words in Cunningham’s mouth:
“Cunningham was presumably referring to homosexual practices observed among
Sikhs, especially in the court of Maharajah Ranjit Singh.” Would it be okay to
comment that it is Jakobsh’s preoccupation with her own “unmet sexual needs”
which has created “hypermasculine Khalsa” or “homosexual Sikh” in her psyche?
The British may have thought
of themselves as pinnacle of “morality and masculinity” but in Sikhs’ eyes, a
“clean-shaven pink face” was the ultimate effeminate, sexually enervated man.
Punjabis in general considered the British colonists as unbeliever, immoral and
dishonest to the core. Sikhs and other Punjabis, who worked with the British in
the army and civilian assignments, had plenty to say about the sexual habits of
their masters:
gore tan sale bondi aa, te ehna dian tivian nu
te chadvaee ton sabar nahee aunda.
The English men
(wife’s brothers) are effeminate and habituated to anal sex and their women
have insatiable sexual appetite.
Some British men who were
effeminate or bisexuals were also married. Such men as well as their wives
suffered from sexual deprivation. They used to bribe soldiers to have sex with
them and sometimes asked them to have sex with their wives too. Often the wives
would offer gifts and other allurements to soldiers who worked at their
bungalows for sexual favours. These juicy anecdotes and tales found their way
into Punjabi lore. I still remember some of them I heard from cattle herders in
the pastures of my village:
raj frangian da chalpe gilt de ane.
Under the British
rule even the coins are made of false metal.
gudi meman di vlaton aaee sharian nun khabar karo.
A trainload of
English women has arrived, tell the lonely bachelors to get ready.
nale mem vude dandian nale shabas shabas kahi jave.
The English lady
(mem) was biting as well as moaning
“good job”, “good job”.
manun din nun dikha de tare rashan dabal krun.
Take me to the
climax, I will double your ration.
ik meri sus chandri duja mem ne choos lia fauji.
My one problem is
my mean mother-in-law and my second problem is the English lady (mem), who has sexually drained my
solider-husband.
ario nee main ki kran hauldar nu memen da bhus pai
gia.
My dear what
should I do, my hauldar (non-commissioned
military man) has developed taste for meman
(British women).
nale sab damju kahe nale pile pile chittar dikhave.
Sahib (British
officer) was cursing (damn you) while exposing his pale white buttocks.
fatooee preh sitke lat paigia godian parne.
Lord threw away
his pants and knelt down.
Was this behaviour
widespread among the British? Of course, not! There were some isolated cases
that were exaggerated. But, if I were
of Jakobsh’s mind, I could have transformed the isolated cases to look as
widespread. I hope some Punjabi folklorist would collect these tales and
couplets for the sake of history about colonial Punjab under the British.
References
1. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating
Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 54.
9. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating
Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 54.
Previous Chapter | Table of Contents | Next Chapter
Copyright©2006 Baldev Singh. About the author
Print this Article
Email this Article
Comment on this Article