User:Fowler&fowler/bibliography

India
Please provide them. Not "NCERT books," but something like the ones below, which, for example, use the word "colonial" on the page numbers given:
 * Kulke, Hermann and Dietmar Rothermund. 2004.  A History of India.  Routledge.  448 pages.  ISBN 0415329205. p 260-266.
 * Wolpert, Stanley. 2003.  A New History of India.  Oxford University Press.  544 pages.  ISBN 0195166787. p 265.

Himalayanashoka: Apparently "European POV" authors are not the only ones who use the word "colonial," here are two Indian authors:
 * Nehru, Jawaharlal. 1946, 1985.  The Discovery of India.  Oxford India Paperbacks.  548 pages.  ISBN 0195623592.
 * "... part of the costs of transition to industrialism in western Europe were paid for by India, China, and the other colonial countries, whose economy was dominated by the European powers. It is obvious that there has been all along abundant material ..." p 300.


 * Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand. 1927, 1993.  An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments With Truth.  Beacon Press.  528 pages.  ISBN 0807059099.
 * "Another feature of the (Natal Indian) Congress was service of Colonial-born educated Indians. The Colonial-born Indian Education Association was founded under the auspices of the Congress."  p 151.

Still waiting for your citations ...


 * Unfortunately, you didn't quote the complete sentence from the book Gandhi: Hind Swaraj and Other Writings completely . The book uses the word "expulsion" on two pages.  Here are the full quotes:


 * p 28. Footnote: "Here Gandhi attacks the revolutionaries' view that physical expulsion of the British is the necessary and sufficient condition of swaraj."


 * p 73. "Editor: ... freeing others. Now you will have seen that it is not necessary for us to have as our goal the expulsion of the English. ..."


 * Note that in Hind Swaraj, Gandhi is the "Editor" and his interlocutor, the "Reader." Your citation in fact makes exactly the opposite point--that the physical expulsion of the British was not the sine qua non of independence.

Himalayanashoka: OK, here are four sources. All Indian authors. All modern. All use words like "colonial" (which occurs on dozens of pages). All books are searchable on the websites. The last quote is lengthy because it makes an important point. Please read it carefully.
 * Goswami, Manu. 2004. Producing India: From Colonial Economy to National Space. University of Chicago Press.  400 pages. ISBN 0226305090.
 * "The unprecedented expansion of the scope and scale of the colonial state followed the brutal repression of the rebellion of 1857-58 and the formal incorporation of colonial India into the British crown."


 * Guha-Thkurta, Tapati. 2004. Monuments, Objects, Histories: Institutions of Art in Colonial and Postcolonial India. Columbia University Press.  404 pages.  ISBN 023112998X.  (Part I of the book is titled, "The Colonial Past.")
 * Chatterjee, Indrani. 2002.  Gender, Slavery and Law in Colonial India.  Oxford University Press.  300 pages.  ISBN 0195659066
 * Philip, Kavita. 2003.  Civilizing Natures: Race, Resources, and Modernity in Colonial South India.  Rutgers University Press.  248 pages.  ISBN 0813533619
 * "Noting the successful transplantation of cinchona in the Nilgiris and looking forward to 'similar happy results ... [in] other hill districts of Southern India,' Markham suggests, "Thus will the successful cultivation of the quinine-yielding chinchona-plants confer a great and lasting benefit upon the commerce of the whole world." Here the imperial scientist-explorer is the agent of civilization; through him nature's benefits are conferred upon mankind.  The scientist speaks and acts on behalf of nature, and is willing to go to great lengths to defend it against the actions of those less scientifically savvy than himself.  Thus we are to understand that the local skirmishes over property rights that mark the initial phase of the chinchona project are fought&mdash;although they might contravene the laws of less advanced nations&mdash;in the name of all humanity, including the natives of colonized nations, who, although not truly able to know and to nurture nature, are still worthy of receiving the fruits of civilization."

The last quote is important, because although it uses the word "colonized," it is clearly resorting to some form of irony. Merely using "colonized" does not mean that one supports or condones any acts committed in the name of the word. Similarly, the sentence beginning "Colonised by the British East India Company..." does not mean that Wikipedia thinks it was a good thing or bad thing, but simply that it happened.

Sati

 * Stein, Burton. 1998.  A History of India.  Basil Blackwell Oxford (Reprinted by Oxford University Press India 2001).  ISBN 0195654463
 * Metcalf, Thomas R. 1997.  Ideologies of the Raj (New Cambridge History of India), 256 pages, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521589371
 * Spear, Percival. 1990.  A History of India, Volume 2  Penguin Books.  298 pages.  ISBN 0140138366
 * Hawley, John Stratton (ed). 1994.   Sati, the Blessing and the Curse: The Burning of Wives in India  Oxford University Press.  232 pages.  ISBN 0195077741

1) From: Stein, Burton. 1998.  A History of India.  Basil Blackwell Oxford (Reprinted by Oxford University Press India 2001).  ISBN 0195654463

"The most celebrated of Bentinck's interventions concerned the abolition of sati (or 'suttee', the immolation of Hindu widows in the cremation fires of their husbands), which along with that of other 'odious practices', was pressed on the Company as an objective of reform by the increasing number of Christian missionaries and British business travellers present in India. The issue of Sati abolition gave rise to a great controversy. Most notably it divided the generation of Indian intellectuals and commercial men who had grown up with the rise of British power and were now obliged to confront its fuller meaning for the future of their own society.  On one side stoood the likes of Ram Mohun Roy, who was strongly opposed to the practice.  Roy not only brought to bear a variety of learned arguments to support his case, but showed deep sympathy over the cruelties and indignities women were forced to endure in everyday life; (p222)"

Metcalf, Thomas R. 1997. Ideologies of the Raj (New Cambridge History of India), 256 pages, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521589371 "With the coming of Lord William Bentinck as Governor-General in 1828, the British avowedly embarked upon a thorough-going programme of reform. Building upon what had previously been little more than a vague expectation that somehow British rule ought to bring 'improvement' to India, free traders, utilitarians, and evangelicals created a distinctive ideology of imperial governance shaped by the ideals of liberalism. From Bentinck's time to that of Lord Dalhousie (1848-56) this reformist sentiment gained a near universal ascendancy among the British in India."

From: Spear, Percival. 1990. A History of India, Volume 2  Penguin Books. 298 pages. ISBN 0140138366: "Lord William Bentinck, Governor-General from 1828-35, was the pilot mainly responsible for trimming the sails of the British Indian state to the winds of change.... In 1813 the Company's trading monopoly was abolished. The country was opened to missionary actitvity but without government support and £10,000 was set aside annually for the promotion of learning among the people of India.  It needed a further puff of wind to implement this clause by the creation of a Committee of Public Instruction, which at once began to argue about the relative merits of western and eastern learning.  By 1828 the wind was blowing more strongly for we find a Tory President of the Board of Control writing to Bentinck, 'We have a great moral duty to perform in India'.  It was this change of sentiment on India which enabled Bentinck to survive the hostility of Wellington's Tory government during his first two years in India and to achieve so much thereafter. It happens that a radical was in charge of India at a time of radical change in England. (p 124)"

Finally, from: Hawley, John Stratton (ed). 1994.  Sati, the Blessing and the Curse: The Burning of Wives in India  Oxford University Press. 232 pages. ISBN 0195077741 "As for the colonial period, it is not widely known that Rammohun Roy (1772-1833), the social reformer whose name is most closely associated with the struggle against sati in historical times, was himself ambivalent toward a legal ban on sati; according to some, he opposed such a ban. (p140: Ashis Nandy, Sati as Profit Versus Sati as a Spectacle: The Public Debate on Roop Kanwar's Death 131-148.)"

"In his remarkable Minute giving his reasons for banning sati, despite the opposition of many of the leading officials of his government, Bentinck noted that Rammohun Roy, 'that enlightened native,' who hated the custom, as well as 'all other superstition and corruption,' opposed taking legal action, since the Hindus would interpret this as an attempt by the British to force their religion on the conquered people.... Roy's main reason for not supporting Bentinck's decision, however, was probably his conviction that it was society's attitude toward widows that needed to be changed. Making sati illegal would not change the attitude and belief systems that produced the custom; that could only be done through education. (p154: Embree, Ainslie T. Comment: Widows as Cultural Symbols, pp. 149-158)"

The broad facts are the following. The Christian evangelists were the first people to mobilize around the issue of Sati. The first official submission to the East India Company was made by them in 1799. 1n 1813, William Wilberforce (a prominent evangelist) brought it up in the House of Commons in England. Raja Rammohun Roy's first pamphlet came out only in 1818 (a full seven years after the immolation of his sister-in-law). Once involved, however, Roy was extremely active in the Indian press writing critiques of the practice. However, he initially didn't support laws banning the practice. When in 1828, Lord William Bentinck consulted him about banning sati, Roy opposed the idea. Eventually, he got on board and became an active supporter and wrote many articles in the press in support of the new law.

This history does not support the contention that Raja Rammohun Roy and the Brahmo Samaj were the primary advocates for the movement against sati and that the British were somehow pushed into enacting the ban by Roy and the Brahmo Samaj. In the orginal wording in the history section of the India page, Hkelkar had written: "The British also began implementing social changes, including the abolition of Sati, at the behest of Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the Brahmo Samaj." That is a complete distortion of history. The wording was later changed to, "..., such as the legal abolition of Sati due to the efforts of reform movements by Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the Brahmo Samaj." But this too is historically inaccurate because it doesn't mention the Christian evangelists nor Lord William Bentinck himself.

I propose the following compromise language: "The British also began implementing social changes, such as the abolition of sati by Lord William Bentinck with notable synergistic efforts by Christian evangelists and Raja Rammohun Roy" I think the language is fair in that it assigns credit to all parties. (Raja Rammohun Roy's name, incidentally, is misspelt in the Wikipedia page on him.)

Now here are the references and the quotes from them:
 * Sen, Mala. 2002. Death by Fire: Sati, Dowry Death, and Female Infanticide in Modern India. Rutgers University Press.  288 pages.
 * Sharma, Arvin. 2001.  Sati: Historical and Phenomenological Essays.  Motilal Banarasi Das. Delhi.  130 pages.
 * Mani, Lata. 1998.  Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India.  University of California Press.  259 pages.

Dr. Sharma: Amidst the kudos which is showered on Raja Rammohun Roy for his role in the advocacy of the abolition of sati, one crucial fact is often overlooked: that when Lord William Bentinck sought his advice on the matter of the British prohibiting the practice of sati, he advised Lord William Bentink against such a step. (Search Dr. Sharma's quote in Dr. Sen's book)

Dr. Sen: "This need to be independent of British influence dominated men like Rammohun Roy who did not approve of governmental interference in the sphere of Hindu social life. However, when Lord William Bentinck took it upon himself to abolish sati in 1829, Rammohun Roy came out in open support of the Act and became an active and vocal campaigner, using Hindu scriptures to challenge the notiion that sati played a part in the enhancement of Indian society.( Search Dr. Sen's book)"

Dr Sharma goes on to trace the development of Christian missionary involvement with sati: "In November 1793 Rev. William Carey of the Baptist Mission arrived in Calcutta. After nearly six years, in the spring of 1799, he saw widow-burning one evening. It was in a place thirty miles away from Calcutta.  He tried to stop the ceremony and to reason with the widow and the Brahmin priests.  'I talked till reasoning was of no use, and then began to exclaim with all my might against what they were doing, telling them it was shocking murder.  They told me it was a great act of holiness.'  Carey was greatly agitated ... He sent investigators to every village within a radius of thirty miles of Calcutta, to learn how many widows had been immolated there in the previous twelve months, and their ages, and the children they had left behind them.  'Four hundred and thirty eight was the damning total in this specific area alone, the toll of a single year's superstition, cruelty and waste.'  The Serampore Missionaries under the leadership of Carey implored the Government to forbid the rite by law. Carey made use of his position as a lecturer in the College of Fort William to collect from the pundits there various texts from the Hindu sastras on which the practice of sati was allegedly based. The missionaries places all these documents, together with the statistics of sati they had compiled, in the hands of George Udney -- a member of the Supreme Council and an ardent abolitionist. Udney's submission on sati was the first official notice regarding female immolation which had appeared in the records of the government."

Dr. Sen: "As a result of these activities, the missionaries began to mould public opinion both in India and Britain and on 22 June 1813, William Wilberforce raised the matter in the House of Commons, quoting the statistics on sati which the Baptistics had compiled."

Raja Rammohun Roy's first pamphlet came out only in 1818 almost 20 years after Carey and Udney had made their first submission. Dr. Sharma: "Between 1815 and 1818 the number of satis doubled, from 378 in 1815 to 839 in 1818 in the Presidency of Bengal. The 1815-1818 records -- 'truly awful records for any Christian Government'-- had a disquieting effect on officials. In 1818, 'when the pyres blazed most fiercely', Raja Rammohun Roy launched his journalistic attack on the rite, 'which aroused such anger that for a while his life was in danger'."

Dr. Mani: "In Rammohun Roy's first pamphlet of 1818, ..., the opponent of sati concludes, it is not control but wisdom and fear of God that effectively causes both men and women to abstain from improper conduct. While it may be unrealistic to expect from Rammohun Roy a full-scale critique of the desire to control women's sexuality, it is indeed disappointing that, confronted with this issue which is at the very heart of widow immolation, the opponent in this staged dialogue can only see fit to assure the advocate of sati that he has, in fact, nothing to fear; that effective mechanisms already exist for controlling women, thus precluding the need to burn them. (Search Dr. Mani's book)"

Dr. Mani: "In addition to the press reports, public meetings on sati were held in Britain in 1823, 1827, and 1829, and petitions were presented to Parliament in 1827 and 1828. For the most part, the British press, both lay and missionary, merely replayed arguments advanced in India, whether by East India Company officials, evangelists, or the indigenous male elite (i.e. people like Roy). British discussions of widow burning differed only in the sense that they began with the desirability of abolition and then proceeded to its feasibility, as against in India, where questions of practicality always came first."

Again the compromise language I am proposing is: "The British also began implementing social changes, such as the abolition of sati by Lord William Bentinck with notable synergistic efforts by Christian evangelists and Raja Rammohun Roy"

Fowler&amp;fowler 15:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As a result of HeBhagawan's helpful message above, I am proposing the following compromise: "The British also began implementing social changes such as the abolition of sati due to the joint efforts of Lord William Bentinck, the Christian evangelists, and Raja Rammohun Roy, ..." Fowler&amp;fowler 16:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have changed the wording to: "The British also began implementing social changes such as the abolition of slavery sati due to the joint cumulative efforts of Lord William Bentinck, the Christian evangelists, the British utilitarians, Raja Rammohun Roy, and the Brahmo Samaj, ..." I know this is a little verbose, but it mentions everyone who deserves credit.


 * I have left in the footnote referring to Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal's book: Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy (added by user HeBhagawan) because Bose and Jalal mentions both the evangelists and the utilitarians:

"The most creative strand (among the Indian groups opposing sati), however, was led by Rammohun Roy, who attempted to adapt elements from all he considered best in Indian and Western learning. Well-versed in Sanskrit, Bengali, Arabic, Persian and English, Rammohun Roy aimed at a regeneration of India society and culture through a process of thoroughgoing reform which would weed out the evils and anachronisms. He set up a society called the Brahmo Samaj which rejected caste and idolatory and sought a return to the original monotheistic purity of the Upanishads.  He derided the evangelists, but generally supported the utilitarians.  He had campaigned against sati since 1818 and his defence of Bentinck's 1829 abolition of sati, which he called a 'barbarous and inhuman practice', helped ensure that the measure was not overturned by the privy council, the ultimate court of appeal in London."

Fowler&amp;fowler 17:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Corrected: slavery-->sati; joint-->cumulative Fowler&amp;fowler 20:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This has been done. I have also updated your citation.  The final version now reads: "The British also began implementing social changes, such as the legal abolition of Sati, due to the cumulative efforts of Lord William Bentinck, the Christian evangelists, the British utilitarians, Raja Rammohun Roy, and the Brahmo Samaj,  and instituting Western education on a limited scale."