Victorian Lives

Anglo-Nepalese War

The Anglo-Nepalese War began in 1814 with the British East India Company’s desire to take control of Nepalese land. Although the East India Company had been consistently expanding its territory throughout the previous century, once the Company declared war on Nepal, British soldiers faced difficulty in acquiring land from Nepalese forces, the Gurkhas. With superior knowledge of the terrain and access to resources, the Gurkhas prevailed in initial battles. However, the East India Company eventually advanced into Nepalese territory, winning battles and threatening Kathmandu, leading to the 1816 Treaty of Sugauli which ended the war. The Treaty required Nepal to relinquish land to the East India Company and allow a British representative in the Nepalese court. 

Despite the British victory, the Anglo-Nepalese War did not garner significant interest or admiration from citizens of Victorian Britain, remaining largely forgotten in Victorian accounts and novels concerned with empire. John Pemble (2009) suggests that Victorian disinterest in the Anglo-Nepalese War was due to the East India Company’s failure to enlarge its territory or conquer the Gurkhas to the extent desired. In addition, Pemble highlights British apathy toward the East India Company’s endeavors during the early to mid-nineteenth century, which shifted following the Indian Mutiny of 1857 to occupy a prominent space in British Victorian popular consciousness. While Mill makes no direct reference to the Anglo-Nepalese War in his autobiography, his work for the East India Company began in 1823 (Mill ch. III), less than a decade after the end of the war. One could imagine that Mill’s role in handling correspondence could have been influenced by or required knowledge of the Anglo-Nepalese War due to the temporal proximity of his work to the war.   

Sources

Cartwright, Mark. “Anglo-Nepalese War.” World History Encyclopedia, 5 Dec. 2022, https://www.worldhistory.org/Anglo-Nepalese_War/. Accessed 20 May 2024. 

Pemble, John. “Forgetting and Remembering Britain’s Gurkha War.” Asian Affairs, vol. 40, no. 3, 2009, pp. 361-376. https://doi.org/10.1080/03068370903195154. Accessed 20 May 2024.   

Hindu College 1817

During the early nineteenth century, Christian missionaries began setting up schools in India for young boys. Local Hindu citizens were alarmed by the growing Christian influence and their monopolistic control of the education system. This prompted the wealthiest Hindu members of Calcutta to start their own school, independent of Christian ideology. They first approached Reverend Thomas Thomason, who directed them to Chief Justice Sir Edward Hyde East. Rammohan Roy, a controversial figure to Hindu citizens due to his radical beliefs, East, Buddinath Mookerjee, who acted as a go-between, and David Hare met to discuss the idea. A general body meeting was held in 1816, led by East and excluding Rammohan, to gather Hindu members of Calcutta to discuss and plan the formation of a Hindu run school with help from “respectable” Englishmen. Money was raised by the members of this meeting through subscriptions to fund the school. Afterwards, several more general body meetings were held with select committee members to draw up plans for the school. Finally, the Hindu College in Calcutta was founded in 1817 and opened on January 20. The school remained independent from the government for seven years before control eventually passed to them.  

The Hindu College of Calcutta was the beginning of a new system of education independent of Christian missionary institutions. By the time of Haimabati Sen, women were allowed to receive limited education, particularly in the medical field. She attended the Campbell Medical School which would earn her the Vernacular Licentiate in Medicine and Surgery. The school was open to women of all classes, unlike the Calcutta Medical College which required a bachelor’s degree. This educational opportunity allowed Sen to carve an alternative role for herself as a financial provider for her family.

Citations:

Kochhar, Rajesh. “HINDOO COLLEGE CALCUTTA REVISITED: ITS PRE-HISTORY AND THE ROLE OF RAMMOHUN ROY.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, vol. 72, 2011, pp. 841–62. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44146776. Accessed 14 May 2024.

Sen, Indrani. “Resisting Patriarchy: Complexities and Conflicts in the Memoir of Haimabati Sen.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 47, no. 12, 2012, pp. 55–62. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23214502. Accessed 14 May 2024.

Six Acts

The Six Acts were passed in 1819 after the Peterloo Massacre in which the army attacked a crowd of working-class people protesting for radical reform. The Six Acts were seen as highly repressive and were designed to stifle the radical agitation that had led to the protests at Peterloo. The Seditious Meetings Act tried to limit large scale meetings and discussions of reform. The Training Prevention Act and the Seizure of Arms Act were aimed at preventing radicals from forming their own armed militias by banning training with weapons and restricting the possession of weapons. Another part of the Six Acts was the Newspaper and Stamp Duties Act. This made the taxes on newspapers and other printed material much higher and was designed to curb the influence of the radical working-class press. 

John Stuart Mill mentions the Six Acts in passing while he describes the broader moment of radical agitation. He explains that “Radicalism under the leadership of the Burdetts and Cobbetts, had assumed a character and importance which seriously alarmed the Administration: and their alarm had scarcely been temporarily assuaged by the celebrated Six Acts” (58). His characterization of the Six Acts as designed to assuage the alarm of the government points to their widely perceived repressive quality. In this section, Mill’s sympathies are with the radicals and the tide of reform, which he sees as marking a period of “rapidly rising Liberalism” (58). 

Citations

Bloy, Marjie. “The Six Acts 1819.” The Victorian Web, victorianweb.org/history/riots/sixacts.html. 2003.

July Revolution

The July Revolution took place in 1830 after King Charles X issued the July Ordinances. These four ordinances increased censorship of the press and expanded the king’s power over the Chamber of Deputies, a democratically elected legislative body. These attempts at increasing monarchical power sparked outrage and led to several days of fighting in Paris. The revolution resulted in King Charles’s abdication. He was replaced by the Duc d’Orleans Louis-Philippe whose more moderate monarchism and attempt to appeal to liberals earned him the nickname the “King of the Bourgeoisie.” 

John Stuart Mill describes his fervent support for the July Revolution in his autobiography. He says “It roused my utmost enthusiasm, and gave me, as it were, a new existence. I went at once to Paris, was introduced to Lafayette, and laid the groundwork of the intercourse I afterwards kept up with several of the active chiefs of the extreme popular party.” (98-99) Mill’s approval of the July Revolution is in keeping with his liberal politics. King Charles had attempted to attack the press and undermine a democratically elected legislature, two institutions that John Stuart Mill and other liberals valued highly. 

Citations

Montgomery, David H. “Episode 39: The Four Ordinances.” The Siècle Podcast, 22 Jan. 2024, thesiecle.com/episode39/. 

“Research Guides: France: Women in the Revolution: Revolutions in France: 1789, 1830, 1848.” Revolutions in France: 1789, 1830, 1848 - France: Women in the Revolution - Research Guides at Library of Congress, guides.loc.gov/women-in-the-french-revolution/revolutions-rebellions/1789-1830-1848.

July Revolution

The July Revolution of 1830 arose as a civilian response to French King Charles X’s July Ordinances, which were issued on July 25, 1830 and overturned freedom of the press, dissolved the newly elected Chamber of Deputies, and limited voting rights. Moderates and liberals opposed the July Ordinances and revolted, creating barricades and engaging in street fights in Paris from July 27th to July 29th, eventually forcing the abdication of Charles X and replacing him with Louis-Philippe, Duc d’Oréans who reigned until 1848. The July Revolution directly preceded a host of European revolutions in the early 1830s, including those in Belgium, the German Federation, Poland, and Italy.

The July Revolution inspired some of Mill’s political engagement and writing in the 1830s and he writes in his autobiography that the Revolution “roused [his] utmost enthusiasm, and gave [him], as it were, a new existence” (Mill ch. V). Mill traveled to Paris and met Lafayette amidst the revolutionary activities of France in 1830, which provided him with experience and inspiration to write articles on French politics. Mill wrote on French subjects of interest in newspapers and The Examiner, a nineteenth-century radical journal, throughout the early 1830s, continuing the interest in French revolutionary activity that he had developed in the early 1820s while learning about the French Revolution’s relationship with democracy. 

Sources

Brown, Bradford C. “France, 1830 Revolution.” Wiley Online Library, 20 April 2009, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198073.wbierp0573. Accessed 20 May 2024.

“Overview: July Revolution.” Oxford Reference, https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100026859#:~:text=A%20revolt%20in%20France.,him%20to%20rule%20by%20decree. Accessed 20 May 2024.

“Revolutions in France: 1789, 1830, 1848.” Library of Congress, https://guides.loc.gov/women-in-the-french-revolution/revolutions-rebellions/1789-1830-1848. Accessed 20 May 2024.

“The Examiner.” The British Newspaper Archive, https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/titles/the-examiner. Accessed 20 May 2024.

Schmidt-Funke, Julia A. “The Revolution of 1830 as a European Media Event.” European History Online, Aug. 16 2017, https://ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/european-media/european-media-events/revolution-of-1830. Accessed 20 May 2024. 

Poor Law Amendment Act 1834

In 1832, the Poor Law Commission was founded in order to review the Poor Laws of England and the state of the poorer classes in England. The commission was primarily concerned with the poor being hired for cheap labor and paid for by parishes, and parishes helping pay wages. The commission saw these practices as harming the natural workings of the economy and creating poor people who were dependent on outside aid. In 1834, the Poor Law Amendment Act was passed, intending to address these problems. The new law created workhouses where the poor would live and receive aid. However, the Poor Law declared the workhouses as the only source where aid could be given, effectively shutting down parish aid. Additionally, conditions inside the workhouses were often worse than outside. This was thought to discourage those who were otherwise able to work from entering the workhouses and receiving aid unnecessarily. 

Mill originally defended the act in his autobiography “against an irrational clamour grounded on the anti-centralization prejudice.” He shared similar fears as proponents of the act and stated, “[i]f the condition of a person receiving relief is made as eligible as that of the labourer who supports himself by his own exertions, the system strikes at the root of all individual industry and self-government” (Mill, John Stuart. 1848 [1965]. The principles of political economy. Collected Works 2–3). While Mill supported egalitarian principles, he was still wary of the working class and had reservations about their growing political influence. In his autobiography, Mill reflects on his defense of the Poor Law Reform and the two extremes of centralization and anti-centralization. “I have steered carefully between the two errors, and whether I have or have not drawn the line between them exactly in the right place, I have at least insisted with equal emphasis upon the evils on both sides, and have made the means of reconciling the advantages of both, a subject of serious study.”

Citations:

Hansson, Sven Ove. “John Stuart Mill and the Conflicts of Equality.” The Journal of Ethics, vol. 26, 26 Feb. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-022-09393-7.

The National Archives. “1834 Poor Law.” The National Archives, 2021, www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/1834-poor-law/#:~:text=T....

Tocqueville’s Democracy in America

Alexis de Tocqueville published the first edition of Democracy in America in France in 1835 and in the United States in 1838. Born into a family that endured suffering during the French Revolution, Tocqueville’s writing on American democracy describes it in a complimentary manner. Democracy in America describes Tocqueville’s understanding of American society and civic institutions with an interest in equality, individualism, and other facets of American society which he discusses in terms of democracy. 

Mill praises Democracy in America in his autobiography, recalling that he wrote a review of the work the year it was published (1835) and a second review in 1840. In Democracy in America, Mill says that “the excellences of democracy were pointed out in a more conclusive, because a more specific manner than I had ever known them to be, even by the most enthusiastic democrats” (Mill ch. VI). Mill attributes a shift in his political principles to Tocqueville’s work, which Mill suggests is reflected in his book Considerations on Representative Government. 

Sources

“About Tocqueville’s Democracy in America,” HeinOnline, 26 December 2022, https://libguides.heinonline.org/democracy-in-america. Accessed 22 May 2024.  

“An Introduction to the Work of Tocqueville.” Great Thinkers, https://thegreatthinkers.org/tocqueville/introduction/. Accessed 22 May 2024. 

Martin, John. “Alexis de Tocqueville Revisited.” Library of Congress Information Bulletin, vol. 56, no. 17, 1997, https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9712/kammen.html. Accessed 22 May 2024.  

Decline of the East India Company

The East India Company was founded in 1600 after Queen Elizabeth I signed a royal charter allowing for voyages to be conducted to begin trade in the regions around the Indian Ocean. They began building factories in the ports of India in 1611, beginning a long period of English control of the region. The East India Company took control of the region from the Mughal Empire through the force of their private army. After the Battle of Plassey in 1757, the company implemented heavy taxes, which were heavily unfavored by the Indian citizens. The company also challenged many of the Hindu customs and religious beliefs, such as by introducing meat into the diet. The local Indian citizens became increasingly dissatisfied by the East India Company’s practices. The East India Company continued as a central trade and political powerhouse in India and East Asia until the Indian Rebellion in 1857. The rebellion was led by sepoys, or local soldiers, who were upset about the wage and other inequalities between them and the British soldiers, as well as the general mistreatment of the Indian population by the company. The rebellion was put down bloodily by the company in 1858. The British government took this as the final sign of the company’s inability to govern the region and took complete control of the trade and political institutions established. The East India Company was formally dissolved in 1873.    

John Stuart Mill worked for the East India Company and saw its dissolution. Mill was against this change initially. He states that, “I was the chief manager of the resistance which the Company made to their own political extinction, and to the letters and petitions I wrote for them, and the concluding chapter of my treatise on Representative Government, I must refer for my opinions on the folly and mischief of this ill-considered change.” Government involvement in economic affairs was contrary to the Liberal beliefs Mill was affiliated with. Laissez-faire policies toward the economy were central tenants of the party. 

Citations:

Adam Matthew Digital and India Office Library and Records. East India Company. Adam Matthew Digital, 2017

Roos, Dave. “How the East India Company Became the World’s Most Powerful Monopoly - HISTORY.” Www.history.com, A&E Television Networks, 23 Oct. 2020, www.history.com/news/east-india-company-england-trade.

Cartwright, Mark. “Sepoy Mutiny.” World History Encyclopedia, www.worldhistory.org/Sepoy_Mutiny/#.

Indigo Revolt

The Indigo Revolt occurred in Bengal in 1859. Indigo was an important industry in the region and was largely cultivated according to the system of ryoti. This was an exploitative system in which the planters, who tended to be European, advanced Indian peasants money to grow indigo for them. The method of accounting often left the peasants in debt to the planters. Impoverished by this system, the peasants rebelled in 1859 by targeting Indigo factories and planters. This uprising led to the creation of the Indigo Commission which investigated the system, decided it was oppressive, and proposed reforms. 

Haimabati Sen does not directly reference the Indigo Revolt which took place several years before her birth. However, she does recount how her ancestor Sibnath “fought a fierce war with the indigo planter Mr. Rainy that resulted in many deaths and cost a great deal in resources. Stories were told about how Rainy’s indigo factory was destroyed and thrown into the waters of the River Bhairav as many as twenty-one times.” (4) While probably a little earlier than the Indigo Revolt and seemingly not driven by the peasant class, this “war” shows how persistently unpopular both the indigo industry and European control over it were in Bengal around the time of Sen’s birth. 

“Indigo Revolt in Bengal.” INDIAN CULTURE, indianculture.gov.in/stories/indigo-revolt-bengal.

The Founding of the Liberal Party

The Liberal Party was founded in 1859 and was an amalgamation of several political groups of the earlier nineteenth century known as the Peelites, Whigs, and Radicals. The Whigs wanted to reduce the power of the monarchy in favor of Parliament. The Peelites favored free trade over Conservative protectionist economic policies. The Radicals sought to increase the working class rights. These three groups eventually combined to form the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party ideology centered on free trade, decreasing the power of the monarchy in favor of Parliament, and social reform. Many members also did not conform to the state religion and sought to reduce the power of the Church of England. William Gladstone was one of the most important figures in the Liberal Party. He served as prime minister four times and promoted low taxes and laissez faire economic policies. As leader of the Liberal Party, he also supported educational reform by instituting the Elementary Education Act in 1870, which established a network of elementary schools in England. Gladwell also legalized trade unions, underscoring why the Liberal Party was particularly popular with the working class. The Liberal Party’s decline ultimately arose due to the crises before and during the First World War. The party was heavily divided internally and, externally, many were unhappy with their response to the war. The Labour Party ultimately gained greater power, and the Liberal Party faded into near obscurity.

John Stuart Mill served as an MP for the Liberal Party from 1865 to 1868 and was considered a more radical member. Mill writes, “The same idea, that the use of my being in Parliament was to do work which others were not able or not willing to do, made me think it my duty to come to the front in defence of advanced Liberalism on occasions when the obloquy to be encountered was such as most of the advanced Liberals in the House, preferred not to incur.” Mill also claims he was less concerned with gaining power or influence while in Parliament and more so with advocating for the causes he believed in, such as women’s suffrage. 

Citations:

Cook, C. A Short History of the Liberal Party: The Road back to Power. Google Books, Springer, 2010, books.google.com/books?id=Y1p9DAAAQBAJ&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false. Accessed 18 May 2024.

“History of William Ewart Gladstone - GOV.UK.” Www.gov.uk, www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers/william-ewart-gladstone.

Perduniak, Michael. Pamphlets and Politics: The British Liberal Party and the Working Man, University of Manchester, 2013.‌‌

Morant Bay Rebellion

The Morant Bay Rebellion began in October 1865 after a court in Morant Bay, Jamaica issued a fine to a boy, causing the crowd to protest. When the police went to arrest one of the leaders of the crowd several days later, hundreds of supporters defended him. The militia arrived the next day and attacked a crowd of civilians. This marked the beginning of a month-long, violent campaign of suppression and retribution by the government. 

While these were the immediate circumstances of the uprising, the rebellion was really fueled by a long history of racial violence and oppression on the island. Slavery had been abolished in Jamaica in 1834, but for decades the colony’s black population had limited civil rights and remained economically oppressed. The government sought to exacerbate the economic conditions of black people to make them a more easily exploitable labor force. In 1865, for example, it criminalized cane cutting and squatting, both previously accepted practices that helped the poor provide for themselves. This contributed to the tensions in that year.

The response to the rebellion was extremely violent and led to debates in Britain over colonial government. At the start of the rebellion, Governor John Eyre proclaimed martial law, and within a month the government killed, flogged, and destroyed the homes of hundreds of Black Jamaicans. Eyre suspected that George William Gordon, the mixed raced son of a planter and enslaved woman, was the leader of a conspiracy that instigated the rebellion. Despite lack of evidence for a premeditated conspiracy, Gordon was executed under probably unlawful circumstances. As a result of his actions during the rebellion, Eyre was suspended as governor but was not otherwise punished. 

John Stuart Mill references the Morant Bay Rebellion once in his autobiography while describing his years in Parliament. He expresses outrage over the atrocities committed by the government in Jamaica. For him, the event showed the dangers of treating martial law as an acceptable form of government in the colonies. He commented that “The question was, whether the British dependencies, and eventually perhaps Great Britain itself, were to be under the government of law, or of military license” (166). 

Citations

Day, Chris. “The Morant Bay Rebellion, October 1865.” The National Archives Blog, The National Archives, 20 Oct. 2022, blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/the-morant-bay-rebellion-october-1865/.

Marriage Act of 1872

The Marriage Act of 1872, also known as the Indian Christian Marriage Act, outlined the conditions and regulations for people in India who did not profess traditional native Indian religions. This act was designed with mostly Christian marriages in mind. Christian marriages in India had previously been governed by an assortment of British and Indian laws. The act streamlined this complicated arrangement and specified the requirements for various aspects of the wedding ceremony. It also set the age of consent for native Christians. Marriages in which only one spouse was Christian were still controlled by this act. This act did not specify the conditions for ending a marriage since this issue was already covered by the Indian Divorce Act of 1869. 

Haimabati Sen references this act in her autobiography. She relates how the daughter in a Brahmo Samaj family she knew married according to Hindu rites, angering her family. In order to resolve the conflict, they decided to register the marriage under the Marriage Act of 1872 since, as Sen explains, “to marry under this act the parties had to declare that they were not Hindus or members of other established religions.” (233) Again, this illustrates the outsider status of the Brahmo Samaj within Hindu society. Like Christians, they can be covered by the Marriage Act of 1872 because they are not considered a traditional, established Indian religion like Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc. 

Citations

“Christian Law Regarding Marriage and Divorce in India: Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872.” Legal Service India - Law, Lawyers and Legal Resources, www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1764-christian-law-regarding-ma…;

“Christian Marriage Act: Aspects Regarding the Christian Marriage Act.” Toppr, 27 May 2019, www.toppr.com/guides/legal-aptitude/family-law-I/christian-marriage-act/.

Great Famine of 1876

In 1876, between 30 and 60 million people around the world died as a result of a famine, which would become known as the Great Famine of 1876. Potentially caused by an El Niño year and warm temperatures in the Indian Ocean, which resulted in a lack of rain in India, Australia, and South America, widespread drought was responsible for the Great Famine. Six to ten million people in India starved to death due to drought and the resulting limited harvest. The death toll in India was exacerbated by British policies that poorly managed the distribution of supplies aimed at reducing the Indian death count.

Sen would have been 10 years old during the Great Famine of 1876 and she recalls various famines and moments of food scarcity that impacted her life throughout her childhood and adulthood. Sen discusses her family’s reaction to famine in her childhood (Sen 11-12) and recalls that “food was scarce” (Sen 47) while living with her late husband’s family as a widow. 

Sources

Fecht, Sarah. “What Caused the Great Famine?” State of the Planet: News from the Columbia Climate School, 15 December 2017. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2017/12/15/causes-great-famine-drought/. Accessed 22 May 2024.

“Government Response.”  Environment & Society Portal, https://www.environmentandsociety.org/exhibitions/famines-india/government-response. Accessed 22 May 2024.   

“Great Famine of 1876.” Environment & Society Portal, https://www.environmentandsociety.org/tools/keywords/great-famine-1876#:~:text=During%20the%20mid%2Dnineteenth%20century,and%20poor%20British%20food%20policies. Accessed 22 May 2024.  

Indian National Congress

The Indian National Congress is a political party in India that was founded in 1885 with a meeting of 72 delegates interested in cooperating with the British government for more autonomy, but not independence. However, beginning in the early 1900s, the Indian National Congress launched campaigns for independence from Britain. Having gained mass support and popularity in the 1920s, the Indian National Congress negotiated with the British government for Indian independence in the 1930s and 1940s, becoming the country’s ruling party in 1947. The party remains operational today and claims on its website that “The object of the Indian National Congress is the well-being and advancement of the people of India and the establishment in India, by peaceful and constitutional means, of a Socialist State based on Parliamentary Democracy in which there is equality of opportunity and of political, economic and social rights and which aims at world peace and fellowship.”

While Sen does not directly mention the creation or growth of the Indian National Congress, her involvement with British medical institutions and her residency in India while the party gained popularity suggest that the events surrounding the Indian National Congress during her lifetime may have impacted her.

Sources

“Indian National Congress.” The Open University, https://www5.open.ac.uk/research-projects/making-britain/content/indian-national-congress. Accessed 22 May 2024. 

“Our Values.” Indian National Congress, https://www.inc.in/our-values/object-of-the-indian-national-congress-article-i-inc-constitution. Accessed 22 May 2024. 

“Overview: Indian National Congress.” Oxford Reference, https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100001250. Accessed 22 May 2024. 

Age of Consent Act 1891

The Age of Consent Act was passed by the Legislative Council of the Governor-General of India in Calcutta. The bill raised the age of consent for girls from ten to twelve years of age in all regions of India. Opposition to the bill arose from the council member Romesh Chunder Mitter, who claimed it violated Hindu practices. However, the bill was ultimately passed due to a high-profile case of an eleven year-old girl who died of hemorrhaging after having forced intercourse with her 35 year old husband. This, in part, drove the calls to raise the age of consent. However, in reality, the new law was not regularly enforced. Haimabati Sen notes this in her work, Because I am a Woman, when she writes, “A girl of eleven,..., was raped by her husband. She was hemorrhaging and it did not stop” (193). Sen was then forced to cover up the cause of death as septicemia from menstruation, rather than the rape. Thus, the Age of Consent Act had little effect on preventing premature sexual intercourse. It was seen by local Bengali citizens as an infringement by the British government of Hindu practices. This inflamed nationalist and anti-British sentiments that were spreading in the late nineteenth century.

Citations:

Engels, Dagmar. “The Age of Consent Act of 1891: Colonial Ideology in Bengal.” South Asia Research, vol. 3, no. 2, Nov. 1983, pp. 107–131, https://doi.org/10.1177/026272808300300205.

Sixth Cholera Pandemic

The sixth cholera pandemic lasted from 1899 to 1923. The pandemic was particularly devastating in India where it is estimated that over 800,000 people died from cholera. Cholera is spread through unsanitary, contaminated water. One contributing factor to cholera’s exceptional prevalence in Bengal throughout the nineteenth century is the region’s physical geography. As the location of the Ganges delta, it is naturally more susceptible to waterborne illnesses. Other factors include cultural and historical reasons, such as the importance of ritual bathing in Hinduism and the aggravating effects of famines which occurred throughout the period. 

Haimabati Sen practiced medicine in India during the sixth Cholera, and she describes her experience treating cholera patients, saying “Around this time there was a religious festival followed by an outbreak of cholera on a horrendous scale. Every day we had fifty to sixty cholera patients admitted to the hospital.” (222) Her mention of the religious festival shows how the spread of cholera was linked to certain water rituals. In this passage, she goes on to describe how she caught cholera during this pandemic. Her description of the disease includes several characteristic features of cholera, such as its very sudden onset. 

Citations

Arnold, David. “The Time of Cholera.” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 15 Aug. 2022, academic.oup.com/book/45381/chapter/389323124#. 

Azizi M, Azizi F. ​​​History of Cholera Outbreaks in Iran during the 19(th) and 20(th) Centuries. Middle East J Dig Dis. 2010 Jan 2.

Partition of Bengal 1905

In 1905, the British Raj partitioned the Bengali region of India into two separate regions: East and West Bengal. The plan was heavily supported by the viceroy, Lord Curzon, as an attempt to weaken the growing nationalist movement. Outwardly, the reason given was to improve the conditions of East Bengal, which was seen to be under-governed. Hindu members of Bengal were increasingly calling for more representation in government and for Indian independence. They were primarily located in the western portion of Bengal. The Eastern Bengal region was primarily Muslim and had less political influence. Hindu citizens of Bengal were fiercely opposed to partition. The Muslim citizens were opposed less strongly in the beginning, but eventually saw it in a more positive light as they believed it would improve education and employment. After the partition, anti-British and pro-nationalist sentiments erupted and Bengal saw political and social unrest. The partition was eventually annulled in 1911 by the British government.

The social turmoil is present in the background of Sen’s work. She writes, “There was a great upheaval around this time over the Partition of Bengal. After Viceroy Curzon announced the partition of the province in 1905, it was very difficult to control children who wanted to join anti-government demonstrations” (232). The partition of Bengal exacerbated Bengali frustrations with British colonialism and indicates a generational divide in the population, with the younger members being more inclined to actively participate in forms of protest. Boycotts of British products and violent protests were common methods of resistance to the partition.

Citations:

“Partition of Bengal (1905) - New World Encyclopedia.” Www.newworldencyclopedia.org, www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Partition_of_Bengal_(1905).

Rowlatt Act

The Rowlatt Act of 1919, named for Sir Sidney Rowlatt who drafted the legislation, was passed by the British colonial government in India and was aimed at minimizing revolutionary and terrorist activity. Opposed by Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress, the Act limited Indian citizens’ rights to free speech and assembly and allowed the British government to imprison those suspected of revolutionary or terrorist activity without trial. Gandhi led protests against the Act, backed by the Indian National Congress, in March and April of 1919 which turned violent and inspired military reaction by the British. Following the violent British reaction, Gandhi launched the Rowlatt Satyagraha, a movement of nonviolent resistance through peaceful protests and strikes. On April 13, 1919, Brigadier-General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer ordered the massacre of a crowd of Indian citizens in Amritsar resulting in at least 379 deaths, which fueled the movement for Indian independence. Following the events responding to the Rowlatt Act and pressure from the public and Indian political leaders, the Act was repealed in 1922. 

While Sen does not reference the Rowlatt Act, she lived until 1933 and thus resided in India during the tumultuous political moment surrounding the Act and the British response to the Rowlatt Satyagraha. It is possible that she felt the effects of these events, especially given her involvement with colonial medical institutions. 

Sources

Bhalla, Vikram. “Rowlatt act of British govt: Why Gandhi started protests against it on March 30, 1919.” The Times of India, 30 Mar. 2023, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/rowlatt-act-of-british-govt-why-gandhi-started-protests-against-it-on-march-30-1919/articleshow/99115911.cms. Accessed 20 May 2024. 

Cartwright, Mark. “Jallianwala Bagh Massacre” World History Encyclopedia, 21 Oct. 2022, https://www.worldhistory.org/Jallianwala_Bagh_Massacre/. Accessed 20 May 2024. 

“Overview: Rowlatt Act.” Oxford Reference, https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100431140. Accessed 20 May 2024.