Koditschek Theodore. Liberalism, Imperialism, and the Historical Imagination: Nineteenth-Century Visions of a Greater Britain

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

That Mill’s benevolence was not entirely disinterested – that a good

deal of his own sense of self was at stake – can be seen in the venom

and visceral hostility with which he calumniated all aspects of Hindu

culture. Indeed, there is an irony in the way his animus against Indian

civilization drives his own prose beyond the rationalism he espouse s,

into exactly the kind of rhetorical hysteria that he ﬁnds so objectionable

in his image of “the east.” It is clear from his language that Mill found

something about India to be deeply and personally threatening. This

ineffable specter, which eludes his diagnosis, is invariably conjured up

under the catch-all la bel of “effeminacy.”“The wild imaginings” and

“wild eulogies and legends” of effeminate Hindus haunt the otherwise

dry and deracinated pages of his History. They threaten to overspill the

sober realm of utility and to escape any “coherent system of belief.” If

the Hindus were simple primitives, like the Native Americans or the

Scottish Highlanders, they would pose no danger to the British mascu-

linity of a man like Mill. It is because they insinuate the illusion of

cultivation that their wiles must be aggressively resisted, and their “bar-

barism” ruthles sly exposed. In contrast to Elphinstone, who hoped to

Britishize the Indians, Mil l fears that they will orientalize their conquer-

ors and render them effete. The only solution is that the Indians must

completely g ive up their culture and embrace the anglicized version of

Britishness to which he (a Scotsman) had acquiesced.

At this point, it is instructive to compare Mill with that other strug-

gling, aspiring writer with whom he shared the streets of Edinburgh

during the 1790s. Young Walter Scott, as we have seen, learned to

carve out a viable masculine identity by diverting the ﬁres of revolution

and crafting a centrist romance of bi-national unity. Swept up in the

revolutionary fervor that Scott resisted, Mill aba ndoned ﬁrst Scotland,

then religion and political centrism, in favor of a cold, atheistic London

literary exile. Having eschewed Scott’s reconciliatory romance of Anglo-

Scottish Union, he clung more desperately to the redeeming powers of

reason, hazarding the hope that they could be purveyed to an English

audience through the foil of an Indian History. To insure his rejection of

fancy and imagination, Mill associated these qualities with alien, effemi-

nizing (i.e. Indian) forms. Perhaps this explains why a penurious

Scottish writer with a growing family in London would seek an English

reputation by devoting twelve laborious years to writing a dry, unsym-

pathetic Indian History.

Mill, British India, 13, 174, 176, 247.

Bain, James Mill,1–158; Mazlish, James and John Stuart Mill,3–145; Eli Halevy, The

Growth of Philosophical Radicalism (London, 1928), 313–514.

James Mill and the British assault on Indian history 85

In a sense, Mill’s gamble paid off brilliantly, and his labors were richly

rewarded, enabling him to join the English intelligentsia of his day. Since

English law was itself no ideal utilitarian model, reformers could do

better by leaving England and setting to work on the blank slate of the

east. Unfortunately, the early English nabobs had degenerated to the

level of their new environment, and it was only with the Regulating Act

of 1773 that the notion of turning the EIC into an instrument of

progressive government was born. Twenty year later, the Permanent

Settlement of Bengal showed just how rudderless and mistaken the

EIC policy-makers remained when they set the interests of the few

(zamindars) over those of the many (ryots). Howeve r, as Mill’s nar rative

drew closer to the moment when its publication could enter (and alter)

the nar rative itself, its author looked more favorably on the potential of

the EIC.

In regard to intention, I know no government, either in past or present times that

can be placed equally high with that of the East India Company. I know no

government which has on all occasions shown so much of a disposition to make

sacriﬁces of its own interests to the interests of the people whom it governed ... but

that they have never erred so much, as when, distrusting its [sic] own knowledge,

they have followed the directions of men whom they unhappily thought wiser

than themselves, viz. Practical Statesmen and Lawyers.

Written by a statesman and lawyer manqué, this was taken as a job

application. A year later, in 1819, Mill was appointed to the post of

Assistant Examiner. Regularly promoted over the ensuing decade, he

was made Examiner in 1830. Mill’s co-optation into Indian decision-

making not only did wonders for his masculine self-esteem, but also

convinced him that a new spirit of utilitarian rationalism was about to

become dominant in the formulation of policy. No doubt it was ﬂatter-

ing to be publi cly told by Lord William Bentinck at his departure for

India in 1833, “I am going to British India, but I shall not be Governor

General. It is you who will be Governor General.” In fact, as most

recent historians have concluded, the importation of Benthamite utilita-

rianism into India during the 1830s effected no immediate revolution

in imperial government. It was Indian conditions, much more than

ofﬁcial intentions, which dictated how policies would play out on the

ground. When economic transformation ﬁ nally began, in the 1850s, it

proceeded more by technology transfer and capital investment than

through the animating force of bureaucratic policy. While the ryotwari

land settlement was increasingly favored by policy-makers, Mill was

Mill, British India, 396, 409, 579, quote on 583.

86 Imagining a British India

mistaken to imagine that it constituted a radical experiment that would

plough Ricardian rent back into government coffers to promote indige-

nous economic development and peasant autonomy.

Seen in this light, Mill’s gestures of ultra-rationalist self-congratulation

appear at least partly as exercises in self-delusion. His attack on Indian

culture did less to promote the triumph of universal values than to

reinforce the narrow prejudices of the new English ruling elite.

Privately, Mill must have viewed Indian developments during the years

of his EIC employment with a certain amount of wonderment and

unease: a reformist government, animated by hostility to orienta list

extravagance and wedded to principles of administrative centralization,

was becoming a chrysalis for the gestation of a new kind of hard-edged,

racially exclusionary anglocentric arrogance. A liberal imperialism,

committed to westernization and “ manly” empowerment, was bec oming

the instrument for removing Indians from responsible positions in self-

government and degrading them to the status of an inferior breed.

What did Mill the democrat and anti-imperialist really think of the

new Greater British Leviathan that was imposing its weight everywhere

around the world? How did Mill the atheist feel when the loudest and

most effective advocates of his radical principles turned out to be not

secular reformers, but Christian missionaries? It is hard to believe that

he was utterly blin d to these contradictions between the aims he pro-

fessed and the results he achieved.

Not everyone was enamored with Mill’s anglicization of the progress

narrative, and at least a few of the older orientalists worri ed th at his

performance in trashing Indian culture was the surest way to alie nate

Indians from British progress. In an obscure Bombay publication, Vans

Kennedy, a very different type of Scot, shredded Mill ’s claim that

ignorance of India, its language, and its culture was an advantage in

promoting understanding and objectivity. Drawing on his own back-

ground as an EIC ofﬁcial who had lived long in India, Kennedy showed

how Mill had misconstrued or neglected most of his sources. Eve n

worse, he had mad e the elementary mistake of equating the Hindu way

of life with Brahman ideology. It was quite impossible for a culture as

vicious and dysfunctional as M ill had depicted to survive for several

thousand years. What India needed was knowledgeable and sympathetic

Britons who were willing and able to translate her alien features into

Bain, James Mill, 343–9; quoted in Rosselli, Lord William Bentinck, 84. Stokes, Utilitarians

in India, especially 81–139; Bayly, Indian Society, 106–35.

Stokes, Utilitarians in India,50–2, 87–93, 173–9, 193–6; Zastoupil, Mill and India,7–27;

Pitts, A Turn to Empire, 123–33.

James Mill and the British assault on Indian history 87

terms that a metropolitan audience could appreciate and understand.

When he contemplated the matter from his London retirement,

Mountstuart Elphinstone was quietly inclined to agree. While he did

not publicly dispute Mill’s conclusion, he privately expressed his

dismay at the tone of Mill’s book. “Nothing is more common,” he

noted, “than to pronounce hastily and decidedly on the national character

of a nation: Yet how different it is to form a correct judgment on such

a subject.” Gradually, reluctantly, Elphinstone was persuaded to write

a diffe rent History of India that would provide an alternative to Mill’s

misbegotten work.

Although this projec t was never completed, the ﬁrst two volumes

appeared in 1841. They concentrate on traditional India, before the

British arrived. Without offering any strong endorsement to Hindu (or

Muslim) culture, Elphinstone pleads that Indians be understood in the

context of their history. The ancient Code of Manu was not appealing to

a modern reader, but would Englishmen like to be judged by the witch-

craft statutes of Elizabeth? Conducting a thorough review of the

evidence, Elphinstone reinforces the orientalist conclusion that the

ancient Indians were more advanced than any oth er civilization, includ-

ing those of Europe and Greece. If this lead had been lost in recent

centuries, Indians remained at least as intelligent and capable as any

other people. India’s failure to initiate its own modernization is regarded

by Elphinstone as largely accidental, and not indicative of any deﬁciency

in its elite. In contrast to Mill’s corrupt, parasitic, and intellectually

obfuscating Brahman, Elphinstone’s is a fastidious and spiritual ascetic,

whose prescribed life “is one of laborious study as well as of austerity and

reﬁnement.” If modern Brahmans have departed from the ways of their

ancestors and can be found in a wider range of activities and occupations,

this is merely evidence of their ﬂexibility and their self-refashioning for

conditions of modernity.

In his treatment of Hindu religion, Elphinstone emphasizes its

noble, elevating monotheistic elements. At the same time he praises rather

than blames the Hindus for incorporating pagan, idolatrous elements of

popular worship into orthodox religion. The notion that the Hindus are

Vans Kennedy, “Remarks on the Sixth and Seventh Chapters in Mill’s History of British

India,” in Transactions of the Literary Society of Bombay (London, 1823), III: 124–82.

ODNB, XXXI: 273–4.

Colebrooke, Life of Elphinstone, II: 353, 355; Mountstuart Elphinstone, “On the Moral

Character of Hindus as Described in Mill’s British India,” British Library, London,

European MSS, 128, fo. 218.

Mountstuart Elphinstone, The History of India: Hindu and Mahometan Periods (Allahabad,

1966), 10–85, quote on 12.

88 Imagining a British India

(or were ) effeminate, Elphinstone counters with a depiction of the gran-

deur and brilliance of a Sepoy cavalry. “Nothing can be more magniﬁcent

than this sort of charge: The thunder of the ground, the ﬂashing of their

arms, the brandishing of their spears, the agitation of their banners rush-

ing through the wind.”

Elphinstone throws his greatest challenge to the

imagination of British readers in his discussion of Indian drama and

poetry. “A person unacquainted Shanscrit [sic],” he avows, “scarcely

possesses the means of forming an opinion on the poetry of the Hindus.”

What ideas can we derive from being told that a maiden’s lips are a bandujiva

ﬂower and that the luster of the madhuca beams on her cheeks? ... Yet those

ﬁgures may be as expressive to those who understand the allusions, as our own

comparisons of a youthful beauty to an opening rose, or for one that pines for

love to a neglected primrose.

As antidote to the culture-blindness and earth-abstraction of Mill,

Elphinstone tries to transport his readers

to the deep shade of a grove, where the dark tamála mixes its branches with the

pale foliage of the nimba, and the mangoe tree extends its ancient arms among

the quivering leaves of the lofty pípala, some creeper twines round the jambu,

and ﬂings out its ﬂoating tendrils from the topmost bough. The asóca hangs

down the long clusters of its glowing ﬂowers, the madhavi exhibits its snow-white

petals, and other trees pour showers of blossoms from their loaded branches.

The air is ﬁlled with fragrance, and is still, but for the hum of bees and the

rippling of the passing rill.

Even in India, Elphinstone notes, it is difﬁcult for Britons fully to enter

into the cultural and imaginative world of Indians. “Religio n and manners

put bars to our intimacy with the natives, and limit the numbe r of trans-

actions as well as the free communication of opinions. We know nothing

of the interior of the families but by report; and have no share in those

numerous occurrences of life in which the amiable parts of character are

most exhibited.” And yet Elphinstone believed that, if British India were

really to cohere over the long run, these barriers would have to be sur-

mounted, and a much higher level of sympathy and mutual understanding

would have to be achieved. It was here that history had an indispensable

role to play. Yet Mill’s ethnocentric History had the opposite effect. Its

“sneers and sarcastic expressions” could only increase the distance

between Briton and Indian and inﬂame the prejudices of both al ike.

Elphinstone, History of India, 183, 187–91, 196–7, quote on 81.

Elphinstone, History of India, 147, 151–2.

Colebrooke, Life of Elphinstone, II: 353, quote on 355. See also Elphinstone, “On the

Moral Character of Hindus” and Elphinstone, History of India, 193–4.

James Mill and the British assault on Indian history 89

In his private journal, Elphinstone noted that “the most desirable

course for events in that country [India] is that European opinion s and

knowledge should spread until the nation becomes capable of founding

a government of its own, on principles of which Europe has long had

exclusive possession.” Yet this goal (of whi ch Mill also approved) would

become possible only if the Indians could formulate their own distinc-

tive wa y of absorbing Britishness into an authentically Indian idiom.

Once again, Elphinstone placed great hopes on the creative powers of

history to provide a vehicle for bi-cultural dialogue and mutual recog-

nition in which both Indian and Briton could learn to revise their

one-sided self-narratives and craft together a more balanced (and more

mutually integrated) Greater British history. Having dismissed the

value of Mill’s work in initiating this dialogue, he had no illusions

about the long-term utility of his own corrective History. On the other

hand, he placed great hope in the ﬂedgling efforts of a new breed of

“Europeanized Indians”–and most notably in the works of the

Brahman reformer and translator par excellence, Rammohun Roy.

6 Rammohun Roy’s Union of Anglo-Indian history

Born eleven months before James Mill, Rammo hun Roy was raised in a

devout Bengali Brahman family that exhibited many of the features

which Mil l would later so stridently decry: child marriage, ritual puriﬁ-

cation, and habitual abasement before a pantheon of household gods

all marked the rhythms of daily domestic life. Initially dutiful and

preternaturally religious, young Rammohun grew uneasy about many

aspects of his father’s creed. The study of Persian and Arabic gained

him access to the Koran and opened his eyes to the monotheistic

religion of the Muslims, which seemed more rational and satisfying

than his own ancestral faith. Further studies of the Vedas, Vedanta,

and Hindu reformers like Nanak, however, convinced him that there

was an alternative, superior tradition within Hinduism. At the same

time, he realized that the recovery of this purer original mode of worship

would require abandoning the idolatry and superstition that most

Hindus actually practiced.

Colebrooke, Life of Elphinstone, II: 344–5.

CLR. In addition to Collet’s original research, much of the value of this volume comes

from the research of the editors, published as supplements to each chapter. See also

Rammmohun Roy, “Autobiographical Sketch,” in The English Works of Rammohun Roy,

ed. Jogendra Chunder Ghose [1906], 4 vols. (New Delhi, 1982), I: 223–5; A. K.

Majumdar, “Religion of Rammohun Roy,” in V. C. Joshi (ed.), Rammohun Roy and the

Process of Modernization in India (New Delhi, 1975), 69–88.

90 Imagining a British India

When Rammohun’s widening spiritual horizons brought him into

conﬂict with his father, the boy left home at age ﬁfteen. Pressed by the

need to make money, he became a successful moneylender and banker

servicing the needs of high-living British ofﬁcers and zamindari elites.

Although the details of Rammohun’s life during this phase of his life are

sketchy, it appears that he made a great deal of money and saved up

enough to live independently for the remain der of his life. Apprenticing

himself to an EIC collector, Roy perfected his English, made himself

master of the details of the Bengali revenue system, and worke d for a

time as a collector himself. This job gave him a window into the degrada-

tion of so many among his zamindar class.

This apogee of Rammohun Roy’s secular anglicization corresponded

with his spiritual discovery of Jesus Christ. Adding Greek, Latin, and

Hebrew to his linguistic armory, he made a close study of the Gospels

and the Old Testament. When he read such passages as the Serm on on

the Mount, he realized that the essence of Jesus’s message was exactly

the sam e as that conveyed by the more elevated portions of the Vedas

or the Koran. When Roy published a pamphlet entitled Precepts of Jesus:

The Guide to Peace and Happiness, the leaders of the British community

in Calcutta rejoiced that he seemed ready to embrace Christi anity. Yet

when the pamphlet appeared in 1820, they found that they had mis-

judged their man . For Roy took considerable pains to distinguish the

deep truths enunciated by the prophet Jesus from the corrupt shell of

Christian do gma, sectarian ritual, and theological absurdity that had

developed around the subsequent practices of European Chri stianity.

In this bold, audacious effort to turn the tables on British discourse, all

the charges that were made against degenerate Hinduism were now

reversed by this linguistically omnicompetent Hindu who saw exactly

the same pattern in the history of Christianity. When the Baptist mis-

sionaries tried to dismiss Roy’s arguments in their Friend of India, their

Indian friend shot back with another pamphlet, An Appeal to the

Christian Public in Defense of “The Precepts of Jesus”, in which his argu-

ment was restated more forcefully. In two further “Appeals” to addi-

tional rebuttals, Roy politely, but determinedly, refused to conc ede an

inch of ground.

Rammohun Roy was clearly accomplishing in the sphere of religion

what he had accomplished in the secular realm a decade earlier: he was

challenging the British masters on their own imperial territory, and then

CLR, 1–58; Asok Sen, “The Bengal Economy and Rammohun Roy,” in Joshi (ed.),

Rammohun Roy and Modernization, 103–35.

CLR, 59–107.

Rammohun Roy’s Union of Anglo-Indian history 91

forcing them to engage with him on Indian terms. All the defects which

Christians found in his religion were equally evident in their own. How

was the Christian Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit any different

from the Hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva? If Hindu idolatry

and superstition were vicious, then the Christian equivalents were

equally vicious. Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity, Roy now concluded,

each represented different approaches to the same underlying universal

truths: God was one, omnipotent, and indivisible. He was the lord and

creator of all nature, and had endowed all human beings with the same

morally grounded precept to “ love thy neighbor.” In their laudable

efforts to make religion comprehensible to th e uneducated, the early

expositors of all three religion s had made too many compromises with

the bigotry, superstition, and idolatry of the masses. Everywhere, this

produced the same lamentable results: preposterous fables, degrading

rituals, sectarian hatreds, and irrational beliefs. Yet in an era of global

enlightenment, it should be possible for diverse cultures to exchange

their religions, much as Jones had proposed that they should exchange

their classical texts. Separating the chaff of latter-day corruptions from

the core of deep spiritual truths underneath, each religion could be

ransacked and fused in a higher unity. In this task, Chri stian, Hindu,

and Muslim (not to mention Buddhist, Sikh, Confucian, and Jew) were

all equally placed. Eschew ing insular ethnocentrism and arrogant pre-

sumptions of superiority or inferiority, the new synthesis could provide

the spiritual foundations for a trans-national, trans-racial union of east

and west.

Given the reality of British–Indian power relations, Rammohun Roy

was not permitted to indulge in this naive ecumenical formulation for

very long. His desire to encompa ss everyone seemed to satisfy no one.

Unimpressed with the boldness of his rhetorical sallies against the

English master, orthodox Hindus ﬁxed instead on what they perceived

as his manifest apostasy. His original rebellion against his paterfamilias

was never forgiven, and his very existence posed a challenge to the

verities of Brahman conventionality. Meanwhile, the Muslims (like the

Christians) did not know what to make of this man who had worked for

the British, venerated Jesus, called himself a Hindu, was hated by the

pandits, routinely quoted the Koran, and publicly appeared in Islamic

dress. This confusion, moreover, did not end with Rammohun Roy’s

death. Over the years, he has been variously depicted as an apologist

CLR, 107–66; Roy, “The Precepts of Jesus: The Guide to Peace and Happiness,” in

English Works, III: 482–544, IV: 545–874; “A Present to the Believers in One God,” in

English Works, IV: 940–58.

92 Imagining a British India

for the British Raj, a forerunner of Indian nationalism, a romantic

pantheist in the style of Goethe, and a preﬁgurement of the twentieth-

century “guru” who peddles “eastern wisdom” to the pocketbooks of

the west. As a result, there has been a tendency to play down Roy’s

signiﬁcance – either to exalt him as unique original or to dismiss him as

an unclassiﬁable freak.

Viewed against the backdrop of nineteenth-

century liberal imperialism, however, he may be considered in relation

to the other ﬁgures in this chapter. With James Mill, he could be

scathing about the degradation of modern Hindus, but with Henry

Colebrooke, he lovingly resurrected the ancient classics from which

they had diverged. With John Malcolm he could wax eloquent about

the preservation of Indian traditions, yet with Mountstuart Elphinstone

he could seek an Indian path to modernization that could never be

articulated in the English language alone. In short, Rammohun Roy

was the British–Indian ot her – the sympathetic but alien interlocutor

whom liberal imperialism would have to accommodate if it were ever to

achieve true union on an imperial scale.

Staking out this new space for liberal imperial discourse was an act of

considerable originality that could only have been attempted by a man,

like Roy, of multiple hybridities. As an anglicized Indian, a Hinduized

Briton, a modernizing traditionalist, a romantic rationalist, a bourgeois

intellectual, and a scholar-a ristocrat, Roy had precisely the right combi-

nation of material and conceptual resources to invent a new kind of

“bordering.” Unlike the bordering that we have so far considered, that

of Roy did not ﬂow from metropolis to the margins. Rather, it grasped the

gravitational situation of the center from the eccentric vantage of

an orbital periphery. To make useful calculations from so unstable a

location required a man of great acuity who was also fast on his feet.

Moreover, Roy’s work involved an enormous amount of literal as well as

ﬁgurative translation – interpreting Britons to Indians and vice versa. Here

Roy’s vast linguistic skil ls and familiarity with the canonical texts of every

sect and denomination stood him in good stead. His substantial wealth

allowed him to initiate projects that others would not sponsor and to

prime the pump of inter-cultural communication. At various points in

his ca reer he ﬁnanced a succession of papers and journals, in English,

Bengali, Persian, and other languages, publishing articles not only in his

own name, but also in a range of pseudonymous disguises, which enabled

For a range of different interpretations of Rammohun Roy, see the essays in Joshi (ed.),

Rammohun Roy and Modernization; Ramananda Chaterjee, Rammohun Roy and Modern

India (Calcutta, 1918); and Iqbal Singh, Rammohun Roy: A Biographical Inquiry into the

Making of Modern India (Bombay, 1958).

Rammohun Roy’s Union of Anglo-Indian history 93

him to ﬂoat trial balloons or indulge in playful parody.

In this manner,

over a period of twenty years, he was able to accomplish two seemingly

contradictory feats. In the ﬁrst place, he was able to gain acceptance as a

British imperialist, without sacriﬁcing his reputation as an Indian patriot.

Second, he was able to continue to identify as a practicing Hindu, without

ever ﬂagging in his commitment to British modernity. Let us consider

these dual accomplishments in turn.

To understand Roy’s trajectory as a British imperialist, it is ﬁrst neces-

sary to ask why his global, even cosmic, bordering – with its transcendent

vision of universa l spirituality – should ever have assumed a distinctively

British imperial face. Indeed, during his youth, Roy’s political and spiri-

tual aspira tions had been more open-ended. Like many European intel-

lectuals, he had been inspired by the ideals of the French Revolution, and

he identiﬁed with the cause of oppressed peoples in Italy, Greece, Latin

America, Ireland, and everywhere else around the world. Initially

attracted to Napoleon, he was ultimately repelled by that dictator’s pen-

chant for violence and tyranny. In the meantime, Roy’s EIC work, and his

later friendships with Britons (usually Scotsmen) like David Hare,

Alexander Duff, and William Adam, left him with a growing respect for

British liberal culture. Finally, the unconditional British triumphs of the

1815–20 period, both in Europe and in India, left no really viable practical

alternative for the gestation of a nascent Indian national identity. By

bringing peace, prosperity, and western education, the British, according

to Roy, had differentiated themselves from all of India’s previous

conquerors.

Divine Providence at last, in its abundant mercy, stirred up the English [sic]

nation to break the yoke of those tyrants, and to receive the oppressed Natives of

Bengal under its protection. Having made Calcutta the capital of their domin-

ions, the English distinguished this city by such peculiar marks of favor, as a free

people would be expected to bestow, in establishing an English Court of

Judicature, and granting to all within its jurisdiction, the same civil rights as

every Briton enjoys in his native country; thus putting the Natives of India in

possession of such privileges as their forefathers never expected to attain, even

under Hindu rulers.

CLR, 128–9, 138–52, 167–208, especially 132–6, 171–7. Collet notes that in the early

1820s, Roy was editor of the bilingual Sambad Kanmundi, the Persian Mirat-ul-Akhbar,

the Brahminical Magazine, and a Unitarian Press. CLR, 128–9, 171–7, 132–6. See also

Wilhelm Halbfass, India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding (Albany, 1988), 197–216.

On colonial hybridity in postmodern discourse, see Robert J. C. Young, Colonial Desire:

Hybridity in Theory, Culture and Race (London, 1995), and Homi K. Bhabha, The Location

of Culture (London, 1994).

CLR, 163, 172–4, 233, 267, 306, 335, 396; Roy, “Appeal to the King in Council,” in

English Works, II: 446.

94 Imagining a British India