Customer Reviews

Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

Whatever its impact on India, the two centuries of the British Raj were an inspiration for novelists, poets, painters, film makers and popular historians. Lawrence James falls into the last group. His "Raj" is a set of overlapping portraits: some exciting, some grandiose, some grim, some exotic, all animated and colorful. They do not quite blend into a coherent picture of British rule but are fascinating to view.

Mr. James has set himself the task of covering political, institutional and social history. Although he limits himself to the British point of view, the job is too big for even a bulky volume like this one. As a consequence, many years and events receive brief notices or none at all. (By comparison, Sir Penderel Moon's "The British Conquest and Dominion of India", which concentrates almost completely on politics, is over twice as long.) The institutional and social accounts likewise jump around. There is, for example, a section, set before the Indian Mutiny of 1857, on the onerous taxation imposed on Indian villages, in which we are told of tax rates of 50 to 75 percent of net income. Later, in a different context, appear economic statistics for a single locality, which have the villagers paying taxes of about five percent. The discrepancy is not explained, nor even alluded to. Did the British wisely cut taxes after the Mutiny? Were rates drastically different in different areas? Did widespread evasion make the nominal rates a sham? Are the figures for some reason not comparable? There is no way to tell, and the question is surely not unimportant.

Elsewhere, as in the section on the Princely States, the author recounts a multitude of details without leaving a clear impression. One would like some estimate of the balance between playboy rajas and their hardworking counterparts, and between princes loyal to the paramount power and those who submitted only under duress. The mere alternation of scandal and praise is not satisfactory.

If, however, one looks at the parts without worrying about their sum, this is an informative (and certainly lively) book. Subjects range from concise histories of the Raj's most dramatic eras (its formation in the 18th Century, the Great Mutiny and the nationalist struggles of the 20th century) to taxation and policing to the social and sexual lives of the sahib class to India's participation in the World Wars to literature and films about the Raj. Unhappily, the author's serviceable prose is too frequently marred by copy editing that is wretched even by the low standards of our day. Jarring is the frequent use of "whom" where "who" would be correct (a most unusual error). Surrealistic is this garbled statement (p. 451) about a corps of staunchly Islamic troops: "Pathans, always highly receptive to Pan-Islamic appeals, were responsible for two mutinies of the 130th Baluchis during the winter of 1914-15, both sparked off by fears of being forced to follow Muslims." My puzzlement lasted until I figured out that "to follow Muslims" was supposed to read "to fight fellow Muslims".

Some earlier reviews on this site decry Mr. James' supposed partiality for the British rulers and inattention to the masses of their subjects. That is a misguided criticism. The author is alert for signs of racialism, arrogance and ineptitude among the British, occasionally to the point of unfairness. Were those Englishmen who deplored Hindu customs really more blameworthy than the post-1948 politicians who sought to suppress them and turn India into a secular state (an effort that is now encountering a dangerous backlash)? As for his summary evaluation that the Raj was good for the subcontinent, that is a left-handed compliment. He reckons that, given the realities of 18th and 19th century geopolitics, India was bound to fall prey to some form of European imperialism and that the British form was more benign than any of the alternatives.

It is true that he is strongly critical of Mahatma Gandhi's insouciance concerning the outcome of World War II and of vain, incompetent Lord Mountbatten's handling of the partition between India and Pakistan. Anyone who thinks that India would have been better off in the Far Eastern Co-Prosperity Sphere or that Mountbatten deserves no blame for the butcher's bill of 1948 should turn elsewhere for reading matter, preferably to works of utopian fantasy.

The Raj is such a sprawling subject that no single volume can paint it entire. This one, while imperfect in many ways, is a good starting point.

Professor James' book is enlightening, but also a bit uneven and narrow. The image of jovial British troops in exotic locations will probably always enter one's mind when one thinks of the Raj, but Professor James elaborates nicely on the day to day drudgery of the average soldier, and one of the strongest points of the book is the hot, dusty atmosphere that surrounds his discussions of commerce, the hunt, food, sexual relations, and many other topics. The discussion of India's involvement in the second world war is also fascinating. I do not feel that James' book necessarily presents a biased view, but because it does concentrate on the British experience first and foremost, and relies heavily on British correspondance and debate in parliament, I can understand how one might walk away with the impression that the Indian experience was treated lightly, or even unfairly. On the debit side, I finished the book feeling that I hadn't really learned anything knew about the overarching British imperial experience, and I agree with a previous commentator who stated that the final years were glossed over. The book is also short on maps, and I had to pull out the atlas a number of times to pinpoint the location of the events being described. Overall a good narrative and cultural (on the British side, mostly) history that could have used a larger dose of figures and analysis.

It is not often that a book with 736 pages leaves one empty. The book should be retitled a military history of the British Raj, as Mr. James uses his considrable talents and efforts on the colonization of India and its staying power, and very very little time and effort on the net result of the modernization of India. The central thesis of the book is that the British were benign autocrats and the Raj was a boon to India. This thesis is debatable but what irks this reader is the limited scope of this book. James spends almost no time on the transforming effects of the Raj on the Indian people, and how the idea of India arose among the people. The reforms of Gandhi were western inspired, and democracy in general a gift from Britain, but James does not discuss how these views arose and evolved among the Indian elite. He barely mentions the Indian presence in the Raj bureacracy and its transforming power, while the "martial races" in the Raj miltary are discussed at length. The rebirth of poetry and literature among the Indian elite is not discussed. And this book is not merely a military history as the British view of colonialism is discussed at length, as seen by the frequent (and nauseating) snippets of Kipling. The battles within Congress, changes in the Indian education, the rise of different ethnic groups within the Raj and the ICS are not discussed. Finally, Muslim fears of a Hindu Raj are mentioned but not adequately explanined. James is at his best when he delves into the adventures of Clive and his compatriots, but the book is not a history of the British Raj, but rather a history of the conquest of India.

This is a big picture account of Britain's involvement in India from the mid-1700s to 1947. On the whole its very enjoyable and enlightening and worth four stars for its content and style. The exception is anepilogue which tries to credit Britain with everything that's good about modern India and blame all its faults on geopolitics and the Indian psyche....whatever that might be. It's hard to describe how angry I felt when reading such biased nonsense.

Raj's strength is the period running up to the mutiny. From the early days of the East India Company, to the hours running up to the mutiny, James paints the pre-imperial days as an merchant's adventure story that was spoiled by cynical exploitation of the native population by missionaries and Darwinists and the imposition of an unfair tax system that will sound familiar to many from other colonial regimes. After reading the early chapters, you'll wonder why the mutiny didn't come any sooner.

Then, in 1857, comes the imposition of colonial rule. James views the 90 years of London rule as a positive period - except, that is, for the Amritsar massacre and other obvious misdeeds. India was left with a free flowing democracy, a competent civil service and a judicial legal service. Apparently, this is something that the British should be proud of. The period is covered in great detail and - if you're prepared to ignore the author's obvious love of the empire - then you'll learn quite a lot. Predictably, James doesn't have much to say on the arrogance with which Britain administered its colonial subjects. (Those wishing a more balanced account should check out City of Djinns by William Dalrymple.)

Despite these flaws, I'd still say Raj is well worth the effort. There's quite a lot on the Great Game, loads on the day-to-day drudge of working for the Empire and some decent maps that help to explain your geographical questions. James also kicks things off with some initial mumble on the Mughal decline that sets the stage quite nicely.

Four stars....with reservations

Raj is too long to be a "good read" (it comes to 647 pages of small print) yet too anecdotal and selective to qualify as real scholarship. It is based almost entirely on British sources, and tells the story of the Raj from a British perspective, with very little insight or information on Indian opinion. Much of the book is devoted to military history, with almost nothing about economics or colonial administration (although there is an interesting sub-chapter on the culture of the Indian Civil Service). That said, the book is well-written and lively, James isn't shy about stating his opinions, and readers who like popular histories of the British Empire might want to try Raj out. Other readers should wait for the paperback version or pick up the hardcover after its remaindered.

This is a flawed but useful book on the British Raj in India. First let us get the flaws out of the way. Many people here have mentioned its supremacist viewpoint, quoting the jacket blurb. In fact, the jacket description does not do justice to James. He is somewhat to the British side of the center, but does a decent job of showing all viewpoints and giving credit and/or censure where they are due. If anything, the author's fault is that he is not as much objective as omni-subjective. This, and his tendency to write complete sentences without attribution, lead us to believe there is a multiparty debate going on inside the author's head.

Another fault which has been mentioned by Edward Veal in a review here is the low copy editing standards. Several sentences just could not be right, and I wish I had Edward's zeal in writing some down, because I've forgotten them now. One thing I do remember is the manglings of Indian names. These range from the minor but irritating (Khatri is written Khastri, Krishna is written Khrishna or Khrisha) to the random and absurd (Raghoji [Bhosle, a Maratha general] is called Rahugi) to the meaning changing (Garhwali means "from Garhwal"; the author uses Gharwali meaning housewife). The usage of "gi" for the honorific "ji" at the end of Indian names is especially irritating, surely the author should know that the rule of "g" being soft before "i" is not applicable to Indic languages? Now these are *not* contemporary anglicizations. James is not consistent about that either. If Kutch becomes Kachchh (current spelling), why isnt Poona Pune or Cawnpore Kanpur?

The last flaw is that James is simply not a good writer in the caliber of your typical British historian. His writing can be jumpy, inconsistent, and is memorable for the bad aspects rather than the good. He uses pet words (eg. will-o-the-wisp) excessively, and uses unnecessarily hard words -- which furthermore are misspelled, eg. I still dont know what läocooned means but I'm sure the umlaut shouldnt be atop the "a". In the chapter on Russia-Britian tensions (a superfluous chapter if there was one), he repeatedly uses the word "Maskirovka" to refer to Russia's deceptive tactics. The word comes from a chess move, but I doubt it was used thusly before Stalinist times. After the seventh time it appears, I was like, okay we get it, let's move on.

Now for the good parts. There is a *wealth* of information in this book. As I said before, James is British of center, but this is not a bad thing for someone raised on the British-bad India-good B&W wisdom of Indian Government textbooks and the typically hagiographic/sensational works of Indian writers. How many Indians would know that Peshwa Nanasaheb, far from being a hero of the First War of Indian Independence (or Sepoy Mutiny from the British angle; James correctly says the truth lay in the middle), ordered the murder of hundreds of innocent British women and children? Or that Naoroji won a council seat in Britain? Or that Charles Dickens wanted to exterminate all Hindus? Or the Swadeshi movement was protectionism for Indian traders in all but name? Or that Gandhi didnt care about people losing lives for his cause? Who remembers men such as Auchinleck, the army head who refused to accept honours because he felt Britain made a mess of leaving India? I would go so far as to say this book should be mandatory reading for every Indian history student, if only to get an alternate viewpoint.

The most exciting parts in the book undoubtedly correspond to the 45-47 era. The sheer volume of stuff happening and hitting the ceiling in those times, especially the few months before independence, is probably unparalleled in Indian history. James is especially good here, in these last few chapters.

The level of research that has gone into this book is impressive. It has a lot of detail, many eyewitness accounts and quotes and anecdotes, snippets from contemporary literature etc, which in my opinion get the pulse of a time better than the spouting of dates and events and such. All in all, not a great book, but a very useful and entertaining history.

Excellent history. I've always had an interest in British India and James's book fills in a whole lot of gaps. He begins with the emergence of British power in the middle of the eighteenth century and goes all the way through the Second World War. The focus is as much on England as it is on India and as you would expect in a book of this size and sweep there are a few dry spots. It's evident that James in a military historian as he tends to drone on over rather arcane military maneuvers that don't really add to the movement of the story.

My guess is that an Indian historian would write a very different book (and likely has) but I found the book very readable and interesting. Though overly detailed in spots James walks a skillful line between plot and detail and offers an excellent addition to the library.

This is not a perfect book, but there are great chapters and its overall approach is I thought commendable. I appreciated his view on Gandhi, as a good antidote to the hagiographical view so often expressed. (I have always had reservations about a man who thought the thing to do was drink his own urine!) But I found the footnotes in this book next to useless--I have seldom seen footnotes so non-revealing. Sometimes the name given in the footnote was not in the bibliography. But it is an interesting story James tells, and makes me want to read his The Rise and Fall of the British Empire.

This is an interesting and informative history book. No doubt it has a Western bias just as it would likely have a different bias if written by an Indian. Its bias should not penalize its excellence in the minds of potential readers. After all, the most interesting books have a point of view.

As an American, the primary fact that I got out of this book was that India was the British Empire (after 1776). Without India, Britain would have been just another average colonial power. Therefore, the Raj is a cornerstone of British history, one sadly overlooked by basic history courses in high school and college in the US.

A few months back an Amazon reader left a comment on one of my previous reviews encouraging me to investigate the works of British historian Lawrence James. I'm glad that he did; I had not heard of James before and would likely not have discovered this wonderful narrative history of the British imperial experience in South Asia otherwise.

There is an intriguing puzzle at the center of the "The Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India." How did a relatively tiny island nation thousands of miles away subjugate and then for a century rule a subcontinent populated by hundreds of millions of natives with a proud history of self-government, literature, architecture, and warfare?

James suggests that two factors above all enabled this improbable conquest of Britannia in India. First, the native cultures of the subcontinent had long respected and remained loyal to centralized authority (e.g. the caste system), so long as that power was overwhelming and appeared destined to win. Thus, from beginning to end, the Raj rested on a tenuous foundation of prestige and the deliberate, often Ruritarian display of authority. Any threat to the guarded image of British invincibility threatened the entire enterprise. Second, the Raj was able to effectively divide-and-conquer. The upper castes and the rural princes were given a privileged, relatively secure role in the Raj and the ryots (peasants) ostensibly benefited from the peace and stability that British influence brought to India. James stresses that the British could only have succeeded with widespread and determined native collaboration, a fact that still rankles contemporary Indian self-consciousness.

In the end, James maintains that the Raj was unmade mainly by the British themselves. On the one hand, the empire failed to emulate the practices of the Romans, who offered conquered peoples the ability to eventually enter Roman public life on a level plane. The author notes continuously how highly talented and generally loyal Indians were stymied by British contumacy. In support of this claim, James chronicles the use of the "n-word" by the British and how it seemed to spread with each successive generation of British overlordship. On the other hand, the nature of the Raj was powerfully influenced by domestic political changes in England in the late 1880s. The British presence and conduct in India had no more vigilant and strident critic than Labor MPs back in London.

A major side theme of "The Raj" is the nineteenth century cold war between England and Russia that we know today as "the Great Game." A simple syllogism underpinned the British commitment to India and likewise motivated Russian foreign policy: Britain was strong and affluent because of the Empire; the Empire would be nothing without India; Britain would not be strong and affluent if India was lost. James sees the whole Russo-British contest as a farce. He compares it to the chess strategy known as "maskirovka" - a ploy to hide one's true focus by threatening a perceived weakness (James suggests that British India played the same role in nineteenth century Russian foreign policy as Cuba did in the mid-twentieth). James argues that the true national interest of the Tsars was always Constantinople and the Balkans; the much ballyhooed central Asian invasion route to India was a mere diversionary tactic. Thus, James sees "masterly inactivity" as clearly the right approach to British foreign policy, not the so-called forward school.

It is also worth noting that James is positively hostile toward Gandhi. "For all his public humility, Gandhi was at heart a vain man who wanted Indian freedom on his own terms and through his own methods...Gandhi was also a consummate showman and a shrewd politician, with a knack projecting himself in such a way as to attract the greatest possible attention in India and abroad...even [his] now familiar loin clothes was a prop in a well-though-out piece of political stagecraft." It takes a bold man to shred so thoroughly one of the few national leaders to emerge from the twentieth century with their reputation fully intact and growing by the decade.

The only person who is attacked more consistently than Gandhi is the last viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten. He is described as vain, overly ambitious, self-absorbed, and the worst thing a British official in India could be, impartial (in this case, to the Hindu cause as represented by Gandhi and Nehru). James places the death of several hundred thousand Hindus and Muslims in Punjab during partition in 1947 - "one of this century's most appalling human catastrophes" - squarely at Mountbatten's feet for his lack of effort in preventing the sectarian violence.

In all, I cannot imagine a more informative and easily accessible history of the two hundred year British experience in India than this.