Notes 1 Resituating Gender and Violence during the Great War 1. John Keay, India: A History (New York: Grove Press, 2000), 475–77. The soldiers fired 1,650 rounds. They killed or wounded an almost equal number. The number of dead varies, yet just fewer than 380 seems to be the most accu- rate count. 2. George Dangerfield’s The Strange Death of Liberal England (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997) and Ronald Hyam’s The Edwardian Turn of Mind (London: Pimlico, 1997) remain useful studies for the period. Hyam in par- ticular points out prewar examples of literary and artistic post-modernism in much the same way as Paul Fussell’s later work The Great War and Modern Memory (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977). 3. The literature on India and the war is thin and dated. For primary sources con- sult Sir James Willcocks, With the Indians in France (London: Constable, 1920) and Lt.-Col. J. W. B. Merewether and Sir Frederick Smith, The Indian Army Corps in France (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1918). A number of useful secondary sources emerged in the 1970s and 1980s. See Dewitt C. Ellinwood and S. D. Pradhan, eds, India and World War I (Columbia, MO: South Asia Books, 1978); Jeffery Greenhut, “The Imperial Reserve: The Indian Corps on the Western Front, 1914–1915,” Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 12 (October 1983): 54–73, and “Sahib and Sepoy: An Inquiry into the Relationship between the British Officers and the Native Soldiers of the British Indian Army,” Military Affairs 48 (January 1984): 15–18, and Gregory Martin, “The Influence of Racial Attitudes on British Policy Towards India,” Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 14 (January 1986): 91–116. For a “high” political perspective see Algernon Rumbold, Watershed in India, 1914–1922 (London: Athlone, 1979). More generalized works that touch the war include Rozina Visram, Ayahs, Lascars and Princes: Indians in Britain, 1900–1947, and Asians in Britain: 400 Years of History (London: Pluto, 1986 and 2002 respectively), and Laura Tabili’s, We Ask for British Justice: Workers and Racial Difference in Late Imperial Britain (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994). Philippa Levine’s Prostitution, Race and Politics: Policing Venereal Disease in the British Empire (New York: Routledge, 2003) is one of the few recent works to examine the roles of gender and race in the war. 126 NOTES 4. Barbara Ramusack, The Princes of India in the Twilight of Empire: Dissolution of a Patron–Client System 1914–1939 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1979), 10, 13. 5. As early as 1813 William Wilberforce contrasted Indian domesticity and its “family, fireside evils” with the respect allotted to Englishwomen. James Mill’s six-volume History of India (London: James Madden, 1848) likewise argued that women were “exalted” among “civilized people” and “degraded” among the “uncivilized.” Cited in Martin Weiner, Men of Blood: Violence, Manliness, and Criminal Justice in Victorian England (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 31. 6. This brings to mind James Scott’s work on peasant resistance, Weapons of the Weak (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985), in which he explores subtle forms of resistance. What one may call Gandhi’s resistance” from 1914 to 1918 is even more unique in that it redirected extreme violence away from, and in the service of, colonial power. 7. This was not unique to India. When the United States entered the war in 1917, Filipinos subscribed heavily to Liberty Bond drives and tried to organize a division of Filipino troops to fight alongside white soldiers; US authorities rejected their efforts. See Paul Kramer, The Blood of Government: Race, Empire, & the Philippines (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006), 383–384. 8. Mary Renda, Taking Haiti: Military Occupation & the Culture of U.S. Imperialism, 1915–1940 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 15. See for example Max Boot’s piece “The Case for American Empire,” Weekly Standard (October 15, 2001): 27. Boot suggested that the “troubled lands” such as Afghanistan “cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign admin- istration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets.” 9. Purnima Bose and Laura Lyons, “Dyer Consequences: The Trope of Amritsar, Ireland, and the Lessons of the ‘Minimum’ Force Debate” Boundary 2, 26 (Summer 1999), 200; I am also referencing Mike Davis’ harrowing, although polemical, Late Victorian Holocausts (New York: Verso, 2001), and Priya Satia’s “The Defense of Inhumanity: Air Control and the British Idea of Arabia,” The American Historical Review 111, 1 (February 2006): 17. For a study on imperial violence between the 1750s and 1850s see Richard Gott, Britain’s Empire: Resistance, Repression, and Revolt (New York: Verso, 2011). 10. In particular, Jordanna Bailkin’s “The Boot and the Spleen: When was Murder Possible in British India?” Comparative Studies in Society and History 48, 2 (2006): 462–493 explores Curzon’s attempts to contain British violence. See especially pages 484–486. 11. Ivan Evans, Cultures of Violence: Lynching and Racial Killing in South Africa and the American South (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009), 21. 12. See chapter 8 of Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harcourt, 1976). NOTES 127 13. Cited in Enzo Traverso, The Origins of Nazi Violence (London: New Press, 2003), 51. 14. As both Sudipta Sen and Nick Dirks have pointed out in their studies of eighteenth-century India, rhetorical appeals to British concepts of “sover- eignty” legitimized colonial violence ex post facto. See, respectively, Distant Sovereignty: National Imperialism and the Origins of British India (New York: Routledge, 2002) and The Scandal of Empire: India and the Creation of Imperial Britain (Cambridge: Harvard/Belknap, 2006), 25, 257. 15. Bernard Cohn, Colonialism and its Forms of Knowledge (Princeton University Press, 1996). 16. See Susan Bayly, “Caste and ‘Race’ in the Colonial Ethnography of India,” in Peter Rob, ed., The Concept of Race in South Asia (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1995) 165–218; and Rosalind O’Hanlon, “Manliness and Imperial Service in Mughal North India,” Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient 42, 1 (1999): 47–93; and “Masculinity and the Bangash Nawabs of Farukhabad,” in Antoinette Burton and Tony Ballantyne, eds, Bodies in Contact: Rethinking Colonial Encounters in World History (Durham: Duke University Press, 2005) pp. 19–37. 17. Ashis Nandy, The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self Under Colonialism (Oxford University Press, 1988). 18. Dow cited in Metcalfe, Ideologies of the Raj (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 8. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid., Orme cited in Metcalfe, Ideologies, 9. 21. Orme cited in Mrinalini Sinha’s Colonial Masculinity: The “Manly Englishman” and the “Effeminate Bengali” in the Late Nineteenth Century (Manchester University Press, 1995), 14–15. The French missionary Jean-Antoine Dubois, by way of further example, had echoed Orme’s appraisal of Bengali frailty in his Description of the Character, Manners, and Customs of the People of India (London: Printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1817). The Madras government, after judging Dubois’ work as “the most correct, compre- hensive, and minute account extant in any European language of the Hindus,” paid him for the rights to print it as a reference and training manual for its officials. See C. E. Buckland, Dictionary of Indian Biography [DIB] (London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1906), 124. 22. Quoted by Sinha, Colonial Masculinity, 15. 23. As Suleri points out, Mill and his contemporary Thomas Babington Macaulay proved extremely dismissive of any Indian claims to cultural agency. Macaulay curtly noted that the entire corpus of Indian and Arabic literature was worth less than “a single shelf of a good European library,” while Mill opined that India’s historical legacy rested on no more than their tendency to “derive a peculiar gratification from pretensions to a remote antiquity.” 24. George Clarke, 1st Baron Sydenham of Combe(Gov. of Bombay 1907–1913), My Working Life (London: John Murray, 1927), 219, 282. 128 NOTES 25. Indira Chowdhury, The Frail Hero and Virile History: Gender and the Politics of Culture in Colonial Bengal (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998), 13–15. As Chowdhury further notes, the Tagores put forward their program in the pages of the National Paper, first published in 1867. Devendranath Tagore, the father of Nobel Prize winner Rabindranth Tagore, had assumed leadership of the Brahmo Samaj in 1843 and exercised great influence among the Bengali middle-class. For a pioneering text on colonial gender see John Roselli’s “The Self Image of Effeteness: Physical Education and Nationalism in 19th Century Bengal,” Past and Present 86, 1 (1980): 121–148. 26. Ibid. Cited in Chowdhury, The Frail Hero, 21, 12–13. The lathi is a bamboo stave, often metal-tipped. The British would have never recruited lahtiyals so soon after the Mutiny. 27. Sinha, Colonial Masculinity, 17. Sinha refers us to Christine Baxter’s “The Genesis of the Babu: Bhabanicharan Bannerji and Kalikata Kamalay,” in Peter Robb and David Taylor, eds, Rule, Protest, Identity, Aspects of Modern South Asia (London: Curzon, 1978), 193–206. 28. Sinha, Colonial Masculinity, 18. 29. In Bengal alone the number of students at liberal arts colleges increased from 1,374 in 1870–1871 to over 5,200 in 1890–1891. The number of colleges rose from 16 to 34 in the same period. Anil Seal, The Emergence of Indian Nationalism, Competition and Collaboration in the Later Nineteenth Century (Cambridge University Press, 1968), 19. Cited in Judith Brown, Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 125. 30. See also Victor J. Seidler, Unreasonable Men: Masculinity and Social Theory (London: Routledge, 1994), 71. 31. Ibid., 16–17; J. A.