Mandeep, Thanks for removing my misconception. Is it that desi ghee was available to the Jawans before 1947 and entered Officers' Messes after 1947? Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, July 15, 2008.

Dear Arvind,, When I say 'we loved our ayahs' I mean we kids! In our young lives we had no conception of hierarchy. If ayah was good to us - and she usually was - we loved her! Hazel C.

> Arvind is absolutely correct in his observations. However, > we can see much of the same taking place with some of the > Asian community in the West. A refusal to integrate into > their new communities, retaining the dress and customs of > their home countries. As I was standing in the shower was pondering this further (better than singing in the shower) and realised that the refusal to change and adopt the customs, habits and dress of the new land arises from the desire to retain both ones own and the group identity. The national peer group ensured that change did not happen, by ridiculing those who "went native". As the conquering or dominant power an immigrant group can get away with it, but as Charles points out when the immigrant is not part of the ruling group this refusal to change is seen through different eyes - as a refusal to integrate. Sylvia

I do not agree with Charles Dique calling the Anglo- Indians the most snobbish. The Anglo - Indians blended well in the Indian way of life. We ate the Indian food, relished it and still do, (what a variety ..... Each state has its own specialities .....tasty, mouth - watering dishes...and the delicious aroma) even though many of us are living in Western Countries. We studied the regional language of the places we lived in India and can speak and write it with fluency. The Anglo Indians blended well as they were able to watch English, Hindi, Tamil , Malayalam movies and enjoyed it. What a choice. We still continue to watch the DVD's and our children love the movies, Indian cuisine, etc.. Nothing much has changed . We have blended well with the Eastern and Western cultures.and proud of being Indian no matter where we live. We have also adapted well into the country which we call Home and love it and we also regard India as Home. The Anglo - Indians can adapt well to any country as we were brought up with the best of both worlds .......Eastern and Western. Maureen B

I've started a new thread as this is going off on a different tack from Arvind's "Adopting to the Indian life-styles andhabits" With the object of provoking even more interesting and profound thoughts from the List, I'd like to consider the post Indian Raj era (1940's 1950's) and what those that left India did, specially those of us with mixed blood (call it what you will - Indian + something) Basing my thoughts on what I have read on the list, as far as I see there were several different kinds of emmigrant of those times: - Those that went to other countries and have kept up their contacts and continue to have AI meetings, large family units (i.e. keeping in touch and meeting up) . From what I see on the list this has happened in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. There was no shame attached to being Indian or Anglo Indian - you were just another immigrant. - Those who moved away from the original emmigrated family nucleus, married someone local and conveniently forgot about their origins, never telling their children. This was my case. My mother stoutly denied any Indian blood, never had any photos of her family (specially her father) on the dresser or in the album. I never knew that there was possible Indian blood until I investigated the family tree. An Uncle of mine came to the UK about 10 years after my mother and was shunned because he had married a "darky" No mention was made of the fact that great grandfather was more than a little dark and that there were a couple of aunts who looked asian. Of course, these were signs of the times. Because immigration of foreign nationals is/was the acceptable norm in the Commonwealth, those going there could show their origins. However. In the U.K. in the 1940's 1950's, having mixed blood was completely unacceptable. It was on a par with illegitimacy (how many of us have discovered during our investigations that some of our ancestors were born "on the other side of the blanket"? My paternal grandfather for example. His wife knew (I think) but his children didn't.) Speaking of the British Raj, don't forget those, unmixed blood, white colonial types who went "home" after 3 or 4 generations in the "East" (be it India or any of the other colonised countries in Africa or the Middle East) and filled their houses with trophies, talked endlessly about their lives there, etc. They were usually military men and were called "the Captain" or "the Colonel" by their oh so correct wives. A lot of them emmigrated to Spain from the UK in the 60's and 70's because their blood was accustomed to warmer climes and their pension didn't go very far in the UK.. They would treat the "locals" as if they were "natives", never bothering to learn the language and, in short, behave just as I would imagine they did in the colonies. Luckily most of them are no longer with us. Food for thought! Denise Hughes Weston (an emmigrant herself, living in Spain for 40 years)

http://vsdh.org/gohere/index.htm Hello: I don't know why I have always felt so blessed when looking at these pictures I ask myself now and see how fortunate and how the life was so lavishly RICH! It seems there were enough "riches" to go around for everyone, the British included. I feel so ashamed and wonder now "what was all the fuss about?" Am I not seeing the whole picture of India reality? Back then and Now? --Manaia

Arvind has started an interesting discussion thread here - I didn't think he was being unduly critical about the Brits, simply making an observation of fact! > Granted, the early Brits in India may have been a bunch of > toffee-nosed snobs, Actually Hazel, I'm not sure that I agree with you here either. I think that it was probably the 'early Brits' (thinking of 17th, 18th up to the very early 19th century) who were the most respectful to their Indian hosts - although they (British) brought in a new system of government and of law, it was introduced on top of a long tradition of scholarship and literacy among Indians of comparable class. The snobbery became more pronounced as more British women arrived in India in the Victorian era, and in the same way that it was (? is) evident in England, it applied between people of different social and/or intellectual standing. Of course that is not to deny that the British have a reputation of being somewhat patronising towards the local populace in any country they colonised. I suspect, Arvind, that what prevented the adoption of some sensible Indian dress for instance was the need to "keep up the standards" as my very English late mother used to say. Her standards involved related to maintaining her dress and appearance 'just so' - I can't imagine her ever fitting in to life in India, except as a memsahib. Incidentally, when I visited India, I found the most comfortable clothes to be cotton sulwar kameez (any spelling!) In general, I think the need to command respect was at the base of English behaviour - so as they respected each other for maintaining certain standards, they assumed the native population would respect them for the same things. Don't know much about ayahs in real life - however, on the 1840 census data which I am currently analysing, I have found evidence that a grandmother or mother-in-law, often filled the role of Ayah and was described as such. Not sure that I have contributed much useful to this thread ... Sylvia

Hello Denise: So, those British officers/men during the British-Raj days (doing what they were assigned to do) were in actuality the "scum of the Earth", the "bottom of the barrel", the "lowest form of unacceptable worthlessness", etc., Britannia's rejects/embarrassments? My word. Please hook me up to some links and/or reading material to further educate my tender mind as to the British Raj re the above topic at hand. Thank you kindly. --Manaia ++++ --- On Tue, 7/15/08, Denise Hughes <denise_hughes@terra.es> wrote: > I've started a new thread as this is going off on a > different tack > from Arvind's "Adopting to the Indian life-styles > andhabits" > > With the object of provoking even more interesting and > profound > thoughts from the List, I'd like to consider the post > Indian Raj era > (1940's 1950's) and what those that left India did, > specially those of > us with mixed blood (call it what you will - Indian + > something) > > Basing my thoughts on what I have read on the list, as far > as I see > there were several different kinds of emmigrant of those > times: > > - Those that went to other countries and have kept up their > contacts > and continue to have AI meetings, large family units (i.e. > keeping in > touch and meeting up) . From what I see on the list this > has happened > in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. There was no shame > attached to > being Indian or Anglo Indian - you were just another > immigrant. > > - Those who moved away from the original emmigrated family > nucleus, > married someone local and conveniently forgot about their > origins, > never telling their children. This was my case. My mother > stoutly > denied any Indian blood, never had any photos of her family > (specially > her father) on the dresser or in the album. I never knew > that there > was possible Indian blood until I investigated the family > tree. > > An Uncle of mine came to the UK about 10 years after my > mother and was > shunned because he had married a "darky" No > mention was made of the > fact that great grandfather was more than a little dark and > that there > were a couple of aunts who looked asian. > > Of course, these were signs of the times. Because > immigration of > foreign nationals is/was the acceptable norm in the > Commonwealth, > those going there could show their origins. However. In > the U.K. in > the 1940's 1950's, having mixed blood was > completely unacceptable. It > was on a par with illegitimacy (how many of us have > discovered during > our investigations that some of our ancestors were born > "on the other > side of the blanket"? My paternal grandfather for > example. His wife > knew (I think) but his children didn't.) > > Speaking of the British Raj, don't forget those, > unmixed blood, white > colonial types who went "home" after 3 or 4 > generations in the "East" > (be it India or any of the other colonised countries in > Africa or the > Middle East) and filled their houses with trophies, talked > endlessly > about their lives there, etc. They were usually military > men and were > called "the Captain" or "the Colonel" > by their oh so correct wives. > > A lot of them emmigrated to Spain from the UK in the > 60's and 70's > because their blood was accustomed to warmer climes and > their pension > didn't go very far in the UK.. They would treat the > "locals" as if > they were "natives", never bothering to learn the > language and, in > short, behave just as I would imagine they did in the > colonies. > Luckily most of them are no longer with us. > > Food for thought! > Denise Hughes Weston (an emmigrant herself, living in Spain > for 40 > years)

I agree with Arvind and would also like to have answers. I find it more comfortable to sit on a chair instead cross legged on the ground. When spending the night in the Dak Bungalow one used a small mug (I believe this was called a Lotha or a word that sounded something like that) and took cold water out of a Bucket in order to have a bath. Quite an experience. Chinese eat with chopsticks. I would go hungry if I followed the Chinese. I prefer to eat with a spoon, fork and knife. Each one has his/her own likes and dislikes. Joyce Munro -----Original Message----- from Denise Hughes Weston I'd like to put my oar in here (univited but never mind). The only thing I can read into Arvind's message is that the Brits in India were rather silly not to have adopted the Indian way of living, given the climate. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to INDIA-BRITISH-RAJ-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message __________ NOD32 3194 (20080617) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com __________ NOD32 3194 (20080617) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com _____ I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 83 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/len> for free now!

http://tinyurl.com/686v2t ooroo If you don't hear the knock of opportunity - build a door. Anon.

Arvind Thank you very much for that. It has been a great help, particularly the reference to Swati Chattopadhyah's book which I've found is held in libraries here. Have also managed to download a paper she wrote from the Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol.59, no.2, Jun 2000 "Blurring Boundaries: The Limits of White Town in Colonian Calcutta" which seems to cover the same material as in the relevant chapter of her book. The upper-roomed house now seems to be described. However, the lower-roomed house seems to be much like a bungalow, yet the terms aren't used inerchangeably (bungalow gets a mention on p.120. Could it be that the lower roomed house may be a flat roofed structured, rather than a peaked roof building? This is a rather nice description from the Asiatic Journal, v.13, Jan-June 1822 - it relates to an account of a visit in 1778 to the Tonquinese Mandarin: " ... The Viceroy. He resided at the palace of the Kings of Cochin-China six miles higher up the river than the town I landed at. The palace deserved the name of a good lower-roomed house. The building was laid out in spacious verandahs and private rooms" Anyway, thanks again for your input and stimulating me to search further! Sylvia > -----Original Message----- > From: india-british-raj-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:india-british-raj-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of > Arvind Kolhatkar > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 2:49 PM > To: india-british-raj@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [INDIA-BRITISH-RAJ] Upper and Lower Roomed > Houses (Puckavariety ofcourse!) > > Sylvia, > > If you enter the search string "upper roomed" in Google, you > will get several hits, many of them dealing with upper roomed > and lower roomed houses of colonial Calcutta. This one, a > limited preview book called 'Representing > Calcutta: Modernity, Nationalism & the Colonial Uncanny' by > Swati Chattopadhayaya gives, explains on p. 97 the difference > between the two. > See http://tinyurl.com/6c6h72 > or > http://books.google.ca/books?id=VoTYbSBbOxIC&printsec=frontcov > er&dq=%22Representing+Calcutta%22&lr=&as_brr=0&ei=_dF6SJO3DISK > jAH90riFDA&sig=ACfU3U0S-RsGEc0h1VvCSagHpMaeML5fzg > > It appears that the lower roomed houses were just the ground > floor and a terrace and about 4-5 rooms, all having direct > access from the outside and also from the main hall and > consequently having a lesser degree of privacy. > The upper roomed houses were at least two-storied, having > more privacy and more ventilation. These obviously were more > pretentious and commanded better prices. The house in > Alipore that belonged at one time to Warren Hastings and > stands till today and is believed to be hauted by his ghost, > is described as 'upper-rooomed'. This description and its > photo can be seen at > http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000122/windows/main4.htm

Dear Manaia: Wow and wow again! How did you happen on this list? Not that there's a password for entering this (mostly) benign list, but definitely a love and cherishment of things British and Indian during the Raj era, however pro or con your views. Which brings me to Arvind's note "As to loving ayahs let me state my take quite frankly. Ayahs were loved no more and no less than Uncle Toms were loved in plantations in the Southern States of the US. She was loved so long as she knew that she was an Ayah and kept to her station . . . . . . I might be kicked off the list for this but, Arvind, it was well-known that 'ayahs' thought employment by white memsahibs a big step up in the employment world. India is STILL known as a country in which even servants can have servants, and do. The Indians are/were far tougher in payment and care for their servants. Had an office mate who hadn't been 'home' in years and was told off by her family for giving her ayah a pair of socks during the cold weather! There aren't any British memsahibs left in India, of course, but the past love of their ayahs by English children is undeniable. I myself recall seeking refuge behind Ayah's sari when Mum came after me -- probably with good reason. But here is where Arvind's warning breaks down: During a visit 15 years after leaving Poona, dear old Ayah showed up with GIFTS for Clairesy Baba. And I wish I could express the depth of both my love and sorrow at being unable to respond as I should have. This may wind up in the dustbin, but I had to say it. Claire

Whoo-ahhh, "That's what I'm talkin' about!" Thanks! Lynne and when I get back down to Earth I'll have my questions - grin. --Manaia ++++ --- On Mon, 7/14/08, Lynne Hadley <lynnehadley1@bigpond.com> wrote: > I'm quite enjoying this one, guys!! :)) And now for my > two shekel's > worth.....:)) At first it was far easier for British men > to integrate into > Indian society, but when Protestantism became the rule of > the day in > England, any intermarriage between Protestants and > Catholics was frowned > upon, to the degree that a priest was charged with treason > for marrying a > British soldier to an Eurasian lady of Portuguese descent. > Once British > women began to arrive in India in numbers, this bigotry was > extended even > further (what British woman of the day wished to be sent > home husbandless > and dubbed a "returned empty"?!!) towards those > who married Indian women, > although this had already begun to take root. > > As to the social snobbery: let's face it....for the > most part the Brits who > went to India were on the lowest rungs of the social ladder > in England, so > there can be very little doubt that when they got to India > where they were > the ruling class and had servants at their beck and call, > it completely went > to their heads. They must have thought they'd died and > gone to Heaven, > having somebody to look down upon for a change, instead of > bearing the brunt > of snobbery back home. > > As to Asian people in general (and AI's in particular) > not integrating: we > are a pretty multicultural mob here in Australia. I'm > largely of > Scottish/Irish descent, and grew up with all the old > sayings, songs, poetry, > &ca., which had trickled down through the generations > from Scotland and > Ireland. My mum was, and I am, very proud of her ancestry, > and we wore > kilts as children on a regular basis. In my humble > experiencem, it's not > non-European groups who are the most die-hard when it comes > to > integrating......it's people from Britain, including my > own erstwhile > outlaws. > > I've absolutely no objection to immigrants wearing > their national dress, if > that's what they feel most comfortable with, and it > also lends this lump of > rock I'm living on a cosmopolitan atmosphere that is > very nice to live in. > As to AI's in Oz...........yes, they do integrate very > well for the most > part, but I hope and pray that they will never lose touch > with their > culture, but celebrate it the way so many other immigrants > here still do. > As Eric Stracey once said to me: "I don't think > of myself as being an AI or > Australian......I consider myself to be a citizen of the > world. But when > I'm with other AI's, I feel far more AI". I > guess, guys, that this is the > sense of community which is said to have been lost? Which, > if that were the > case, begs the questions: "Why all the reunions, > dances, associations, if > the AI community is lost or in danger of being lost? Why > bother?" The > answer's simple......it's not lost, and I doubt > that it will ever go, > because your children have grown up, or are growing up, in > a distinctly AI > atmosphere. What makes any of us think, that they > won't carry on these > little family.....and community....traditions? Cheers, > guys. Lynne. :)) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Denise Hughes" > <denise_hughes@terra.es> > To: <india-british-raj@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 2:24 AM > Subject: Re: [INDIA-BRITISH-RAJ] Adopting to the Indian > life-styles > andhabits > > > > Dear Hazel > > > > I'd like to put my oar in here (univited but never > mind). The only > > thing I can read into Arvind's message is that the > Brits in India were > > rather silly not to have adopted the Indian way of > living, given the > > climate. > > > > Perhaps quite a few of our ancestors would have lived > a great deal > > more comfortably if they had stopped wearing stiff > collars and ties, > > or petticoats and high necked dresses. > > > > If Ghee was more healthy than butter in > pre-refrigerator days in the > > Indian climate, why was it not used? > > > > As to sitting on the ground, wearing tight trousers or > lots of skirt > > and petticoat it is not exactly easy to sit cross > legged. > > > > I do not see this message as an insult, only a well > thought out > > commentary. > > > > Best wishes > > Denise Hughes Weston

"Thank you so very much, Claire!" What exactly is an "ayah"? >From your dear elaboration I'm getting a "grandmother"? or mid-wife turned second-mother in the Family? In my culture we have what is called tina/mother --tina=teen/nah-- next would be the eldest girl which is called sika/sister otherwise known as the second-in-command <grin>. What is "memsahibs" and only "white"? --Manaia ++++ --- On Mon, 7/14/08, Claire Bradley <claire.bradley@hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear Manaia: > > Wow and wow again! How did you happen on this list? Not > that there's a > password for entering this (mostly) benign list, but > definitely a love and > cherishment of things British and Indian during the Raj > era, however pro or > con your views. > > Which brings me to Arvind's note "As to loving > ayahs let me state my take > quite frankly. Ayahs were loved no more and no less than > Uncle Toms were > loved in plantations in the Southern States of the US. She > was loved so > long as she knew that she was an Ayah and kept to her > station . . . . . . > > I might be kicked off the list for this but, Arvind, it was > well-known that > 'ayahs' thought employment by white memsahibs a big > step up in the > employment world. India is STILL known as a country in > which even servants > can have servants, and do. The Indians are/were far tougher > in payment and > care for their servants. Had an office mate who hadn't > been 'home' in years > and was told off by her family for giving her ayah a pair > of socks during > the cold weather! > > There aren't any British memsahibs left in India, of > course, but the past > love of their ayahs by English children is undeniable. I > myself recall > seeking refuge behind Ayah's sari when Mum came after > me -- probably with > good reason. But here is where Arvind's warning breaks > down: During a visit > 15 years after leaving Poona, dear old Ayah showed up with > GIFTS for > Clairesy Baba. And I wish I could express the depth of > both my love and > sorrow at being unable to respond as I should have. > > This may wind up in the dustbin, but I had to say it. > Claire

Reading these interesting posts and just have to add my two cents or two pice. From my own experience growing up in the sub-continent, I can tell you that many Anglo Indians were probably the most snobbish ones. Arvind is absolutely correct in his observations. However, we can see much of the same taking place with some of the Asian community in the West. A refusal to integrate into their new communities, retaining the dress and customs of their home countries. This is leading to resentment and anti immigration policies. As Anglo Indians retained the language and western customs, it was quite easy to integrate. This is just my humble opinion based on my experience. No offence to anyone. Charles Dique Arvind has started an interesting discussion thread here - I didn't think he was being unduly critical about the Brits, simply making an observation of fact! > Granted, the early Brits in India may have been a bunch of > toffee-nosed snobs, **************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)

Dear Hazel I'd like to put my oar in here (univited but never mind). The only thing I can read into Arvind's message is that the Brits in India were rather silly not to have adopted the Indian way of living, given the climate. Perhaps quite a few of our ancestors would have lived a great deal more comfortably if they had stopped wearing stiff collars and ties, or petticoats and high necked dresses. If Ghee was more healthy than butter in pre-refrigerator days in the Indian climate, why was it not used? As to sitting on the ground, wearing tight trousers or lots of skirt and petticoat it is not exactly easy to sit cross legged. I do not see this message as an insult, only a well thought out commentary. Best wishes Denise Hughes Weston Researching in India: CHAMARETTE, WESTON, ASH, COMBES, THOMPSON, JOHANNES (OR JOHANESS) & MOORE U.K.: HUGHES & NORRIS, BOYTON & KING, WESTON & SHORTER

But it seems "integrate" was not the keyword of the day, What I'm hearing is: Power. Is that not what colonization is all about? Or am I completely at left field here - grin. Just wanting to learn. Thank you Sylvia. --Manaia ++++ --- On Mon, 7/14/08, Sylvia Murphy <sylcec@ihug.com.au> wrote: > > Arvind is absolutely correct in his observations. > However, > > we can see much of the same taking place with some of > the > > Asian community in the West. A refusal to integrate > into > > their new communities, retaining the dress and customs > of > > their home countries. > > As I was standing in the shower was pondering this further > (better than > singing in the shower) and realised that the refusal to > change and adopt the > customs, habits and dress of the new land arises from the > desire to retain > both ones own and the group identity. The national peer > group ensured that > change did not happen, by ridiculing those who "went > native". As the > conquering or dominant power an immigrant group can get > away with it, but as > Charles points out when the immigrant is not part of the > ruling group this > refusal to change is seen through different eyes - as a > refusal to > integrate. > Sylvia

Oh, it seems the way we live is not so much different. I like sleeping on a sheet/blanket on the floor, I like eating with my hands, I like sitting on the floor with my legs crossed for hours, I like living in an open space with no windows and no walls... I had become accustomed to the ways of my ancestors way of living. But I assimilated the ways of what we call "palagi", the "White man's", colonization customs also esp. when it becomes part of your family. GRIN --Manaia ++++ --- On Mon, 7/14/08, Manaia Alofa <manaiaalofa@yahoo.com> wrote: > HI: > > So then, watching those Shirley Temple movies (when in > India?) was/is true or is it still going on? > > My earliest recollection of hatred felt for British > trespassing? was through the actor Michael Ansara (good > acting) in one of those films and I've never forgotten > that incisive feeling. > > I have only been with the list a few months and am learning > much by what Harshoo (HI!) recommends/suggests/posts (am > still on Ghandi & Churchill, so much reading between > the lines dialogue) but I am not one to be judgmental so I > leave you with my thoughts above right now. > > Thank you kindly. > > --Manaia

HI: So then, watching those Shirley Temple movies (when in India?) was/is true or is it still going on? My earliest recollection of hatred felt for British trespassing? was through the actor Michael Ansara (good acting) in one of those films and I've never forgotten that incisive feeling. I have only been with the list a few months and am learning much by what Harshoo (HI!) recommends/suggests/posts (am still on Ghandi & Churchill, so much reading between the lines dialogue) but I am not one to be judgmental so I leave you with my thoughts above right now. Thank you kindly. --Manaia ++++ --- On Mon, 7/14/08, CDique1048@aol.com <CDique1048@aol.com> wrote: > Reading these interesting posts and just have to add my two > cents or two > pice. From my own experience growing up in the > sub-continent, I can tell you > that many Anglo Indians were probably the most snobbish > ones. > > Arvind is absolutely correct in his observations. > However, we can see much > of the same taking place with some of the Asian community > in the West. A > refusal to integrate into their new communities, retaining > the dress and > customs of their home countries. This is leading to > resentment and anti > immigration policies. > > As Anglo Indians retained the language and western > customs, it was quite > easy to integrate. > > This is just my humble opinion based on my experience. No > offence to anyone. > > Charles Dique

http://sify.com/sports/fullstory.php?id=13527786&page=1 --- Harshawardhan_Bosham Nimkhedkar Nagpur, India