Let’s be AngloIndian

Over the last two weeks, I’ve tried to show what it takes to be AngloIndian. This week I’m going to say it out, loud and clear, that AngloIndians are whole, unhyphenated, undivided, and indivisible, as individuals and as a community. For far too long have we allowed others to shape our destiny, and even our identity. I find it impossible to believe that “identity” can be standardised, pin-pointedly characterised, fixed, even discussed piece-meal. I believe, instead, that each and every individual possesses a unique identity, irrespective of the fact that he/she is attached to this group, or that community, or that nation. Broad generalisations cannot account for the myriad ways each and everyone of us is different from everyone else, except to admit that “ we are all human”.

I am not saying that AngloIndians cannot be looked at as a group or a community, but to stir the emotions of a “people” in one big cooking pot— “Dekshi” is the right word here-is to miss the individual flavours that make the composite dish. As a group, we are distinctive; as individuals, we simply cannot be passed of as someone else: that is where stereotypes are born and bred, and so many of us are so fed-up with this academic nonsense that we don’t even try to protest.

Over the last few hundred years, we have been labelled differently. Initially, we were never “Anglo-Indian”, for that term was reserved for the Brit resident in India. We were Eurasian, Indo-Briton, East Indian, country-born, and less (or more) flavourfully, “chee-chees”, half- castes, people with no caste, feringhees, chattakaris, and, individually, the more fancy ( yet derogatory) “missy” and “dorai”. My knowledge of the world is limited, but I have heard the Anglo-Indian described as “dingo”, as the Australian wild dog is known. And don’t forget the “Starkie brigade” and that young woman’s progeny.However, naming and name-shaming have always been part of a coward’s repertoire, so all these synonyms can be treated just like water off a duck’s back.

I want to make the distinction very clear: an Anglo-Indian is not an ANGLOINDIAN. The second term I reserve exclusively for the community resident in India and guaranteed citizenship by the law of the land. For over a hundred years we have been reduced to hyphenated beings, most often clinging to the “Anglo” part and discarding, if not discrediting, the “Indian” part. As a community, we can proudly say that we “belong” to every part of India, not hemmed in by linguistic, cultural, or even religious roots. “Belonging”comes only with acceptance—of ancestry, of history, and of present-day pulls and pushes, whatever they may be.

The “Anglo-Indian” however, is that strange creature that has flown the nest in search of greener pastures, but is still neither here nor there, still yearning for moorings, still yearning for for roots, still in limbo, because it is so difficult to jettison the past without undergoing trauma of some sort. That is why the “Anglo-Indian” still retains an out-dated nomenclature, the real indicator of his rootlessness. So, in an effort to disavow the AngloIndian, the “Anglo-Indian“ scholar often describes the rooted Indian citizen as neither fish nor fowl, as a person with a huge identity crisis, as a person with divided loyalties, and as a displaced person, all the while not realising that these identifiable criteria fit perfectly when they describe the migratory diaspora. The identity of the “Anglo-Indian” will always be in doubt, unless he/she becomes Australian, or Canadian, or British, or New Zealander, or whatever, and not cling to an outdated classification simply to shore up the dubious scholarly exercise called “ ‘Anglo-Indian’ studies”.

When you get the chance, dear Reader (and I sincerely hope you do), please purchase a copy of I Allan Sealy’s book “The Trotternama”. It is THE classic AngloIndian tale, one which celebrates India for its rich diversity, while pointing to the “sameness-with-difference” principle, which makes human life seem complex yet simple. India accepts all comers, irrespective of their race or language or culture or pedigree. It allows the high and mighty to believe that they are unstoppable, but, at the same time, presents us with a “half-naked fakir” [ Churchill’s words, mind you] to tear the Imperial edifice down. What I believe Sealy is saying is: “give India a chance, and even the most insurmountable problem will be solved”. From the grandeur of the Trotter residence in Nakhlau to the seventh-generation Eugene Trotter on the run, times and titles change, as India slowly wrests control. Even the AngloIndian is a participant in this welter of humanity; he/ she is not a “packer and mover” as the diasporic Indian is. It is even worse when such people ( often called scholars) spout theories that only they read, profess and believe.

It is a difficult book, I admit. But then, the best things in life come at a cost too—at least, for most of us. Believe me, the book is worth the trouble, for Sealy deserves more, especially from us Indian readers.

I mentioned the word “trauma” earlier. It is a very pertinent, sometimes a pesky word, especially in the context of the AngloIndian. I will clarify my thoughts in the next blog, while trying to dismiss the hullabaloo regarding that mis-conceptualised word.

Until then, cheers.