The British Library's new exhibition opens today: Propaganda: Power and Persuasion.  To mark this we have a story about political propaganda used by the Government of India to attack Gandhi's policy.

In June 1942, with the Second World War raging, and the Japanese occupying Burma, the Government of India was aware that Gandhi was planning a new civil disobedience movement. The India Office Records has a file from this period which contains a telegram that gives a fascinating insight into the planning of a propaganda campaign by Government. The telegram is from the Government of India, Home Department, to the Secretary of State for India, dated 7 June 1942, regarding Gandhi’s motivations and what action should be taken by Government in preparation for any possible mass protest movement.

Anti-British poster, c.1942, entitled ‘Britain’s Second Front’. IOPP/Mss Eur C659

The writer of the telegram admits that the Government of India has no definite information on what form the movement would take or what support Gandhi will get. It was also admitted that any early Government intervention would risk stiffening Gandhi’s resolve and rally waverers to his cause. Yet it was advised that Government should be prepared: “… we must have our plans ready and one matter that we consider of prime importance is that public opinion in England and even more in America should be prepared well in advance for any strong action we may eventually decide to take. We suggest that Press in England and important American correspondents should be taken into our confidence with object of exposing Gandhi and the Indian National Congress”.

The telegram outlines a possible campaign to counter any protest movement:

• An official paper on Congress policy based on published and secret documents should be supplied to the American Government
• A popular pamphlet based on published material should be prepared
• Development of the theme of Congress using the War opportunistically to attempt to obtain political concessions, and their opposition to the War and willingness to obtain their long term object through Japan if it could not be obtained from England.

Gandhi standing beside Lord Pethick-Lawrence, Secretary of State for India, 1946. Photo 134/2(19)

The point is made in the telegram that Gandhi should not be personally attacked, only his policy. Emphasis was to be made on the danger to American war efforts and to the safety of American troops in India which could result from Gandhi’s plans. Efforts were also to be made to dispel any American suggestion that an Indian protest movement would compel the British Government to make fresh political concessions.

On 8 August 1942, the mass protest campaign known as the Quit India Movement was launched. The Government did indeed take strong action, moving swiftly to make mass arrests, including Gandhi and the Congress leadership who would be imprisoned for the rest of the War, and employing British troops to suppress the resulting outbreaks of violence.

John O’Brien
Post 1858 India Office Records   


Further reading:
India Office Political Department, File 4983/1942 Congress and the War, July-September 1942 [IOR/L/PJ/7/5405]

While researching an answer to an enquiry recently, my eye fell on a catalogue entry 'Acts of violence committed by British officers & soldiers against natives'.  I ordered the item to investigate further.

I almost wish I hadn't. A depressingly large file duly appeared, full of various outrages perpetrated by British troops against Indian civilians. A sixteen-page tabular summary provided brief details of no fewer than 190 clashes which took place between 1880 and 1899 involving personnel serving in British Army units and the local population. These acts of violence were not condoned by those in authority, although some of the punishments given to the soldiers appear very lenient.

One theme which emerges is the risk of granting soldiers permission to use the weaponry at their disposal to go off and exterminate some of the local wildlife. They may have been aiming at deer, or snipe, or sparrows, or peacocks, but tragically poor shots could and did have fatal consequences:
•    '10 November 1888, Sialkot. A soldier of the 2nd Queen's Dragoon Guards shot a Native, mistaking him for a pig, it being evening. The District Commissioner found that it was a pure accident. Rs. 29 was paid to the deceased's widow.'
•    'October 1896, Simla. Lieutenant Scott while out shooting birds ... accidentally lodged a few pellets of shot in a Native. The man lost his footing, and falling down the khud [steep hillside] was killed.'   (Echoes of the fate of the hapless Lewis Van Sandau from a previous story.)

There are some shocking examples of colonial arrogance and brutality, perpetrated by officers as well as by privates.
•    Early in 1898 an unnamed soldier assaulted a Bombay sweetmeat seller so badly 'the native is said to have nearly lost his life'. The guilty man received four months 'rigorous imprisonment'.

Fish seller, sweetmeat maker and sweetmeat seller with their wares (Add.Or.4000)  Images Online

•    On New Year's Eve 1898 in the Punjab: 'Four military officers assaulted Shaikh Ashgar Ali of the Indian Civil Service in a railway carriage. Their leave was stopped for the season. Those on leave were recalled to duty'.
•    In Sialkot in the spring of 1897: 'Two military officers were reported  ... to have assaulted a Native merchant. One called him a son of a pig and horse-whipped him, and the other twisted his arms till he admitted he was the son of a pig. One officer was fined Rs. 2 and the other Rs. 25'.
•    In Dum Dum on 7 November 1889: 'Four soldiers (one belonging to the Buffs, three to the Leinsters) broke out of barracks taking their rifles, and went to a 'toody-tope' after liquor. They created a disturbance because their demands were not complied with, and shot a Native in a wanton and brutal manner'.
•    On 8 March 1894 in Bareilly two gunners of the 48th Field Battery were rash enough to injure a performing bear, and when the animal's owners demanded compensation an affray broke out in which one person was shot.

A bear-keeper with his dancing bear (Add. 27255, f.125v)  Images Online 

British behaviour in Burma was no better:
•    A fracas broke out on 11 December 1886 at the Shwe Dagon Pagoda in Rangoon when Privates Potts and Lauchlin of the Royal Scots Fusiliers tried to steal two images of Buddha: though a watchman later died of wounds, the men were acquitted when the case came to court.

The file, reference IOR/L/MIL/7/13233, may be consulted in the Asian & African Studies Reading Room.

Hedley Sutton
Asian and African Studies Reference Team Leader 

James Cunningham was a Scottish surgeon active in China and South East Asia, c.1698-1705. He is best remembered for dispatching over 600 Chinese botanical specimens to Britain while employed as a surgeon by the English East India Company for their settlement at Zhou Shan. 

In 1703, the settlement moved to the Cochin-Chinese island of Pulo Condore after being expelled from Zhou Shan. On 15 March 1705 the Makassar soldiers hired to protect the trading settlement set fire to it and shot dead 16 men who were trying to put out the flames. The survivors turned to the local Cochin-Chinese authorities for help, but shortly after capturing and executing the Makassars they also turned against the English, initiating a second bout of bloodshed.  Only Cunningham and a few others survived.

Punishment of the Cangue from The Costume of China (1805)   Images Online 

In a little known letter to Baldwin and Wingate at Cambodia dated 4 May 1705, Cunningham provides a personal account of his treatment and trial at Barrea in Cochin-China following these traumatic events. Although injured, Cunningham was one of the lucky few being led away to Barrea by the Cochin-Chinese in a cangue like a criminal.

Appearing before the Cochin-Chinese officials on 29 April 1705, he was made to answer three charges levelled against the English. First that the settlement at Pulo Condore was established against the wishes of the King of Cochin-China; second that they failed to present the King with adequate tribute; and finally that they had been in secret communications with the Cambodians against whom the Cochin-Chinese were at war. Cunningham replied that an embassy was sent to the King of Cochin-China seeking permission for the settlement and that a mission to deliver tribute to the Royal Court was aborted because of  widespread illness within the settlement. To the third charge he pleaded that the settlement was unaware of the need to report their communications with Cambodia to the Cochin-Chinese authorities. Cunningham’s defence failed to impress his captors and he remained in close confinement at Barrea for two years with just two quan a month for subsistence.

Following his release Cunningham’s misfortunes continued. He narrowly escaped yet another massacre at Banjarmassin in Borneo and eventually died on a voyage from Bengal to England c.1709.

Richard Scott Morel
Curator, East India Company Records 


Further reading:

IOR/E/3/68 OC 8358: Letter from James Cunningham at Barrea to Messrs Baldwin and Wingate, 4 May 1704