The Statue of General James Smith-Neill and its Removal in Madras

A look at the world of politics, statecraft, diplomacy and books

The recent flurry of activity all over the Western World, particularly in USA and UK, surrounding the sudden discovery that many of the heros of the Western World had a different history in pats of the conquered non white world. This demarcation between White and non White world is absolute an race was indeed the foundation of the ideology that sustained domination and conquest. For over foue hundred years Asia and Africa were subjected to untold horror--Slavery, Cultural Subversion, Racial oppression--among others and the result of western hegemony was the degradation of a whole segmen of Humanity. Unfortunately the so called "post colonial" "social science and literary theory' informed "scholars" do great harm by completely neglecting the real issues at hand and diverting their attemtion to Ideology, Identity and Imagination. Human suffering cannot become a mere discourse, a trick of language as it has in recent works. I recently read a book about the Religious policies of the Portuguese in Goa and there was no mention of the Inqusition that claimed more than 55.000 lives and was endend only due to the pressure from the East India Company Administration in Bimbay. History has to engage with truth and Memory and cannot we cannot erase the horrors of the past by resorting to censorship of public memory, It is a very cheap way of sanatizing History. The example I have chosen is the Memory of one of the most brutal Generals of the East India Company, General James Smith-Neill (1810-1857.

The Statue of General Neill standing on Mount Road, Madras

The photograph on the left is of the statue as it stood on Mount Road (now Anna Salai). The statue was inaugurated by Lord Harris, the Governor of Madras to honour the memory of James Neill who was killed on September 25 th 1857 just as he was reconquering the city of lucknow for the British from the hands of the Indian soldiers who had rebelled against the Company. The record of General Neill as a soldier is horrendous and by contemporary standards he would be quite honsstly called a "war criminal" But the English in their time saw him as an avenger who retored the dignity of the White Race and chaistised the rebels for the crime of killing women and children at Bibighar. Kanpur or Cawnpore as it was spelt in the days of the Raj.

The Uprising of 1857 remains a very contentious subject till this day in India. For one thing the Rebellion was crushed using Soldiers from Punjab, Madras and Nepal a fact that Indian historians have to expalain away in order to sustain the narrative of a Grand Revolt. The British reponse was brutal i the extrme and General Neill exemplied the Terror Tactics deployed by Lord Cannng and his Military to beat down the Indians. Neil may have been a hero to the Raj but he is certainly no hero to his victims. The question is: Does removing his statue really an act of retribution or does it play int the hands of such monsters whose record of horror is very son forgotten. Neill must be remembered for his atrocities. But today he is forgotten and Indian Historians do not even mention them. I am the only Historian who has catalogued the crimes of Heneral Neill as part of my contribution to the Commemoration f the 150th Anniversary of the Mutiny. History has the task of Memoria or remembering the past. not censoring it for the sake of virtue signaling.

James Neill reached Allahabad almost straight from the Crimean War where his unit was posted and he participated in the attack on Sebastapol. From Allahabad he marched the Madras Fussiliers toKanpur and this march was marked by brutality. Suspected rebels were rounded up and hanged without any remorse. Indian vilages were set abalze to terrorize the native population. Women and childen were not spared and it was just blood and gore all the way from Allahabad to Kanpur and thence to Lucknow. The extreme brutality of Neil's March to Lucknow is seen as revenge for the Bibighar massacre in which a Muslim butcher acting on the instigation of his lover killed the women and children who had escaped from Lucknow under the safe passage granted by the rebel leader Nana Saheb. There is absolutely no evidence to show  that Nana Sabeb was either involved in or was even aware of the event. But in the public memory of the English, Nana Saheb was Satan incarnate. On 25th September General Neill was killed by a sniper as he was entering Alam Bagh.

General Neill.'s unmarked Grave in Lucknow

General Neill was burried in an unmaked grave and the exact lcation is still a mystery and that was to protect his remains from being vandalized by his victims. The photograph on the left is the only photo showing the grave but its identification is still controversial. The Memorial set up to honour the dead of the bibighar Massacre was torn apart in 1947 soon after Independence, ninety years after the event itself. With such deep imprint, politicians and organizers of populist movements like the Black Live Matter movement have to tread cautiously.

For several decades the statue of General Neill occupied the very strategic location outside the Spencers' and on Mount Road. Severl visitors have remarked without a trace of irony about the salience and relevance of General Neill. But the advent of Nationalism changed the narrative. The blue eyed boys of the Raj became the villiams of the Indians who were keen to reinscribe themselves in History by claiming the great force of Nationalism, And Gandhi endorsed the idea in his own confused and inarticulate way: He said that the removal of the statue will not cure the "disease" it will alleviate the "agony" and "point the way to reachig the disease". How the removal of a statue will achieve all this Gandhis does not elaborate. But in his typical style of using exaggeraed and expansive hyperbole, he lit the fire. And it caught on.

The Neill Satyagraha in which the hret leader Kamaraj cut his political teeth was the first salvo for freedom fired in Madras which was slipping into an abyss even as this agitation unfolded. In 1937 Rajagopalachari had the Statue removed and today it stands as a museum piece in the Egmore Museum.

Mathew Noble cast two identical statues. The other one stands in Ayr, Scotland and it is on the list of statues whose removal has been deaded by the radical groips in UK. A question that we in India can legitimately ask: Who owns the Past the Pepetrators or their Victims

John Bruce: From Armagon to Madras Historical Explanation and Realities

A look at the world of politics, statecraft, diplomacy and books

The East India Company, for all its notoriety, well deserved or imputed by the hind sight of History, was indeed a global trading organization with the capability to raise Capital, outfit ships and undertake perilous voyages across the world in quest of pepper, cloves and other condiment. Sitting in their palatial rooms in Leadenhall Street the Directors lorded over a large maritme empire beset with all the problems that commercial enterprises face: supply chain impedimants, rivals in competition, local adventurers out to make a quick killing, political instability and a host of other challenges. From 1600 when the Company was chartered by Queen Elizaben to 1708 when the united Company was formed to the abolition of the East India Company in 1858 was charecterized by momentous events that needed a faithful chronicler and for the first phase of its History, the Company found one in John Bruce (1745-1826).

Headquarters of the East India Company, London

John Bruce along with Rober Orme were the only two official Historiographers of the East India Company. Both were Scots and both were appointed by Henry Dundas, the Earl of Melville, the unofficial Tsar of "india Interests."Henry Dundas has been accused f favoring his fellow Scots in app  political conflicts over the Constitution, Conduct and Character of the East India Company. And the influence of Adam Smith in the field of Political Economy added intellectual strength to the crtics of the Company who wanted the East India Company to be stripped of its trede privileges, particularly the monopoly over the India Trade. And with Lord Macartney.s visit to China, the trade over China as well. To deal with the political, leagal and commercial challenges, Henry Dundas created the Office of the Historiographer whose job was to provide public defenses of Company Conduct and Character as demanded from time to time. John Bruce did his job in an admirable fashion and his work is still worth reading. His prose is rather poor while his subordiante at Leadenhall, Charles Lamb was certainly a superb essayist, Bruce wrote a heavy turgid bureaucratic prose but regnant with facts and details which makes his Annals of the Honourable East India Company published in 1810 valuable. He had at his disposal two assets:Lemon, his assistant and a veritable treasure trove of primary records under his custody. And from the sources under his custody John Bruce created a narrtive that stretched from the creation of the East India Company to the merger of the London Merchant company in 1708 and beyond almost till the Battle of Plassey, 1757.

The Board Room

The character of the East India Company bafflesd contemporaries even as it continues to facinate contemporaries. Was it a "sovereign" power? Was it a Military Power? Was it an exclusive trading Power with monopoly over the most lucrative market of the contemporary world, India? And so on. The Annals is as its name suggests, an annual yearly record of the "transactions" of the  Company both at the London end as well as the commercial end'. Based on the Reports sent to the Headquarters and the Correspondence with the factors of the Company John Bruce strings his narrative along. A minute eye for detail makes the Annals a fascinating work. My question here is simple: How does John Bruce account for the establishment of Madras. What context does he give for the momentous decision and how does he explain the shifys in Company strategies and policies towards India in general and the Coromandl coast in particular.

A feature of John Bruce's metodology is to place that East India Company squarely in a global context, a Wheels of Commerce method in the early nineteenth century. The earliest settlement of the Company was the Presidency of Surat which commanded the trade of India and even sought to enter Persia. Here the Company faced local hostility in spite of the favorable response from the Mughal Emperor Jehangir, opposition from the Dutch and resistance from the Portuguese. Hormuz held by the Portuguese wa the prize both sought. The polical climate not being conducive toward English interests, the Company established a second settlement in Masulipattinam in 1614' Once again ill luck followed the Company as the local Nayaka who was favorably disposed towards the East India Company was defeated by the Sultan of Golconda. The reason for the shift to the West coast as we can glean from the Records provided by John Bruce is clear: the callioe of the East coast had a market in Bantam, Sumatra and that invstment alone could finance the acquisition of Spices without the need for the outflow of any bullion from the Cmpany. The Dutch, in spite of the alliance in Europe through the Treaty of 1619 were in no mood to accomodate English interests and in 1623 the Amboyna Massacre made the situation difficult for the Company which had to fall back on the Coromandel Coast. With Masulipatinam abandoned, the Company set up another settlement in Armagon but here again difficulties in procuring the trading commodities prevented the Company from establishing itself. The Raja of Tanjore offered a site but bythenFrancis Day and Cogan had identifed Madras and in 1639 the Company formally took possession of the strip of Coastline on which they built the Fort later called Fort St. George.

John Bruce in spite of the distance and lack of documents embodying diverse perspectives constructed a good account of the vissistitudes of fortunes.