‘Martial races’ and ‘imperial subjects’: violence and governance in colonial India, 1857–1914

This essay explores the specificity of colonial violence in India. Although imperial and military historians are familiar with several instances of such violence—notably the rebellion in 1857 and the 1919 massacre at the Jallianwalla Bagh in Amritsar—there is a broader, and arguably more significant, history that has largely escaped attention. In contrast to metropolitan European states, where sovereignty derived, at least in principle, from a covenant between subjects and government, the sovereign power of the colonial state was always predicated on the violent subjugation of ‘the natives’. However, while violence was integral to colonialism, such violence was never a purely metropolitan agency: most of those recruited to serve in the colonial military were, themselves, Indian. Exploring the history of the imperial military in South Asia after 1857, the paper outlines the complex and rather ambiguous relationship between the colonial state and its ‘native armies’. RESUME Cet article se penche sur la spe´cificite´ de la violence coloniale. Malgre´ des exemples familiers—comme la grande re´volte de 1857 en Inde ou le massacre de Jallianwalla Bagh a` Amritsar en 1919—il y a une histoire plus large et plus importante qui a e´chappe´e a` l’attention des historiens. Contrairement aux e´tats europe´ens ou la souverainete´ de´rivait en principe du moins d’un contrat social entre les acteurs sociaux, le pouvoir souverain de l’e´tat colonial restait fonde´ sur la subjugation violente des indige`nes.

Family, community and politics: the fertile legacy of Michael Young

The Institute of Community Studies was set up by Michael Young in order to carry out research on politically relevant social issues, in a context free from direct political control. A research method was devised for it whereby researchers made their own values and objectives very explicit, while staying as close as possible in their reports to the concerns and language of respondents themselves. This method has often been criticized by professional sociologists: but it reflects quite well the nature of social knowledge. It has produced reports which help to increase public understanding of social processes, and provide useful guidance to policy makers. Professional sociology on the other hand has tried to develop a rigorously value-free method. As a result, though, it often seems to be tied implicitly to values shared among researchers but not more universally. Arguably this makes it harder for the general public to understand, and accept, its findings.