Civilization of India

The Parliament of England holds both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, fueling plenty of lawmaking within its walls. It was amazing to see the history behind the architecture and artwork in Parliament. The UK electing its first Prime Minister of Indian descent brings up the conversation of the participation of the English government in Indian colonization and Indian participation in the English government.

Britain controlled India through the East India Tea Company starting in 1757, and directly ruled India starting in 1858. The start of direct rule brought about the term ‘British Raj.’ As we walked through the hallway, there were paintings depicting the British Empire throughout history. There was a painting depicting the start of the East India Tea Company and associated agreements. I thought it was interesting to include this piece of art as the East India Tea Company did lead to the colonization of India.

Dadabhai Naoroji was an incredibly important figure in many ways; he was an advocate for progressive causes in India and the first Asian MP (Member of Parliament) in the UK. In India, Naoroji worked to provide schooling and education for Indian girls and was an early advocate for gender equality. After his first visit to Britain, Naoroji spoke out about imperialism and how it was draining the wealth from India. His movement picked up momentum and he was elected to Parliament in 1892. As an MP, he worked on legislation to return the bureaucracy to India. However, MPs did not take him up on this legislation and Naoroji lost his election in 1895. He later demanded self-rule or swaraj for India and stated that it would serve as reparation. Seeing the painting of India alongside the grandiose art and decor set a certain tone to how Britain views India and the power that they feel they still have over India.

The UK recently appointed Rishi Sunak to the position of Prime Minister and his background and upbringing have posed questions surrounding Indian immigration to the UK and the US. Sunak credited his success to his family’s hard work and sacrifice as opposed to institutional forces in both India and the UK. Immigration from India depends on various policies and factors like class, income, and education. Even though India has one of the largest migrant export rates, they continue to restrict lower-class Indians from leaving. At the same time, they provide those of higher class and more education with resources and advantages. Sunak’s grandfather, Ramdas Sunak, left India to go to Nairobi to work as a clerk. He helped to manage overseas laborers and exports. Unlike those of lower classes, educated immigrants like Ramdas Sunak were free to move and were not held to a contract. This meant that they could move to the US or the UK. Despite this advantage, every immigrant faced rampant racism. 

Those of lower classes continue to have a harder time finding opportunities and resources to immigrate. The 1983 Immigration Act in India is a contributor to this, adding paperwork and fines to the approval process, while educated immigrants can leave when they please. Despite their advantages, many Indian immigrants continue to credit their success to their hard work. While hard work is one aspect of it, the benefits and resources given to higher class and more educated Indians must be acknowledged. Rishi Sunak is the first Indian Prime Minister, but we need to think about his journey to Parliament too. 

Sources:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/z7kvf82/articles/zx8sf82#:~:text=From%201757%2C%20Britain%20increased%20its,known%20as%20the%20British%20Raj. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-52829458 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/09/rishi-sunak-uk-immigrant-family/ 

Brick Lane is a conglomeration of diverse cultures that reflect the vibrant history of many groups of people. As I walked down the street, there were bubble tea shops, Chinese restaurants, clothing stores, and more. Tourists could shop for vintage vinyl records and clothes in an underground marketplace. They could also find books and small souvenir shops selling magnets and other knickknacks. It was the large selection of food that impressed me, though. I could see traces of Italian cuisine, Jewish bakeries, and Japanese sushi. Despite the variety, Brick Lane is best known for its curry restaurants, earning the label of the “curry capital of Europe.” Recipes for this famous dish originated with migrant communities from India. Sylheti seafarers, also called lascars, came to London through the East India Company. They had worked on the company’s ships as cooks and deckhands. Then, when their contracts with the company expired, they were left to fend for themselves in London. Many more Bengali men arrived in London as a result of India’s Partition in 1947. People seeking an escape from the violent religious war fled to East End where they found cheap labor and housing. Bengali migrants were not the only people looking for safety; Brick Lane became a haven for French Huguenots, Jewish refugees, and Irish people starving from the potato famine. This community was perfect for immigrants because of its proximity to the docks of London and the center of the city. Now, it’s a hidden tourist location that even attracts a tour group or two.

Later in the evening, restaurant owners and waiters stood outside their shops and enticed tourists and customers to grab a bite to eat. They even suggested having a second dinner. Although the idea of more curry was appetizing, the deeper meaning behind the marketing tactic was saddening. The attempt to attract more business exposes the difficulty of keeping curry houses alive as gentrification invades Brick Lane. Because of COVID-19, many Bengali restaurants closed as they were unable to accommodate pandemic mandates for outdoor seating and six feet social distancing. In addition, the increasing commercialization and implementation of chain restaurants and luxury retailers seen on Brick Lane’s northern end challenges the survival of family-owned businesses. About 62% of the curry restaurants have closed in the last 15 years. Those are not the only issues facing Brick Lane. Rising rent makes living in the area unaffordable, thus amplifying homelessness and deepening the wealth disparity. Located off the main street, Altab Ali’s Park is a significant example of disarray and deterioration. There was trash in the corners and cigarette butts littered on the ground. I was surprised that a memorial to Ali and symbol of Bengali unity was in such a state of decline. Nonetheless, Brick Lane still holds its charms, with the lively chatter of people and beautiful street art. I am in awe of the history that is preserved in small details, such as the Bengali-translated street signs and the metal arch in the colors of the Bangladesh flag. Brick Lane is certainly worth another visit for both its rich history and flavorful curry.

https://beyondbanglatown.org.uk/globe/making-home-the-world-in-brick-lane/

https://beyondbanglatown.org.uk/globe/future-of-bengali-brick-lane/

Mir Shah

The Tower of London is a premier destination when visiting the megacity known for fashion, history, and cuisine. What is inside the Tower of London, is an array of tourist attractions, meant for individuals to learn more about the nation, while offering stunning displays on torture, war, and the most exciting of all: the crown jewels exhibit. The exhibit presents various jewels and ornaments from the time of the early Monarchy, all the way to the recent coronation of King Charles. While seeing royal jewels on an exhibit may seem unproblematic, the exhibit also contains a highly contested diamond that is attributed to Britain’s colonial legacy: The Kohinoor. The Kohinoor, meaning “mountain of light” in Farsi, has a historical legacy and is associated with the right to rule, conquest, and dominance. The Kohinoor diamond has swapped various hands over the last couple centuries, with the first known evidence of its existence tracing back to Mughal rule in India, particularly during the reign of Shahjahan. During the reign of this Mughal ruler, there was the construction of the peacock throne, which contained the Kohinoor as one of the gems sewn into the throne, and cost four times the amount on building the lavish and luxurious Taj Mahal. Eventually, the Kohinoor was taken to Iran, under Nader Shah’s invasion of the subcontinent, where the very peacock throne, and the crown jewel, the Kohinoor, was now under the custody of a foreign ruler. Eventually, the diamond was confiscated by the Afghan Durrani Empire, and subsequently, placed into an armband by Maharaja Ranjit Singh, of the Sikh Empire. Ultimately, the Kohinoor ended up in the hands of the British, as there was a deal between the British and a young boy who ruled a Kingdom and owned the diamond. The young boy ultimately gave the diamond (some would argue he was coerced) and his Kingdom to Queen Victoria, who proudly wore the Kohinoor on a brooch, and was the first time a Western Monarch had custody over the diamond. While it may look like a piece of common glass, and nothing extraordinary, the Diamond reflects a long standing history of conquest and legitimacy, as various rulers have used it to symbolize their time in power. Some say the Kohinoor is cursed and brings pain and suffering to those who have embraced it, often citing Shahjahan’s imprisonment by his son and Nader Shah’s assassination. Nonetheless, with the rise of India as an emerging power, there have been demands by the Indian government (as well as Pakistan, Iran, and the Taliban in Afghanistan) to return the Kohinoor back. It is very unlikely that the British Government ever returns, since the justification of who owes who what is difficult, especially in a post-colonial setting, where there are various complexities on ownership and lineage of the object in question. This raises the question of whether or not the Kohinoor should even be returned, with many scholars, including Indian scholars, citing that it is better for the history of the Kohinoor to be accurately displayed, thus ensuring that generations have access to proper information about the internationally coveted diamond.

The Koh-i-Noor diamond is held in the Tower of London, along with other crown jewels. The diamond has a long history in South Asia before it was taken by the British in 1849 from Duleep Singh. It was really interesting to see the diamond after learning how many people struggled for it and the claims being made for it now. There was a replica of the diamond closer to the front of the building and then the real diamond later in the exhibit. There were screens showing the context of the diamond, including all the places that it had been and how it got to Britain.

There is extensive recorded history of the diamond traveling through the hands of the Mughal dynasty, starting with Shah Jahan and his bejeweled throne. From there, the diamond lands in the hands of Nader Shah, a Persian ruler who invaded Delhi. The diamond traveled from present-day India to Afghanistan, and it remained there for 70 years. The diamond went through many kings and became cursed in the process. 

Around 1813, the diamond returned to India in the hands of Rajit Singh, representing his power and capabilities. After four rulers had come and gone through the Punjab throne, Duleep Singh came to power at ten years old. Duleep was coerced to give up the diamond to the British East India Tea Company, and it was given to Queen Victoria. 

Now, the diamond is displayed for the public to view in the Tower of London. The diamond was supposed to make an appearance in the most recent coronation of King Charles and Queen-Consort Camila, but it has been the subject of controversy among the number of contested items that Britain holds. There has been discussion of whether the diamond should return to India, and world leaders have stirred the media with their takes on the rightful place of the diamond. 

In our class, we had a discussion about the best place for the diamond, which I found quite intriguing. There were concerns about how secure the diamond would be, where it would be displayed if it were to return to India, and whether it could be shared among nations. I think that these are all incredibly valid concerns and led to a successful discussion. However, this discussion needs to be initiated by world leaders rather than just making isolated statements to the media. The Koh-i-Noor diamond holds a lot of history and symbolism and deserves to be treated and discussed in a disciplined and honorable manner. No matter what other nations claim, Britain needs to take the first step in figuring out a fair solution. After all, it is their colonialism that led to the displacement of the diamond into the Western world.

While the diamond was incredibly beautiful and glamorous, it also reveals the very ugly parts of history. Historical items like this diamond should not be fought over but learned from. Sadly, Britain refuses to even have a conversation about the return of the diamond to South Asia. History is supposed to be a lesson for the future. Let the return of the Koh-i-Noor diamond be the start of this new chapter of history, in which we teach future generations about contested items and the return to their homes.

Sources:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-koh-i-noor-diamondand-why-british-wont-give-it-back-180964660/ 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64638152 

Blenheim Palace is a classic example of an English country house filled with luxury and splendor. Built in the 18^th century, the palace is currently home to the Duke of Marlborough and is protected as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. However, it is more famously known for being Winston Churchill’s birthplace. The palace was a gift from Queen Anne to John Churchill, the 1^st Duke of Marlborough, for his military victory at the Battle of Blenheim in 1704. Visitors are greeted by beautiful colonnades and oval ceilings representing the Baroque style architecture. There are vivid tapestries in every room, many of them spanning the length and height of the entire wall. They display the heroic victories of John Churchill, often painted in regal red. The library holds over 10,000 books and the garden is over 2,000 acres of trees, flowers, and idyllic scenery. Gold decorations and marble side tables line the rooms, indications of the opulence and magnificence of this historic site. The tour guide pointed out how one side of palace was more richly furnished than the other due to the stopping of construction of the palace in early 1710s. Less costly materials were used to complete the rest of the palace, yet it still looks like the epitome of wealth and splendor. But the glamor and beauty hides a devastating past under the surface. British colonization of South Asia and the subsequent “spoils of enslavement and colonial power…were fashioned into perfect English settings” (Knight). During the tour, there was no mention of how the British government accumulated wealth off the profits of imperialism. In fact, “up to one in six manors were bought with the proceeds of imperialism” (Knight).

Furthermore, since this site was the birthplace of Winston Churchill, there are multiple rooms filled with letters, artifacts, photographs, and even a life-size wax figure to provide a history of his life. It portrays Churchill as a student, a soldier, a husband, a politician, and a prominent British government leader. The exhibit dedicated to him features the Summer Terrace Room, which was previously called the Indian Room, in which there were descriptions about Churchill’s reading habits, paintings, and breakfast routine with a backdrop of Indian people and dances. However, there is no hint of Churchill’s relationship or involvement with India during his time as the Prime Minister. Churchill was certainly not an advocate of Gandhi, who he called a “malignant subversive fanatic,” nor was he a fan of the Indian people, who he labeled as a “beastly people with a beastly religion” (Guha). He is often criticized for his role in the Bengal Famine of 1943, which led to about three million deaths. So despite all the beauty of the palace, knowledge of Britain’s past and Churchill’s actions is a lingering stain that slightly dampened the visit. Looking around at the people in my tour group, I was unsure if they knew about this dark history or if they were blinded like many others by the glimmering chandeliers and gilded mirrors.

www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/04/churchill-gandhi-briton-indian-greatest/584170/

www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/08/23/britains-idyllic-country-houses-reveal-a-darker-history

When one thinks of the word “diamond”, perhaps images of engagement rings come to mind, signifying a unifying bond built on mutual love and respect. Not so with the Koh-i-Noor diamond; this stone depicts thievery, misuse of power, and bad omens through its complex history beginning thousands of years ago. This blog will guide the reader through the shocking twists and turns of Koh-i-Noor ownership and will explore the question: where does rightfully it belong today?

The phrase “Koh-i-Noor” translates to the “fountain of life” in English. It was discovered in India’s alluvial mines, sifted from a sandy riverbank. A little-known fact is that India was the world’s only source of diamonds for hundreds of years, until the early 18^th century; the nation produced the world’s oldest texts on gemology (from article). According to legend, this diamond carries a curse for whoever bears it. Yet as we will see, this superstition did not deter rulers from risking their life, reputation, and morals for the stone.

The first thief of the diamond is the Mughals. They took control of the region in 1526 and maintained ownership for 330 years. It was through a key Mughal leader during this period—Shah Jahan—where the first written record the diamond appears. He commissioned a costly Peacock throne where the Koh-i-Noor, along with other magnificent gemstones, was used as decoration for this symbol of power and prestige. In the final century of the Mughal Empire era, the state was the wealthiest in all of Asia.

Enter the diamond’s second notable thief: Nader Shah of Persia in 1739. He took the stone and placed it in an armband, a culturally significant adornment. In the span of 70 years in present-day Afghanistan, the diamond experienced many royal owners through a string of carnage and instability in Central Asia, leading to a power struggle with no one clear ruler.

Finally, the British infiltrate India and serve as the Koh-i-Noor’s final burglar. But for a brief moment in history, India managed to regain ownership of the diamond. Sikh ruler Ranjit Singh enjoyed respect and honor through the gemstone alone, even achieving a degree of unity amongst Indians. Yet within this progress lies a setback—through this positive attention, the British become aware of the governmental importance of the stone and they eventually intersect the Koh-i-Noor by manipulating a 10-year-old boy to sign over ownership. Undoubtedly, the British’s use of coercion to obtain the diamond was a gross misuse of power obtained through colonization. Yet even more shocking, in my opinion, is the fact that Queen Victoria mutilated the original diamond that had been revered for thousands of years. Apparently not “brilliant enough” for Britain’s beauty standards, she recut the diamond and reduced its size by half. This decision served as symbolism for the continuing blatant disrespect for the naturality and authenticity of India’s culture. The quite literal shrinkage of arguably India’s most important object furthers the colonization-derived narrative of Britain’s supposed superiority.

Now the question is: who is the proper owner? And perhaps a more pertinent concern: where should the diamond reside permanently? Several cultures feel entitled to the Koh-i-Noor. There is no easy answer, but one thing is for sure: the violence, marginalization, and manipulation surrounding the diamond need to end. Rather, education, acceptance, and inclusion should be prioritized in regards to conversations and exhibits surrounding the incredible Koh-i-Noor.

Associated article: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-koh-i-noor-diamondand-why-british-wont-give-it-back-180964660/

Blenheim Palace is home of the Dukes of Marlborough. It is also the birthplace of Winston Churchill.  The palace is known for its riches which come in the form of intricately decorated gold ceilings, a library long enough to host dinner guests, and numerous gardens one can easily get lost in. Each piece of furniture is yet another opportunity to display wealth, from the finest of porcelain decor to the intricate tables and chairs. The side tables that weren’t walled off as a part of the display that could easily be mistaken for something a tourist could lean back on while listening to their tour guide talking were marked with signs saying, “do not touch.” And in each of the rooms, there were paintings of John Churchill, his family, and is descendants. There were also many depictions of John Churchill gloriously riding his horse into battle with his red coat on to defend the crown. One of which was a tapestry made of finely woven wool and silk that was positioned in the corner of two walls, taking up most of the space there. It’s known as one of the largest tapestries in the U.K.

However, the story of how the Dukes of Marlborough managed to accumulate so much wealth is less glorious than many, including the tour guide, would probably like to acknowledge. Blenheim Palace is seen as an idyllic country home, a place where people feel a sense of national pride and a sense of comfort. Perhaps this makes it even more of a reason to reflect on why that is so and go deeper in unpacking the history of these idyllic country homes.

Many of these idyllic country homes have some connection to the former slave economy from the 18^th and 19^th century. These sites and the wealth are intertwined with Britain’s colonial history even if it is unspoken. While some see these sites as a place of veneration of a gently ordered past, for others these sites are a display of power.

India was known as the crown jewel of the British Empire. Knight explains that “In 1884, the British state had a total income of two hundred and three million pounds, of which more than half came from its overseas territories, including seventy-four million pounds from India.” That is about 35% of Britain’s income in 1884. The colonization of India was often framed as this great empire that Britain was able to conquer, a kind of cultural achievement. Its riches were taken as trophies of that conquest. This time period of imperialism is often seen through the eyes of rose toned nostalgia without the acknowledgement of the people who suffered so that a few individuals could profit. The riches are seen and admired while the suffering is quietly tucked away. It is estimated that up to one in six manors were bought and funded from the wealth that came from imperialism.

The erasure of the colonial legacy was the most piercing to me when my tour guide got to the subject of Winston Churchill. The guide talked at length about Churchill with great detail about his life and education. However, the main detail that was conveniently left out was that Churchill was an ardent imperialist. It is not surprising considering his wealthy upbringing and how the riches he grew up around were the product of imperialism, a product that was framed by a sense of glory.  I found my self taking a moment to examine each of his portraits while the rest of my tour group hurried along to the next exhibition. And all I could think of was his impact on the Bengali famine of 1943 where three million people died because he did not see the Bengali people as fully human.

There is a sense of melancholy that stayed with me during my visit in Blenheim Palace. I was surrounded by beauty but I carried with me context of imperialism. Rather than the palace striking a whimsical imagination of dukes and royalty, I felt a sense of somberness. And while the palace tried to be frugal by opting for 8 carat gold on the ceilings instead of 24 carat gold, the empire did not try to be frugal in the number of victims. And while the sun did eventually set on the British empire, the legacy is still golden and blinding to the point of historical amnesia

Brick Lane has been known as the safe place for migrants for centuries. The earliest migrants included the French as well as Jewish people who were fleeing religious persecution in Catholic France in the 1570s. Bangladeshi, more specifically Sylheti seafarers came to Brick Lane as early as the 1600s by the way of the East India Company and imperial trading routes. There has been a thriving Bengali community in Brick Lane ever since.s Later, following Partition in 1947, when the Indian subcontinent became free from British rule and split into East and West Pakistan, and India, there was an influx of Sylheti immigrants due to the violent nature of the split. Partition later became known as the bloodiest human displacements in modern history. Similarly, there was another wave of immigrants that came into Brick Lane after the Bangladeshi Liberation War in 1971 where East Pakistan got their independence from West Pakistan and became known as Bangladesh.

This long history feels common place in England considering that many of the places I have visited on my trip here have been older than the country I come from. I find myself reevaluating my sense of time and relating to the statement that “a hundred miles is a large distance for a European while a hundred years is a long time for an American.” There is a sense of pride and sentimentality when it comes to these old historical places and a push towards preservation.

But what unfortunately sets Brick Lane apart from a lot of the other historical places I have visited is how despite its 400-year history tied to the Bangladeshi community, there is not as much recognition or motivation to preserve the sites. Many of the historical sites we visited seemed like normal buildings one could easily pass by without a second thought. There were also historical sites that were no longer there or were replaced by other establishments. But the issue that is affecting this community the most is the gentrification of the area with more upper middleclass people moving in and raising the rent prices to where the original people that have lived there for generations get displaced because they can no longer afford to live there anymore. As a result, many of the small Bangladeshi owned business, including the restaurants that Brick Lane is most famous for, are going out of business.

One of the main things that I caught myself thinking about during this study abroad trip is who’s narratives get prioritized. Signs of empire and Indian history are all around the UK if you know where to look and what to look out for. Sometimes it’s the one painting of a Mughal king talking to a member of the East India company in the corner of Parliament. Other times it is what is left unsaid about the legacy of colonialism in a tour. But this trip to Brick Lane compelled me to reflect on whose stories gets preserved and recognized over time and how power relates to that. And I think that’s something that is important to think about when seeking out sites to visit on a trip to avoid overlooking underrated places with rich culture and history.

The British Houses of Parliament is regularly visited by thousands of tourists a year—not including the staff, elected officials, members of the House of Lords, and the British constituents coming to speak with their representatives. It was an incredible experience to be among the bustle of other visitors and witness the members of the British Parliamentary system at work. Something that many of these tourists are unaware of—whether willingly or not—is the colonial history of the British Empire present within its walls and its reflection of India.

India and Britain have an extremely complicated, intertwined, and bloody history that cannot be separated from the British Parliament. Britain’s empire was also present in the artworks in the main lobby wherein there were mosaics representing the other countries in Britain—England, (Northern) Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. This serves as a reminder that even today, there is a complicated set of states that have varying opinions on whether they want to be associated with Britain. The Irish Partition and recent Scottish push for independence, as well as the controversies about countries remaining within the Commonwealth are great examples of how British Imperialism has had lasting impacts worldwide.

In 1892, Dadabhai Naoroji was elected to British Parliament in the House of the Commons. This made Naoroji the first Asian Member of Parliament (MP). Naoroji gained this office on his platform of education for women, anti-imperialism, and many other progressive ideals. Before he was running for Parliament in Britain, Naoroji was opening girls’ schools in India and championing women’s rights. Then, when visiting Britain, he noticed the stark difference in the economic situations of India and England. This led him to begin to analyze the causes of these differences through the lens of colonialism and imperialism. During this time, the imperialists of Britain popularized the notion that imperialism was good for the colonies and their subjects and brought them prosperity. This was an idea that Naoroji was skeptical of, and began to study. Eventually, Naoroji coined the term “drain of wealth” in reference to how empires bled their colonies dry and reaped the benefits for themselves. This idea highlighted how unsustainable imperialism for the colonies and how it was exploitative.

The extreme and grandiose wealth that Naoroji noticed on his trip to Britain is still clear and present in today’s Britain as well. The walls and ceilings of the Houses of Parliament are gilded with gold and are covered in expensive and intricate frescos and paintings. There are undoubtedly silks, fabrics, jewels, and other luxury imports from India within the walls of Parliament. On the tour that we took around the House of the Lords, there was no mention of Queen Victoria’s controversial relationship with India, or of Dadbhai Naoroji. This shows how far we still have to go to overcome colonial amnesia and educate about how these famous monuments came to be.