Sheila Pais James
Department of Sociology
With the British leaving India thousands of Anglo-Indians left for safe shores – Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. This paper traces the dilemmas of identity among these diasporic people from their origins in India, through the period of the British leaving India and India’s Independence and finally the dilemmas here in Australia. It looks at the relevance of the issue of whiteness and skin colour to the Anglo-Indian community. It explores Caplan’s conceptualisation of the Anglo-Indians as transcolonial migrants who have left India in the face of globalising influences. Finally, regarding the survival of this community, the loss of their homeland may result in the construction of a number of ‘little Anglo-Indias’ corresponding to the different experiences of Anglo-Indians in the places of their migration and keeping the link with the country of their birth.
This paper initially gives a preliminary outline of the discourses surrounding the Anglo-Indians and their dilemma of identity and explores the possibility of an identity dilemma among the Anglo-Indians in Australia. It looks at the relevance of the issue of whiteness and skin colour to the Anglo-Indians. In the next section this paper explores Caplan’s conceptualization of the Anglo-Indians as colonial transnationals as part of the globalising process. Both sections are linked, as the dilemmas of identity of the Anglo-Indians in their country of migration can be understood in light of the dilemmas they faced in their country of origin. Also, the experiences of these diasporic people in Australia can be examined in relation to an article of Eade and Allen on ethnicity and global migrations and in relation to their survival as a community.
Historical Background: Before 1947
The Anglo-Indians were brought into being by the direct policies of the Portuguese, Dutch, and British traders and colonists. The Directors of the British East India Company (which had been founded around 1629) paid one pagola or gold mohur (a guinea, coin) for each child born to an Indian mother and a European father, essentially, a family allowance. (Younger, 1984)
Warren Hastings was the first to use the term ‘Anglo-Indian’ in the 18th century to describe both the British and their Indian-born children. These children were “country-born” and amalgamated into the Anglo-Indian community, forming a bulwark for the British Raj (rule), a buffer but also a bridge between the rulers and the subjects. According to Stark, the Anglo-Indians’ local knowledge of India and its people made them an invaluable asset to the British, who used and reared them in the atmosphere of trade. (Stark in Lyons, 1998)
Younger notes that the encouragement, and ready employment given to the Anglo-Indians by the East India Company, as well as the fact that they were treated no differently from the British ensured the growth of a mixed community. Also, until the mid-18th century Anglo-Indian children were often sent to England to receive further education with no stigma attached to marital or extramarital relations with Indian women. And schools were established in Madras, Bangalore, Lucknow and other British settlements aimed at organising education to make Anglo-Indians fit for the departments of the public services. (Younger, 1984)
Thus, the Anglo-Indian was the product of the confident European expansion of the 16th century. In the years of British colonial expansion, intermarriage between the British and the native females was encouraged, but soon after British power was established in India, this policy was reversed: it was feared that a mixed community might threaten British rule.
In the late 18th and early 19th centuries the Anglo-Indians were discharged from all ranks of the army; they were barred from the Company’s civil, military or marine services. The restrictions imposed closed a large area of employment for them and they saw these actions as discriminatory because previously they were treated as British and they felt themselves to be British both by culture and inclination. Now they were no longer with the ruling elite. According to Gaikwad, these measures reduced the Anglo-Indians to political impotence and social degradation. (Gaikwad in Younger, 1984)
It was within this milieu that Anglo-Indian families had to survive, but even this set-up was continuously changing. Cottrell observed that under the British Raj, the fortunes of the Anglo-Indians varied from the denial of jobs to favouritism in job placement. At the end of the colonial period and over ten years after Independence, the Anglo-Indians had a secure hold on positions in clerical jobs, railways, transport and communication. (Cottrell, 1979)
However, Younger writes: From the 1920s onwards the unemployment problem amongst the community became critical. During the decades after Independence job opportunities diminished even further as communalism, Anglo-Indian unwillingness to accept inferior jobs, the poor educational qualifications of Anglo-Indians, Anglo-Indian resistance to learning an Indian language and occupational specialization all contributed to an already chronic unemployment situation within the community. (Younger, 1984, 78)
Some analysis on this can be found in D’Cruz quoting Reuter (1918):
Physically the Eurasians are slight and weak. Their personal appearance is subject to the greatest variations. In skin colour, for example, they are often darker even than the Asiatic parent. They are naturally indolent and will enter into no employment requiring exertion or labour. This lack of energy is correlated with an incapacity for organization. They will not assume burdensome responsibilities, but they make passable clerks where only routine is required …the half-castes tend to develop peculiar mental traits and attitudes which are not racial but are determined by the social situation in which they find themselves. To the extent that this takes place, the differences that normally exist between individuals are suppressed and the mental and moral characteristics of the group approach uniformity. (D’Cruz, 1997)
In studies done in India, Gaikwad (1967) found 68% of employed Anglo-Indians interviewed were in the lower two categories of his classification. Very few entered private business and most had not been to college.
In addition, a series of interviews among Calcutta Anglo-Indians in 1972 revealed a set of reciprocal role relations between the sexes…greater emancipation of women, extensive unemployment of men…Anglo-Indian women became bread-winners …men developed images of themselves patterned after their British fathers—felt that they were too good for menial work…Anglo-Indian girls, urged by parents not to marry too soon and to continue to support the older generation, frequently refused to marry men of their own community…sex roles skewed away from the traditional male dominance pattern . (Schermerhorn, 1973)
Aspirations for British (White) Identity
By the 19th century, the British separated themselves from the coloured people but accepted fairer (and often wealthier) people of dual heritage as ‘Anglo-Indian’. Darker (and usually poorer) people were given the name ‘Eurasian’. Anglo-Indians were of British descent and British subjects; others claimed to be British to escape prejudice. The British did not however accept such identification. They did not see Anglo-Indians as kinsmen, socially viewing them as “half-caste” members who were morally and intellectually inferior to the sons and daughters of Britain.
The Anglo-Indians tried to counter this by trying to be more like the British; hence their campaign to be called ‘Anglo-Indians’ rather than ‘Eurasians’. ‘Anglo-Indian’ would mean a closer link with the Raj while ‘Eurasian’ was too general. (Bose, 1979)
One of the contributing factors to the growth of community identification was that marriage outside the community had become rare by 1919. It was no longer acceptable for the British to marry an Indian or Anglo-Indian. (Younger, 1984) By the end of the 19th century it was taboo for all but the British men of low status to associate with Anglo-Indians or Indians.
Lyons writes that skin colour was another factor preventing the Anglo-Indians from being accepted by the British due to a concern with maintaining “purity of race”. Lyons explains this concept:
Which also meant a white Britisher with real English looks. If they are white with blue eyes and fair hair, they find it easier to blend in with the others but if they are dark like the Indians they find it harder to be accepted as anyone but an Indian. Amongst the Anglo-Indians themselves there is this colour prejudice. The fairer ones consider themselves superior and the real Anglo-Indians. In India the higher castes are usually the lighter skin ones whereas the darker Indians are supposedly the lower castes. According to them it was the lower castes that were converted in numbers by the missionaries during the British Raj. The Indians therefore, consider the Indian Christians as well as the darker Anglo-Indians as belonging to the lower castes. (Lyons, 1998)
Hence, the Anglo-Indians adopted many of the prejudices of the British, resulting in the rejection of the Anglo-Indians by both British and Indian communities, and they found they were caught between the European attitude of superiority towards Indian and Anglo-Indian and the Indian mistrust of them due to their aloofness and Western-oriented culture.
On both the social and cultural level they were alien to many other Indians, though kin to them on the biological level. Gaikwad (1967) asserted that the Anglo-Indians were mid-way between two cultural worlds and they could never get to know the West to which they aspired to belong, nor did they have emotional ties with India, where they really belonged.
D’Cruz quotes Hedin (1934) who attempts to place the Anglo-Indian within the general “scheme of things”: Hedin suggests that the role of the Anglo-Indian is that of a parasite whose hold on its host is none too secure. The Anglo-Indian lives his separate life on the border of the official community, which supplies him with sufficient employment to keep up his shabby and pathetic Britishness. (D’Cruz, 1997)
Thus, they were victims of dilemma and indiscretion throughout their existence.
One of the problems the Anglo-Indian community has always faced is one of Identity. Throughout much of the 18th century, Europeans and Indians variously defined them. Under these circumstances it was not easy for Anglo- Indians to develop a clear conception of their own identity. Europeans tended to think of them as Indians with some European blood; Indians thought of them as Europeans with some Indian blood. The prejudices against them, real or imagined, or the prejudices that they themselves had against other Indians, were an obstacle to both group and individual identity. (Gist, 1972, 1973)
The fact that Anglo-Indians were Indian nationals by birth but culturally oriented to Britain often made their status confusing to themselves and to others. One Anglo-Indian school principal in Calcutta stated the dilemma of her own identity as, ‘My heart is in England but my responsibilities are in India.’ She has since migrated to Great Britain. (Gist, 1973)
Many Anglo-Indians felt that other Indians regard them as interlopers who do not want to qualify as authentic and loyal Indians. Gist quotes one Indian in Bombay, who remarked with reference to the matter of identity, that if you visit any Anglo-Indian home you almost invariably see a picture of the British Royal Family. This is undoubtedly a half-truth but it reinforces the image that many Indians have of the community. (Gist, 1972)
According to D’Cruz: Gist and Wright justify their theoretical framework through a detailed account of the concept of marginality and its specific relevance to their study. The thesis they advance claims that Anglo-Indians are (and were) culturally marginal to the other Indians in India. This is because their mother tongue, religion, family organisation and general style of life distinguishes them from Indians who are relatively distinctive in this respect… They discover the existence of four major stereotypes: Anglo-Indians as stooges of the British; Anglo-Indians, especially Anglo-Indian women, as people of lax morals; Anglo-Indians as traitors to India; and, finally, Anglo-Indians as opportunists. (D’Cruz, 1997)
Thus, it has not been easy for them to provide a satisfactory answer to the question: “Who am I?” Thoughtful Anglo-Indians, acutely aware of the problem of identity and of the attitudes held by many Indians towards them, point to their records of achievement in the interests of India and to the sacrifices made by Anglo-Indians in the military services. Some of the leaders of the community decry the migrations of their members to other countries, asserting that it is their duty to remain in India and work for equal rights and opportunities for all peoples. (Gist, 1972)
So, as a genuine community consciousness developed, this identity dilemma lessened but it was never firmly resolved. With the British leaving India and as opportunities for a resolution of identity conflict through migration faded, a new identity orientation was necessary. Many Anglo-Indians, who were unable to make such a turn-about of identity and remained insecure without the protective imperial umbrella, opted to leave India.
India’s Independence (1947)
In the words of Deefholts: The world of Anglo-India vanished on August 15, 1947, when a new nation was born. As India threw off the shackles of three centuries of colonial rule and its people strode proud and free into the future, the British packed their bags, their polo sticks, their regimental jackets, and their memories—and went home to ‘Blighty’. Not everyone, however, was glad to see them go... (Deefholts, 2001)
The somewhat sudden and unexpected departure of the British from Indian soil, posed a series of tangled problems involving critical choices for this community. The pivotal point for Anglo-Indians was the hand-over of political power in 1947: suddenly experiencing the insecurity of a minority group, thousands of Anglo-Indians left India for safer shores – Canada, New Zealand, England and Australia.
For those Anglo-Indians who stayed behind, the Constitution of India provided more security than they dreamt of. The official definition of the term ‘Anglo-Indian’ accepted by the Government of India and stipulated in the new Constitution of Independent India is:
…An Anglo-Indian means a person whose father or any of whose other male progenitors in the male line is or was of European descent but who is domiciled within the territory of India and is or was born within such territory of parents habitually resident therein and not established there for temporary purposes only… (The Constitution of India, paragraph 366)
And Younger points out that there was much debate about English as the mother tongue of the Anglo-Indians. It was claimed that English was essential to being an Anglo-Indian. Hence, in 1957, the following definition was approved:
…An Anglo-Indian means a person whose mother-tongue is English and whose father or any of his progenitors in the male line is or was of European descent but who is or was born within such territory of India of parents habitually resident therein and not established there for temporary purposes only… (D’Souza in Younger, 1984)
As regards the Anglo-Indians who remained in India, some integrated well into the upper class Indian Hindu society. But many were poor, ignored by their community, forgotten by the Indians and left with their memories of past glories and a fondly created illusion of ‘home’, England. (Bose, 1979)
We can see this also in D’Cruz, who quotes Brennan (1979) as follows:
Brennan locates the Anglo-Indian in a liminal space, negotiating between the centripetal forces of institutions, like the school and church, which reinforce community affiliations, and centrifugal political and economic forces which threaten to erode traditional ethnic identifications. (D’Cruz, 1997)
These Anglo-Indians lived in an unrealistic world and many of them escaped into a Walter Mitty-like ‘white world’ called England, where they imagined everything was plentiful and everyone was kind. It was ‘home’ in a sense, which India could never be. (Minto, 1974)
And D’Cruz reviewing Hedin (1934) quotes: They always speak of England as ‘home’ though they may never have been there. (D’Cruz, 1997)
This sense of ‘home’ is explained in Brah’s writings as follows: Implied … is an image of ‘home’ as the site for everyday lived experience. It is a discourse of locality, the place where feelings of rootedness ensue from the mundane and the unexpected of daily practice. Home here connotes the networks of family, kin, friends, colleagues and various other ‘significant others’. It signifies the social and psychic geography of space that is experienced in terms of a neighbourhood or a hometown that is a community ‘imagined’ in most part through daily encounter. This ‘home’ is a place with which we remain intimate even in moments of intense alienation from it. It is a sense of ‘feeling at home’. (Brah, 1996, 4)
Migration to Australia
The Anglo-Indians have been immigrating to Australia in relatively large numbers since the early 1960s. In fact, they were among the first Asians to emigrate in the 1960s and 1970s with the relaxation of the White Australia Policy (Brawley in Gilbert, 1996). The earliest recorded suggestion of their immigration was made by the editor of The Eastern Times, an Anglo-Indian newspaper on August 23, 1851. (Varma in Gilbert, 1996) At the time, Australia was encouraging immigration and the Anglo-Indians were looking for greener pastures. (Gilbert, 1996)
According to Gilbert, some Anglo-Indians did migrate in 1852 and 1854, and T.G. Clarky, a Magistrate, confidently predicted that some day there would be unlimited demand for Anglo-Indians in Australia. An organisation called the South Australian Board of Advice and Correspondence for Anglo-Indian Colonization was formed ‘to advise and assist Anglo-Indians desirous to settle in South Australia’. (Varma in Gilbert, 1996, 36)
This migration to South Australia did not eventuate because there was a hardening of attitudes against Asian immigration in Australia; also, the Anglo-Indians were not skilled as “cultivators” and nor did they come under the category of “cheap labour” like the ethnic Indians studied by de Lepervanche (Gilbert, 1996). The Anglo-Indians did have technical skills acquired from working on the railways and postal and telegraph services in India; skills needed in an expanding Australia. It was only in 1964 when the rules for entry of persons of mixed descent were eased that Anglo-Indians become admissible to Australia. (Richmond and Rao in Gilbert, 1996)
And about those Anglo-Indians who migrated to Australia, Gilbert quotes Younger: Anglo-Indians entered the professions as doctors, engineers and journalists, gone into business, government, academic and computer technology. Beginning with limited resources, most now possess the trappings of material success – home, cars, television, video and surplus funds for entertainment and overseas holidays. (Younger in Gilbert, 1996, 40)
And in Younger’s view, the reason for this success in integrating into Australian society was their Western lifestyle.
Whiteness & Skin Colour
In colonial society, it was the white-skinned Anglo-Indians who would have been capable of passing themselves off as British and would perhaps have better job opportunities and class privileges. (Gilbert, 1996)
According to Lyons: This colour prejudice has continued wherever the Anglo-Indians have immigrated… The Anglo-Indian has always been the second class citizen in any country because of their background, distinct Anglo-Indian culture, accent and skin colour…Some even started regretting the change of residence, and have kept their links with India by visiting the country as often as they can. They soon realised that the discrimination and prejudices against them are also present in the new country. This time it was not so much for religion or being casteless, but because of skin colour, accent, lifestyle and their being born in India. (Lyons, 1998)
As regards an experience of Lyons herself in Australia she writes: I remember once my mother was very sick and I had to call for a doctor after hours. The doctor attended to my mother and then, looked at her critically and said to me, ‘Is she a Mrs. Lyons! She does not look anything like a Lyons!!’ Meaning that she was dark in complexion and nothing like the English name she carried. ‘She got that name through marriage to a Lyons of course, there are many people with mixed bloods of the British and the Indian,’ was my reply, which put him in shame? I have encountered such predicament very often. This is perhaps one of the reasons why most Anglo-Indians feel isolated, and prefer to stay within their Anglo-Indian community. (Lyons, 1998)
Thus, the issue of skin colour is of particular relevance to the Australian Anglo-Indians, who range from fair to dark. Blunt writes: Assimilation in Australia was only thought possible if Anglo-Indians could prove a line of predominantly European descent and if they were seen to be white in both photographs and at interview. But in practice both of these requirements revealed internal contradictions at the heart of White Australia policies. While most Anglo-Indians could not produce documentary evidence to prove their European origin, their claims could equally not be disproved...Anglo-Indians could migrate to Australia from the late 1960s because they were seen as culturally European, but when they arrived they were often perceived as Indian. (Blunt, 2000)
Writing about “skin colour”, Gilbert points out that while many Anglo-Indians are physically indistinguishable from Anglo-Celtic Australians, many others are not and consequently became victims of discrimination and prejudice. The White Australia policy was starting to change during the 1960s but there were occasions when different coloured members of the same family could not enter Australia. He quotes the following example as a case in 1964:
Despite being claimed by his twin brother, a man was rejected from immigrating to Australia, being classified as ‘non-European’ due to a ‘swarthy and dark’ complexion. Upon investigation Martin found that these twin brothers were born of a British Army father and an Indian born mother. In contrast, the other twin was fair and looked completely European in appearance. (Martin in Gilbert, 1996, 41)
This example echoes the following: …I know now and knew then that ‘looks’ mattered a great deal within the colonial regimes of power…because discourses about the body were crucial to the constitution of racism…(Brah, 1996, 3)
This section of the paper defines the term ‘globalisation’ briefly and explores Caplan’s conceptualisation of the Anglo-Indians as colonial transnationals in relation to cultural globalisation and international migration. Finally, it examines the survival of the Anglo-Indian Community in an ethos of globalisation and the possible construction of a number of different ‘little Anglo-Indias’ corresponding to their quest for Identity along with their assimilation and survival in Australia.
According to Schech and Haggis: The term globalisation refers to the intensification of global interconnectedness, particularly the spread of capitalism as a production and market system. It also refers to innovations in technologies of communication and transportation, which are reconfiguring social relationships spatially, temporally, and in terms of speed. (Schech and Haggis, 2000, 58)
Thus, globalisation in this sense refers to the way in which our world nations are tied together through communication, economic trade and international law.
Anglo-Indians as Transcolonial Migrants
Caplan (1998) examines the mindset that led to the immigration of the Anglo-Indians from a transnational perspective. He stresses that the process of moving across cultures or globalisation is not new and that the Anglo-Indians were one of the early results of the globalisation process. To quote Caplan: There has been emigration to the West almost since the emergence of an Anglo-Indian community. Until the end of the eighteenth century the Anglo-Indian sons of British officers were sometimes sent to Britain to be educated, and many of them simply ‘passed’ into local society. By the middle of the nineteenth century there were organized attempts to send unemployed artisans to parts of the British Empire. The Athenaeum, a Madras newspaper, occasionally reported the successes of the Madras Emigration Society in placing Anglo-Indians in Australia as compositors, shepherds, watchmakers, blacksmiths, domestic servants, etc… (Caplan, 1998)
In this context, Caplan directs our attention to some Anglo-Indian schools, such as Dr Graham's in Kalimpong (India), which also tried to arrange placements abroad for their young men as seen in the writings of Minto (1974).
Caplan suggests that the globalising process commonly referred to as colonialism produced transnational communities from its very inception. According to him, the Eurasians or Anglo-Indians whom Young refers to as ‘hybrid’ groups, which resulted in intermediate communities, were variously seen as bulwarks of colonial elites, or as lurking threats to their power. In consequence, they were subject to a ‘frequently shifting set of criteria that allowed them privilege at certain historical moments and pointedly excluded them at others’ he quotes from Stoler. (Caplan, 1998)
Caplan adds: They can be seen as transnationals not by virtue of migration across political boundaries, but through experiencing profound displacement in terms of belonging: by residing in one location but adjudging themselves only at home in another. It is what Gupta and Ferguson presumably mean by ‘an imagined state of being or moral location’… (Caplan, 1998)
Colquohoun (1997) conducted a series of studies and focussed on the adaptation and well being of Anglo-Indians in Australia. His findings suggest that for the Anglo-Indians adaptation to life in Australia overall had been achieved fairly easily. However, it is interesting that the Anglo-Indians saw themselves as different from other ethnic minorities in terms of being western and having English as a first language. The participants also reported that life in Australia had been different to India. Unlike India, they felt Australia placed less emphasis on a person's status, religion or social functions. It was again interesting that they saw the differences between Australia and India as those same indicators, which defined them as a community. Without those indicators it would be difficult to distinguish them from many Australians today. (Colquhoun, 1997)
According to Blunt: Distinguishing themselves from other Indians and from non-English speaking migrants, Anglo-Indians occupy an ambivalent place in multicultural Australia. Many stress their successful assimilation and emphasise the ‘Anglo’ parts of their identity, while at the same time asserting a distinctive and visible Anglo-Indian identity in the context of multiculturalism. While this appeal both to assimilation and to a multicultural cosmopolitanism may appear contradictory, their coexistence rather reveals the tensions of what Ghassan Hage calls ‘fantasies of white supremacy in a multicultural society’ where ideas of whiteness remain dominant in both cultural and racial terms.” (Blunt, 2000)
Also, according to Lyons: Many Anglo-Indian migrants saw it as neither possible nor desirable to assimilate in independent India: ‘If we had to stay [in India] then we would have had to make the best of it, and assimilate, and lose our identity.’ In contrast, Anglo-Indian assimilation in Australia meant identifying with the dominant white, western culture and feeling more at home. (Lyons, 1998)
Anglo-Indians and Diaspora
Diasporas are usually defined as ethnic groups, which lack a territorial base within a given polity. Anglo-Indians can be seen as a diasporic people that constructed and maintained a sense of identity when the territorial base (British India) to which that identity refers was taken over by the Indian Government. Consequently, it led to their migrations to the numerous places to which they have been scattered by the loss of their birthland (India) and they might discursively construct images of themselves and their birthland.
According to Deefholts: The 1950s and 1960s saw a steady stream of departures as about 150,000 Anglo-Indians, seeking wider horizons and better job prospects, emigrated to Australia, Britain, Canada, the U.S.A. and New Zealand. The exodus has continued through the decades up to the present time—although now, Anglo-Indians, like their Indian contemporaries, leave India not for reasons of uncertainty, but because the West offers a dazzling array of educational and career opportunities…(Deefholts, 2001)
Eade and Allen (1999) write that when there are global flows of people, information, images and capital across ethnic boundaries and beyond nation-state frontiers the world is more complex and heterogenous, and the local and global interweave. They point out: Global migration also creates ‘new patriotisms’ through ‘puzzling new forms of linkage between diasporic nationalisms, delocalised political communities and revitalised political commitments at both ends of the diasporic process. (Eade and Allen, 1999, 153)
This is evidently the case with Australian Anglo-Indians, and to quote Blunt: Since the late 1980s, ideas about Anglo-Indian assimilation have coexisted with an increasingly visible community identity. The Australian Anglo-Indian Association was founded in Perth in 1988, hosted an international reunion for Anglo-Indians in 1995, and opened the only Anglo-Indian cultural centre in the world in 1998; there is a weekly Anglo-Indian programme on multicultural radio in Perth; there is a residential home for elderly Anglo-Indians in Melbourne; and there are regular social events to raise funds for Anglo-Indians in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Government funding for multicultural projects has helped to create and shape a distinctive Anglo-Indian identity in Australia: an identity that is distinctive in its hybridity. (Blunt, 2000)
Vellinga (1994) found that the Anglo-Indians are a tiny ethnic group in modern-day Australia, which is a highly diverse and poly-ethnic society. Similarly, these diasporic Anglo-Indians have kept links with their country of birth, as seen in Lyons writings: The Anglo-Indians are a mostly progressive, self-sufficient and adjustable community, they have been able to adapt themselves to the new situation and conditions presented to them in the country they migrated to, at the same time keeping the link with the country of their birth…The older Anglo-Indians…prefer to stay within their own community and cling to their own distinctive lifestyle, a mixture of the British and the Indian. While the future seems promising for the children, the older Anglo-Indians find themselves comfortable in their own community and culture. They prefer to organise for themselves a little India in their own homes and the social get togethers, ‘the way it was in India itself.’ They prefer spicy Indian food and association only with Anglo-Indians. (Lyons, 1998)
Thus, as regards the survival of the Anglo-Indian community in an ethos of globalisation, we note the possible construction of a number of different ‘little Anglo-Indias’ corresponding to their quest for Identity along with keeping links with the country of their birth.
This paper has explored the conceptualization of the Anglo-Indians as colonial transnationals and as part of one of the earliest processes of globalisation as seen in the writings of Caplan. Also, the 1947 loss of their birthland may have resulted in the construction of a number of ‘little Anglo-Indias’ corresponding to the different experiences of Anglo-Indians along with their assimilation and survival in Australia. While older Anglo-Indians construct ‘little Anglo-Indias’ in their homes for the community itself, the identity constructing process is made difficult by the different senses of what it means to be an Anglo-Indian and identity dilemmas engendered by more than fifty years of dislocation and dispersion.
Blunt, A. 2000, ‘Postcolonial Migrations: Anglo-Indians in ‘White Australia’’, The International Journal of Anglo-Indian Studies, vol. 5, no. 2 [Online, accessed 19 June 2002] URL: <http://www.alphalink.com.au/~agilbert/jed10.html>
Bose, M. 1979, ‘One Corner of an Indian Slum that is Forever England’, New Society, vol. 47, no. 848, Jan. 4, 7-9.
Brah, A. 1996, Cartographies of Diaspora: Contesting Identities, Routledge, London.
Caplan, L. 1998, ‘Colonial and Contemporary Transnationalisms: Traversing Anglo-Indian Boundaries of the Mind’, The International Journal of Anglo-Indian Studies, vol. 3, no. 2. [Online, accessed 19 Nov. 2001] URL: <http://www.alphalink.com.au/~agilbert/cap0399.html>
Colquhoun, S. 1997, ‘A Research Note: Adaptation and General Well-Being of Anglo-Indian Immigrants in Australia’, The International Journal of Anglo-Indian Studies, vol. 2, no. 1. [Online accessed 19 Nov. 2001] URL: <http://www.alphalink.com.au/~agilbert/simon1.html>
Constitution of India. 1958, Paragraph 366, Government of India Press, New Delhi.
Cottrell, A-B. 1979, ‘Today’s Asian-Western Couples Are Not Anglo-Indians’, Phylon, vol. 40, no. 4, Dec, 351-361.
D’Cruz, G. 1997, ‘Racial Science, Social Science and the Anglo-Indian’, The International Journal of Anglo-Indian Studies, vol. 2, no. 1 [Online, accessed 19 Nov. 2001] URL: <http://www.alphalink.com.au/~agilbert/glen1.html>
Deefholts, M. 2001, India, My India. [Online, accessed 19 Nov. 2001] URL: <http://www.margaretdeefholts.com/india.html>
Eade, J. & Allen, T. 1999, ‘Ethnicity’, in Culture and Global Change, eds, Skelton, T. & Allen, T., Routledge, London.
Gaikwad, V.R. 1967, The Anglo-Indians, Asia, New York..
Gilbert, A. 1996, The Anglo-Indians in Australia, >From Unsuccessful Caste Members to Attaining Immigrants: An Examination of Anglo-Indian Labour Force Performance and their Life Perceptions. PhD Thesis. Monash University, Melbourne. [Online accessed 19 Nov. 2001] URL: <http://www.alphalink.com.au/~agilbert/agthesis.html>
Gist, N.P. 1972, ‘The Anglo-Indians of India.’ in The Blending of Races: Marginality and Identity in World Perspective, eds, Gist, N.P. & Dworkin, A.G., Wiley Interscience, New York.
Gist, N.P. & Wright, R.D. 1973, Marginality and Identity: Anglo-Indians as a Racially Mixed Minority in India, Leiden, Netherlands.
Lyons, E. 1998,‘Anglo-Indians at the End of the 20th Century’ in International Journal of Anglo-Indian Studies, vol. 3, no. 2. [Online accessed 19 Nov. 2001] URL: <http://www.alphalink.com.au/~agilbert/jed6.html>
Minto, J.R. 1974, Graham of Kalimpong, William Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh.
Schech, S. & Haggis, J. 2000, Culture and Development: A Critical Introduction, Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford.
Schermerhorn, R. 1973. ‘Sex Roles among the Anglo-Indians.’ Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, vol. 9, Jun, 75-76.
Varma, L.B. 1979, Anglo-Indians: A Historical Study of Anglo-Indian Community in 19th Century in India, Reena Roy, Bhasha Prakashan, New Delhi.
Vellinga, E. 1994, Pride and Prejudice: Anglo-Indians and Racial Attitudes in India 1857-1920, M.A. Thesis, Department of History and Arts Erasmus University Rotterdam. [Online accessed 19 Nov. 2001] <http://www.alphalink.com.au/~agilbert/cont~1.html>
Younger, C. 1984, Anglo-Indians from 1919-1983: Images of a Community in Transition. M.A. Thesis, University of Sydney.