In India, some years ago there was a hue and cry when one so-called towering personality went into a pro-Anglican Indian club wearing an Indian traditional dress and was refused admission on the ground that his dress did not fit the decorum of the club. There was a lot of talk of the so-called ‘Western’ attitude of Indians and Dogs out. And the need to snuff out all such attitudes, everywhere with a fierce offensiveness.

In many ways, this nation had practiced un-touch-ability for centuries without comment. Beyond that, there is an innate right in every person to mix and move with persons of his or her choice.

One day I was went to a Gujarati* Club, with another person who was an invitee. There I found only Gujaraties, though it existed right in the middle of a non-Gujarati state. Nobody was keen on gate-crashing there. For one thing, the place wouldn’t be interesting for outsiders. If one were to make a forced-entry into the place, citing reasons of discrimination on the basis of racial group, they would just be forced out by the sheer strength of the cold welcome.

A quotation from the book: Parrys* 200: A saga of resilience: According to John K. John, the Europeans who became his subordinates when he became Managing Director treated him with the utmost respect and dignity. It might seem trivial today to record that they called him ‘Sir’, but this was such a contrast to the custom in the 19th century when a British officer writing to an Indian would begin his letter with just the Indian’s name.

This is a quotation with a mighty big implication

One of the striking things is the notice given to the fact that a British man had addressed a native of the subcontinent as Sir. Even though this fact may be mentioned as trivial, it would be a point of mention in many social gatherings.

Second is the fact that no British officer would address a native with anything of formal respect other than plain name. I am not sure of the authenticity of this declaration. But is possibly true in most cases. Yet, one may ponder on how the natives were addressing other natives, before the advent of the English. It was definitely a thousand times worse if the native is of lower stature.

[NOTE added on the 29th of May 2016: There is a very natural error in the Parry book. The term ‘Indian’ is erroneous. It should be either ‘British-Indian’ or ‘a native of the South Asian subcontinent’ or it should be a native of the Madras Presidency, or some other very focused word. The word ‘Indian’ is actually a confusing term, which brings in claims which are not tenable historically.]

Apart from all this, is the reluctance of the British to place any native of the subcontinent above them. Well, one of the things that motivated such a policy would be the factor of sheer terror of being dragged down in the indicant word, by not only the superior Indian, but also by his associates, family members, and also by bystanders.

Now I will give one more quotation from the same book: Another luncheon experience, yet another example of the Parrys ethos as it prevailed up to the end of the first of this century, is recalled by R V K M Suryarau, a former Parry-man who is now President of Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd, with which Parrys has been intimately connected. Suryarau says of his first day in Dare House: “Within an hour after reporting to the Manager of my department, I was sent for by the Managing Director of Parry’s. Tie and coat on, I found my way to his rather chilly office. After a brief and one-sided chat, I was given a memo, inviting me for lunch in the dining room-an honour bestowed on employees of certain cadre. I was also told to change my car; apparently, it was too largish, and might be confused with the vehicles used by the Parry’s directors.”

In the lunchroom, Suryarau was welcomed “by smile-less nods”. When he found a chair, he was “promptly asked to move as that table was reserved for the Directors, none of whom was in sight, and who actually came in for lunch only after the juniors had left.

No reader can be at fault if he is trapped to believe that the behaviour of the natives of the subcontinent was far better, than the English behaviour, and that the English were a group of uncultured wretches.

Actually one of the basic undercurrent that is missed in judging such behaviour is the un-understanding of how and where to place a man, who no doubt has superior qualities, when he comes with the appendage of a group who cannot be fit along with him in the social structure, but would nevertheless make an entry if he were given any particular social position. Here the difficulty was not a creation of the British, rather an existing dilemma, as induced by the feudalism in the vernacular language.

The social setting is erroneous, and quite infectious. When this same culture enters England, England would also slowly start exhibiting the symptoms of social disease.