Arts, Faculty of
History, Department of
DSpace
Bhana, Kiran
India’s Rebellion of 1857 and Ideologies of Masculinity in the Times of India, 1839-1899ByKiran BhanaCourse: HIST 449, Honours Graduating EssayInstructor: Dr. Bradley MillerA graduating thesis submitted in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the degree ofBachelor of Arts (Honours)inThe Faculty of ArtsHistory DepartmentWe accept this thesis as conforming to the required standardSupervisor: Dr. Anne MurphyCommittee Members: Dr. John Christopoulos and Dr. Laura IshiguroUniversity of British Columbia19 April 20241AcknowledgementsFirst, I could not have done this project without the support of many professors in theUBC History department. Dr. Murphy, your supervision was absolutely indispensable. Yoursuggestions, feedback, and mentorship made this project happen, and I am so excited to workwith you in the future. Dr. Miller, thank you for your constant reassurance and advice. Dr.Christopoulos and Dr. Ishiguro, your questions and comments helped me think about the deeperimplications of this project and will undoubtedly shape my future work. Finally, to the manyother history professors I have had during my time here, you have all contributed to myexperience at UBC. I have learned so much about both myself and the practice of history from allof you.Second, my friends— particularly my Honours cohort— provided me with so muchmoral support and encouragement throughout this process. From in-class peer feedback tohours-long writing sessions, you have all helped to shape my project and to shepherd me throughit. Special thanks to Alan, Huanjun, and Eli for always being willing to camp out at BuchananTower.Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude and love to my family. Mom, Dad,and Aiden, thank you for your unending love, support, and willingness to listen to me talk aboutmy argument. Aunt Hershini, Aunt Palvih, Uncle Bob, and Drees, thank you for yourencouragement and advice. Oma, Opa, and Ba, you’ve given me all the love I could ever ask for.Bapuji, I hope I’ve made you proud.2Table of ContentsAcknowledgements........................................................................................................................ 1Table of Contents........................................................................................................................... 2Introduction....................................................................................................................................3Historiography of Gender.......................................................................................................... 9Historiography of the Rebellion of 1857................................................................................. 15Methodology and Chapter Breakdown.................................................................................... 18Chapter 1: Pre-Rebellion Masculinities, 1839-1857................................................................. 22Honesty and Hustlers............................................................................................................... 23“Without Yielding an Inch”: Military Conduct and Masculinity.............................................26Femininity, Domesticity, and Men...........................................................................................29Power and Masculinity............................................................................................................ 31Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 32Chapter 2: Disturbed Provinces, Disturbed Masculinities, 1857-1859................................... 34“The Mutinous Spirit of the Day”: Deception and Loyalty.....................................................37Barbarity, Bravery, Violence....................................................................................................40“Neither Trouble Nor Treasure Are of Any Moment”: Femininity and Rebellion..................45Shifting Manhood, Shifting Power.......................................................................................... 49Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 50Chapter 3: “Dormant Now, but Not Extinct”: Masculinity and Memory, 1860-1899...........52Conspiracies, Rumors, Trust....................................................................................................55Martiality and Physical Skill....................................................................................................59Threats and Saviors: Masculinity and British Femininity....................................................... 67Memory and Power..................................................................................................................71Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 72Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 73Bibliography................................................................................................................................. 763IntroductionOn the morning of May 10th, 1857, Indian men of the Bengal Army erupted intorebellion against the British presence in north and central India.1 British observers at the timebelieved this uprising to be the result of increasing British hegemony and Christianencroachment, exemplified by rifle cartridges greased with pork and beef fat. This uprising,variously referred to as the “Sepoy Rebellion” or “Mutiny,” India’s first war of independence, orthe Rebellion of 1857, posed a legitimate threat to British control over India.2 Indian mentemporarily regained control over Delhi, and British and Indian media relentlessly propagatedstories of massacred British families and encounters between the Rebellion’s leaders and Britishforces. Even after it was suppressed in 1858 and completely extinguished in 1859, the Rebellionwas a watershed moment for the British colony in India. It provoked political and economicchanges; it also forced British people to reconsider their perceptions of India and Indians, andtheir role in the region. These discourses were implicitly and explicitly detailed in colonialnewspapers. Within these, the identities of Indian and British people, and the structure ofcolonial society, were constantly figured and refigured in response to the Rebellion of 1857.This thesis traces the evolution of one facet of identity— masculinity— before, during,and after the Rebellion, through discourses in colonial newspapers. Newspapers, indeed, hadsignificant importance to colonial Indian communities, so discourses of masculinity within themwere influential. Print journalism flourished in colonial India; by the mid-nineteenth century,2 The British English term ‘sepoy’ is a rendering of the Hindustani/Persian word ‘sipāhī’ or soldier. It wascommonly used to refer to Indian soldiers in the colonial army.1 Masthead on preceding page taken from “Masthead 2 -- No Title,” The Times of India (1861-2010), June 5, 1875,2. The East India Company’s colonial Indian army was divided into three armies, one for each Presidency: Madras,Bengal, and Bombay. For more on the composition of these armies, see David Omissi, “‘Martial Races’: Ethnicityand Security in Colonial India 1858-1939,” in The Rise and Fall of Modern Empires, Volume I, ed. Owen White,246-7.4hundreds of newspapers in English and vernacular languages were published weekly.3 Whiletheir circulation numbers look paltry today— the largest paper printed 3,000 daily copies by the1860s— both Indian and British subscribers often read them aloud to crowds, dramaticallyincreasing newspapers’ reach.4 Additionally, English-language newspapers were used in colonialschools to teach Indian students English, extending their influence to Indian crowds.5English-language newspapers therefore had power to shape public opinion in both British andeducated Indian circles, while the proliferation of vernacular newspapers in the late nineteenthcentury— in 1875 alone, around 550 publications regularly circulated issues— furtherdemonstrates the importance of the newspaper as a form.6 Beyond their ability to shape publicopinion on events, newspapers helped forge a sense of community both for Indians and Britonsliving in India. According to historian Julie Codell, “the Indian press connected India to themetropole and also linked the people of India to each other across its vast geographical,linguistic, regional, and religious differences.”7 Newspapers are therefore an invaluable field ofhistorical study, as they shaped understandings of the colonial world and created senses ofcommunity and identity.Perhaps the most important English-language newspaper in colonial India was the Timesof India. This paper began biweekly publication in late 1838 as the Bombay Times and Journal ofCommerce; it switched to daily circulation in 1851, and changed its name to the Times of India in1861 (this thesis refers to it as the Times of India throughout for simplicity). By the time of this7 Codell, “Introduction,” 108; Máire Ní Fhlathúin, “The Campaign against Thugs in the Bengal Press of the 1830s,”Victorian Periodicals Review 37, no. 2 (2004): 124–40, https://www.jstor.org/stable/20084002. For more onnewspapers’ influence on government policy, see Fhlathúin.6 Codell, “Introduction,” 112.5 Bonea, 187.4 Amelia Bonea, “3 Journalists and Journalism in Nineteenth-Century India,” in The News of Empire: Telegraphy,Journalism, and the Politics of Reporting in Colonial India, c. 1830-1900, n.d., 152, 187.3 Julie F. Codell, “Introduction: The Nineteenth-Century News from India,” Victorian Periodicals Review 37, no. 2(2004): 112, https://www.jstor.org/stable/20084001.5name change it had become one of the premier English-language newspapers in India. It printed3,000 copies daily by the 1860s, and had the largest circulation of any Indian newspaper by theend of the century.8 Generally, the Times of India was edited by British men who had migrated toIndia, although Indian businessmen had a controlling stake in its ownership by 1857. The paper’sfirst editors were generally unremarked upon, save for George Buist, ousted in 1857 by thoseIndian businessmen for anti-Indian racism.9 Robert Knight, remembered by historian EdwardHirschmann as one of the fathers of the Times of India, took over from Buist in 1857. Knight,born in Britain, was noted for his willingness to criticize the colonial state; this acerbic tendencysaw him ousted in 1868. Apart from Knight, the Times of India’s editors have received scanthistorical study.10 While the newspaper likely continued to be helmed by British men, and thusgenerally reflected the views and priorities of colonial British society, Indian businessmenclearly had significant influence on the paper’s reporting.11 The Times of India therefore providesa window into the discourses that were prominent among English-reading audiences of bothcolonial British society and the growing English-educated class in India. Its comparatively largesubscriber base granted it the widest sphere of influence in mid-century colonial India, and itreflected a balance of British and English-reading Indian priorities alike.Masculinity as both a category of social norms and an embodied identity is a flexibleconcept, and was shaped by processes, events, and structures in colonial India. This thesisdemonstrates the impact of the Rebellion of 1857 on societal understandings of masculinity and11 Additionally, some of the Times of India’s contributors appear to have been Indian. See Hirschmann, 143; Bonea,“3 Journalists and Journalism in Nineteenth-Century India,” 161-2.10 Hirschmann, 142–43.9 Edwin Hirschmann, “The Hidden Roots of a Great Newspaper: Calcutta’s ‘Statesman,’” Victorian PeriodicalsReview 37, no. 2 (2004): 143, https://www.jstor.org/stable/20084003.8 Bonea, “3 Journalists and Journalism in Nineteenth-Century India,” 185; Amelia Bonea, “Making News andViews: Colonial Policy and the Role of Reuters,” in The News of Empire: Telegraphy, Journalism, and the Politicsof Reporting in Colonial India, c. 1830–1900 (Oxford University Press, 2016),https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199467129.001.0001; Uma Das Gupta, “The Indian Press 1870-1880: ASmall World of Journalism,” Modern Asian Studies 11, no. 2 (1977): 233, https://www.jstor.org/stable/311549.6power by examining the ways in which newspaper articles encouraged Indian and British men toact and the language and stereotypes used to describe them. It focuses on three specific aspects—honesty, violence and military conduct, and interactions with British women— as the areas thatwere affected the most by the Rebellion. Analysis of the Times of India demonstrates that theRebellion of 1857 redefined some Indian men as deceitful and conspiratorial, while othersbecame trustworthy and loyal. British men’s military conduct was consistently heroic, even asthe newspaper’s writers described their violent retribution; meanwhile, some Indian menchanged from barbaric to gallant, and others transformed from brave and disciplined to savageand brutal. The Rebellion additionally made some Indian men into threats to women, whileemphasizing British men’s duty to protect them. This thesis therefore demonstrates that theRebellion of 1857 dramatically reworked the Times of India’s depictions of Indian and Britishmasculinities. These changes continued to reverberate decades after the Rebellion, affectingnewspaper coverage of policing, sports, and more, indicating its monumental effect.This thesis investigates how definitions of masculinity both shaped and were shaped byinteractions with the colonial state, evolving understandings of race, and perceptions of colonialpower. Indian men’s relationship to the state often determined how the Times of India’scontributors described their masculinity: when they were loyal, their masculinity was describedin positive terms, and when they rebelled, they were tarred as liars, barbarians, cowards, andthreats. British men, alternatively, were assumed to be loyal to the state, even when they ignoredorders or flouted the legal system, demonstrating how race shaped perceptions of masculinity.Meanwhile, the Rebellion of 1857 helped generate the stereotypes of masculinity that formed thebasis for ‘martial race theory’, indicating that these new portrayals of manliness helped redefineBritish understandings of Indian race. Finally, the newspaper’s contributors’ discourses of7masculinity shaped, and were shaped by, discourses of power. Generally, writers emphasizedBritish men’s masculinity in order to bolster perceptions of their power and control in colonialIndia. For both groups of Indian men, however, power and masculinity tended to be inverselyrelated. Those Indian men perceived as powerless were shown to have some ‘proper’ masculinetraits, while Indian men with some power were emasculated. Overall, this thesis will demonstratehow race, proximity to the colonial state, and perceived power shaped and were shaped by thechanges to masculinity effected by the Rebellion of 1857.In order to understand the varied impacts of the Rebellion on the construction ofmasculinity, and to demonstrate how these discourses were connected to colonial perceptions ofpower, this thesis will create several rough categorizations. These are drawn from observationsthat masculinities changed in three broad directions in response to the Rebellion. The first andonly constant category is that of ‘British men’, referring to British men living in colonial India.The newspaper’s coverage and framing of issues helped demonstrate to its audience how Britishmen both acted and were supposed to act. It also informed its English-reading audience aboutIndian masculinities— at least, how the newspaper’s editors and correspondents viewed Indianmen’s masculinities— through stories and stereotypes. This thesis divides Indian men into twocategories, to account for their different relationships with colonial society and the differingimpacts of the Rebellion on how they were portrayed. The first group comprises those men wholived in territories controlled by the East India Company in 1839; those who rebelled in 1857tended to come from this group, and they would later be delineated as ‘non-martial races’. InChapter 1, they will be referred to as ‘EIC-subject’ Indian men, in Chapter 2 as‘established-EIC-subject’ Indian men, and in Chapter 3 as ‘non-martialized’ Indian men, toreflect changing political structures and understandings of race. The second group of Indian men8is composed of those living outside the East India Company’s control in 1839. While these mencame under the Company’s control afterwards, this thesis demonstrates that they allied with theBritish in 1857, and as a result became classified as ‘martial races’ in the years afterwards. Thisthesis will refer to this group as ‘non-EIC-subject’ Indian men in Chapter 1, as ‘EIC-newcomer’Indian men in Chapter 2, and as ‘martialized’ Indian men in Chapter 3.In addition, this thesis observes the use of several constructs in the Times of India, anduses them to refine its analysis. The first is the idea of the woman. While the newspaperoccasionally ran articles written by women, women by and large did not appear as individuals.Instead, ‘women’ were used as a construct to represent domesticity, home, and private life, andthus helped define some aspects of masculinity.12 Often, individual women’s interactions withmen were not remarked upon, but ‘women’ as a construct served as an arena for definingmasculine traits. This construct was also deeply racialized during the nineteenth century. By1800, the East India Company was engaged in using pension funds to articulate racial differencesbetween women, and was actively working to prevent sexual relationships between Indianwomen and British men by the 1830s.13 Therefore, the Times of India’s contributors’ use of theconstruct of ‘women’ implied British women, with whom it was acceptable for British men tohave intimate relationships, and who represented the specifically-British colonial domesticsphere. The second construct this thesis engages with is that of the ‘native’. Indians, particularlyIndian men, were often stripped of agency; instead, they were inscribed with intrinsic qualities,and used to mark out the boundaries of British masculinity. While both women and Indian people13 Durba Ghosh, “Making and Un-Making Loyal Subjects: Pensioning Widows and Educating Orphans in EarlyColonial India,” The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 31, no. 1 (January 1, 2003): 22,https://doi.org/10.1080/714002216; Durba Ghosh, “Who Counts as ‘Native?’: Gender, Race, and Subjectivity inColonial India,” Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History 6, no. 3 (2005),https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/192172.12 Catherine Hart, “‘Oh What Horrors Will Be Disclosed When We Know All,’” Prose Studies 34, no. 3 (December1, 2012): 185, 187, https://doi.org/10.1080/01440357.2012.751258; Sherry B. Ortner, “Is Female to Male as NatureIs to Culture?” Feminist Studies 1, no. 2 (1972): 5–31. https://doi.org/10.2307/3177638.9certainly had agency and influence over their surroundings, the Times of India’s articles andeditorials often stripped them of this, rendering them blank constructs which the newspaper’smostly-British editors and correspondents could then define. This thesis seeks to understand thequalities attributed to the construct of ‘native,’ as well as the role of ‘women’ in definingmasculinity.Historiography of GenderThis thesis draws from Judith Butler’s definition of gender to establish its definition of‘masculinity’. Butler argues in their book Gender Trouble that gender has two components:performance and social regulation. Rather than referring to an inherent identity, they argue that‘gender’ actually denotes the choices of performance that are assumed to result from gender.These performances and expressions are ordered into ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ by a socialframework that dictates how people perform gender, while being simultaneously reshaped bythose performances. Therefore, gender is “the repeated stylization of the body, a set of repeatedacts within a highly rigid regulatory frame that congeals over time to produce the appearance ofsubstance.”14 This thesis will further define ‘masculinity’ as those stylizations and acts ascribedto individuals socially identified as men. Butler’s definition raises fascinating historicalpossibilities: after all, if gender is performative and mutable, rather than strictly biological, itsmeanings, attributes, and definitions can be shaped by a wide variety of contextual factors. In thecontext of colonial India, many historians have sought to investigate how women’s education,age of consent controversies, sati, women’s seclusion (purdah), female infanticide, and morewere influenced by social factors, including caste, race, and religion. Additionally, they haveexamined how the colonial state massively reshaped the definition of femininity by transforming14 Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, Thinking Gender (New York: Routledge,1990), 45.10those social factors.15 This thesis echoes scholars’ use of social issues and events to understandgender by analyzing how the Rebellion of 1857 affected social contexts and thus the definition ofmasculinity. It will, however, primarily draw on the smaller historiography of colonial Indianmasculinities.The two most influential works on colonial Indian masculinities, Ashis Nandy’s 1983book The Intimate Enemy and Mrinalini Sinha’s 1995 work Colonial Masculinity: The 'manlyEnglishman' and the 'effeminate Bengali' in the late nineteenth century, seek to understand therelationship between masculinity and power; this thesis will emulate their approach. Nandyargues that British political and economic power came to signify the British Empire itself asmasculine, whereas the Indian colony— itself portrayed as feminine— was the result of Indianmen’s effeminacy.16 Similarly, Sinha’s book uses British masculinity and Bengali effeteness tounderstand how Indian and British social classes struggled for power. She notes that “gender, inthis view, serves as a ‘useful category of analysis’ for elucidating the many ways in whichrelations of power are constructed and represented in society.”17 This thesis will echo her use ofmasculine stereotypes as a window into power dynamics by demonstrating how portrayals ofmasculinity affected and were affected by the Times of India’s perceptions of social and military17 Mrinalini Sinha, Colonial Masculinity: The “manly Englishman” and the “Effeminate Bengali” in the LateNineteenth Century, Studies in Imperialism (Manchester ; New York : New York: Manchester University Press ;Distributed exclusively in the USA and Canada by St. Martin’s Press, 1995), 11.16 Ashis Nandy, The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism, Book, Whole (Delhi: Oxford,1983), 10, https://go.exlibris.link/Nw5tSnKK.15 For works on purdah, see M. Christhu Doss, “Pedagogy of the ‘Secluded’ Women and Changing Femininity inColonial India, 1830s–1930s,” Paedagogica Historica 0, no. 0 (2023): 1–24,https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2023.2210067; for state definitions of gender and labor, see Madhavi Jha, “‘MenDiggers and Women Carriers’: Gendered Work on Famine Public Works in Colonial North India,” InternationalReview of Social History 65, no. 1 (April 2020): 71–98, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859019000579; for discussionof sati and the construction of tradition, see Lata Mani, “Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in ColonialIndia,” Cultural Critique, no. 7 (1987): 119–56, https://doi.org/10.2307/1354153; for the influence of caste ongender roles and activism, see Shailaja Paik, “Forging a New Dalit Womanhood in Colonial Western India:Discourse on Modernity, Rights, Education, and Emancipation,” Journal of Women’s History 28, no. 4 (2016):14–40, https://doi.org/10.1353/jowh.2016.0034; for analysis of gender and the legal system, see Nita Verma Prasad,“Remaking Her Family for the Judges: Hindu Widows and Property Rights in the Colonial Courts of North India,1875–1911,” Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History 14, no. 3 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1353/cch.2013.0046.11power. Sinha also demonstrates how power can be used to understand gender: after all, the socialand political power of the British helped make the stereotype of the ‘effeminate Bengali’ soubiquitous that Bengali men internalized it and strove to make themselves more masculine.18 TheRebellion of 1857 radically reshaped perceptions of colonial power; these understandings bothtransformed and were transformed by definitions of masculinity.Sinha further establishes some of the masculine stereotypes common in the latenineteenth century; this thesis will demonstrate the role 1857 played in their development.According to Sinha, British observers first labeled Bengali men as effeminate in the lateeighteenth century. Initially, these observations applied to all Bengali men, but over the course ofthe nineteenth century, they morphed into a descriptor for middle-class Bengalis educated inEuropean-style schools. She argues that the charge of effeminacy became a tool for both Britishand Indian elites to preserve their hegemony. At the same time, British men in India were able toposition themselves as ideals of masculinity. Sinha documents the influence of these stereotypeson several public discourses, including the Native Volunteer Movement of 1885 and Indianopposition to the Age of Consent Bill in 1891.19 While she does briefly trace the origins of thesedefinitions of masculinity, however, she is primarily concerned with masculinities in the 1880sand 1890s, and does not thoroughly examine earlier historical events. This thesis will thereforebuild on her work and provide context for it.This thesis will also draw on studies of ‘martial masculinities’ or ‘martial race theory’.After the Rebellion, military recruitment focused heavily on dominant-caste agricultural menfrom north India, rather than dominant-caste Bengalis. To justify this change, British officialsbegan to codify an elaborate taxonomy of ‘martial races’ in the 1890s. These ‘races’ were19 Sinha, Colonial Masculinity.18 Sinha, Colonial Masculinity, 7.12thought to be predisposed to militarism and violence, while ‘non-martial races’ had beensoftened by peace. Historian David Omissi also points out that these classifications wereembraced by some Indians.20 Other historians have sought to identify the influence of ‘martial’status on masculinity. For example, Prem Chowdhry’s 2013 article “Militarized Masculinities:Shaped and Reshaped in Colonial South-East Punjab” finds that to Indians newly classified as‘martial’ in Punjab, masculinity was more strongly understood as entailing “a trained andpowerful body and […] high ideals of courage, and sacrifice.”21 Rekha Yadav’s article onmasculinities in colonial Haryana similarly argues that military recruitment and martiality cameto form part of Jat men’s masculinity.22 This thesis seeks to further examine the relationshipbetween 1857 and later ideas of ‘martial’ masculinities. While prior work has primarily focusedon the late nineteenth century, it is interested in the development of ‘martial’ masculinity prior toofficial ethnographies of ‘martial races’, which has yet to be explored. Indeed, this thesis willtrace the connection between the designation of ‘martial race’ and the Times of India’s discoursesaround masculinity in representations of the Rebellion of 1857.Additionally, this thesis will also seek to understand the redefinition of masculinity forBritons in India. Scholars have extensively researched late eighteenth and early nineteenth22 Rekha Yadav, “Popular Religious Traditions, British Military Recruitment and the Social Construction ofMasculinity in Colonial Haryana,” Current Research Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (CRJSSH) 4, no.Special Issue (2021): 1–9, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/crjssh4&i=211.21 Chowdhry, “Militarized Masculinities,” 724.20 David Omissi, “‘Martial Races’: Ethnicity and Security in Colonial India 1858-1939,” in The Rise and Fall ofModern Empires, Volume I, ed. Owen White, n.d.; for more on the development of ‘martial races’ see PremChowdhry, “Militarized Masculinities: Shaped and Reshaped in Colonial South-East Punjab,” Modern Asian Studies47, no. 3 (2013): 713–50, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24494165; Philip Constable, “The Marginalization of a DalitMartial Race in Late Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century Western India,” The Journal of Asian Studies 60, no.2 (2001): 439–78, https://doi.org/10.2307/2659700; Amar Farooqui, “‘Divide and Rule’? Race, MilitaryRecruitment and Society in Late Nineteenth Century Colonial India,” Social Scientist 43, no. 3/4 (2015): 49–59,https://www.jstor.org/stable/24372935; Gavin Rand, “‘Martial Races’ and ‘Imperial Subjects’: Violence andGovernance in Colonial India, 1857–1914,” European Review of History: Revue Européenne d’histoire 13, no. 1(March 1, 2006): 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1080/13507480600586726; Gavin Rand and Kim A. Wagner, “Recruitingthe ‘Martial Races’: Identities and Military Service in Colonial India,” Patterns of Prejudice 46, no. 3–4 (July 1,2012): 232–54, https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2012.701495; Subhasish Ray, “The Nonmartial Origins of the‘Martial Races’: Ethnicity and Military Service in Ex-British Colonies,” Armed Forces & Society 39, no. 3 (2013):560–75, https://www.jstor.org/stable/48609021.13century British masculinity, providing background on the understandings of gender at play. Oneconstant was strict adherence to Christian principles.23 Another tenet was hard work, which was amoral imperative: it kept men from indulging in sexuality beyond the bounds of marriage.24Strictly controlled sexuality was indeed another component to proper British masculinity. Sexsignified moral weakness and effeminacy, although contradictorily young men were ofteninformally commended for having sexual intercourse, and sex work flourished in VictorianBritain.25 Once married, men were expected to set up, provide for, and act as soledecision-makers for their own households.26 As the nineteenth century progressed, masculinityalso came to emphasize physical strength and individualism, fuelled by the perception thatBritish men were losing colonial wars.27 This thesis will draw from these understandings in twoways. First, they serve as important background for understanding how discourses of masculinitychanged in response to the Times of India’s coverage of the Rebellion. Second, they will allow abetter understanding of the viewpoints and biases of the Times of India’s editors, who wereprimarily British men living in India. However, these works primarily focus on Britishmasculinities in Britain, and generally do not seek to understand the impact of specific events orcontexts on the definition of masculinity. Rather, they are interested in general definitions,influenced by broader themes such as industrialization or religion.This thesis will thus draw from the smaller historiography of European masculinities inIndia, as colonial contexts generated colonial understandings of gender. While it builds off of27 Tosh, Manliness and Masculinities in Nineteenth-Century Britain.26 Danahay, Gender at Work in Victorian Culture; Griffin, The Politics of Gender in Victorian Britain; Tosh,Manliness and Masculinities in Nineteenth-Century Britain.25 John Tosh, Manliness and Masculinities in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Essays on Gender, Family and Empire(London: Routledge, 2016), 33, 67, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838533.24 Martin A. Danahay, Gender at Work in Victorian Culture: Literature, Art and Masculinity (London: Routledge,2016), https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315254654.23 Ben Griffin, The Politics of Gender in Victorian Britain: Masculinity, Political Culture and the Struggle forWomen’s Rights, 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2012), https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057530.14these investigations, however, these works do not account for specific colonial events, and nonesubstantively engage with newspapers. Sinha’s book posits that British men in India, scaffoldedby power, race, and sex, positioned themselves as properly-masculine men in comparison toBengali men.28 Similarly, Jonathan Saha demonstrates how legal rhetoric positioned Europeanmen as the only rational, trustworthy parties in colonial South Asian courts.29 Others, meanwhile,have troubled strict boundaries between European and Indian masculinities. Bradley Deaneargues that “the same stereotypes that had been used to denigrate the colonial Other were adaptedby late Victorian and Edwardian men to crystallize new masculinity ideals”; British men wereredefining their masculinity to echo aspects of Indian masculinities.30 His work, which identifiesa synthesis between imperialism and masculinity between 1870 and 1914, demonstrates thatBritish men’s notions of empire bolstered their sense of manliness and encouraged them to adoptelements of colonized men’s masculinities. Deane’s book thus demonstrates how British andIndian masculinities blurred somewhat, albeit in a general sense. Similarly, Joseph Sramekanalyzes how British men used tiger hunting to both adopt aspects of Indian masculinity and todifferentiate themselves from Indian men: they relied on experienced Indian guides to pursuetigers, while proclaiming themselves the only capable protectors of Indian communities.31 Theselatter works demonstrate that British and Indian masculinities were co-constructed. This thesisfinds that although the Times of India’s contributors tended to maintain strict boundaries between31 Joseph Sramek, “‘Face Him like a Briton’: Tiger Hunting, Imperialism, and British Masculinity in Colonial India,1800-1875,” Victorian Studies 48, no. 4 (2006): 659–80, https://www.jstor.org/stable/4618910.30 Bradley Deane, Masculinity and the New Imperialism: Rewriting Manhood in British Popular Literature,1870–1914, 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 3, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107588806.29 Jonathan Saha, “Whiteness, Masculinity and the Ambivalent Embodiment of ‘British Justice’ in Colonial Burma,”Cultural and Social History 14, no. 4 (August 8, 2017): 527–42, https://doi.org/10.1080/14780038.2017.1329125;see also Daniel J. R. Grey, “Importing Gendered Legal Reasoning from England: Wife Murders in Early ColonialIndia, 1805–1857,” Cultural and Social History 14, no. 4 (August 8, 2017): 483–98,https://doi.org/10.1080/14780038.2017.1329123.28 Sinha, Colonial Masculinity.15Indian and British masculine tendencies, they were very occasionally transgressed, and Indianand British men were meant to aspire for the same masculine qualities.Historiography of the Rebellion of 1857The Rebellion of 1857 initiated profound changes in colonial India; as a result, it has longreceived significant attention from historians interested in understanding its cause, events, andaftermath. Victorian British observers, such as John Williams Kaye, believed this uprising to bethe result of British political and economic hegemony and Christian encroachment, while othercolonial sources often repeated that Indian soldiers rose up in response to being asked to placerifle cartridges greased with pork and beef fat in their mouths to load their rifles.32 Britishobservers immediately began publishing sensationalized histories of deception, heroism, andgallantry; newspaper contributors, similarly, were preoccupied with representing the Rebellion,and it shaped their coverage of a wide array of issues.33 In the twentieth century, Indiannationalist retellings also emerged. Nationalist historians and politicians positioned 1857 as afight for freedom and liberty, rather than an atrocity.34 While these histories continue to shape theterminology used to describe the Rebellion today, more recent works have aimed to paint a morebalanced picture.35 Eric Stokes’ works detail the events of 1857 through the experiences ofagricultural workers, and Crispin Bates’ Mutiny at the Margins series includes a wide array ofessays on the social, political, and economic factors that both fomented and doomed the35 Kim A. Wagner, “The Marginal Mutiny: The New Historiography of the Indian Uprising of 1857,” HistoryCompass 9, no. 10 (2011): 760–66, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2011.00799.x.34 Shruti Kapila, Violent Fraternity: Indian Political Thought in the Global Age (Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 2021).33 Darshan Perusek, “Subaltern Consciousness and the Historiography of the Indian Rebellion of 1857.”32 Darshan Perusek, “Subaltern Consciousness and the Historiography of the Indian Rebellion of 1857,” NOVEL: AForum on Fiction 25, no. 3 (1992): 292, https://doi.org/10.2307/1345889. While this thesis is not concerned withestablishing British opinions on the origins of the Rebellion, the Times of India’s authors tended to opine that theRebellion had been caused by religious encroachment.16Rebellion.36 While this thesis is primarily concerned with the impact of the Rebellion on theTimes of India’s depictions of masculinity and power, it will briefly engage with the newspaper’scontributors’ understanding of its causes and events, in order to understand how they positionedthe Rebellion.This thesis similarly draws from studies of the role representations of the Rebellion of1857 played in British popular memory, though it will focus specifically on masculinity and printcoverage in India, rather than representations in Britain. Don Randall finds that the Queen’sdeclaration of October 7th, 1857, as a public fast day to mourn the victims of the Rebellioncharged its memory with grief and outrage.37 Similarly, Gautam Chakravarty and ChristopherHerbert seek to understand how memories of 1857 influenced British fiction writing, althoughthe two diverge widely in their analysis. Chakravarty argues that 1857 was used to justify anymeasure required to establish control over India, while Herbert provides examples of authorswho pointed out British injustices in its aftermath, thus proving that British audiences reactedambivalently to stories of British soldiers’ violent revenge.38 It is nevertheless clear that fictionwriters continued to use 1857 to impart messages to British readers, even well after the Rebellionwas extinguished. Kim Wagner’s article on the ‘Mutiny-motif’ demonstrates the impact of thesecolonial memories: memories of the Rebellion sparked panic amongst Britons living in Indiawhen trees were found mysteriously daubed in mud in the 1890s. Wagner therefore shows how38 Gautam Chakravarty, The Indian Mutiny and the British Imagination, Cambridge Studies in Nineteenth-CenturyLiterature and Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005),https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511484759; Christopher Herbert, War of No Pity: The Indian Mutiny and VictorianTrauma (Princeton (N.J.): Princeton university press, 2008).37 Don Randall, “Autumn 1857: The Making of the Indian ‘Mutiny,’” Victorian Literature and Culture 31, no. 1(March 2003): 3–17, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1060150303000019.36 Crispin Bates, Mutiny at the Margins: New Perspectives on the Indian Uprising of 1857: Volume I: Anticipationsand Experiences in the Locality, VII vols., Mutiny at the Margins, I (SAGE Publications, 2013); Eric Stokes, ThePeasant and the Raj: Studies in Agrarian Society and Peasant Rebellion in Colonial India, 1st ed., vol. 23, Book,Whole (Cambridge;New York; Cambridge University Press, 1978), https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511563416.17“the memory of 1857 [was] translated into action almost four decades later.”39 This thesislikewise seeks to understand the effect that memories of 1857 had on public discourses andconstructions of masculinity and power, even decades later. However, it focuses specifically ongender. This thesis will also analyze the Rebellion’s effect on representations of masculinity inand after 1857, rather than the effect of memories of Rebellion decades later. While novels andpublic events are certainly vital to understanding the Rebellion’s long shadow, newspapers willprovide a real-time window into its impact.Finally, there is a small body of work that analyzes the role of gender in producing theRebellion, as well as its impact on gender in fiction writing. Historian Allison Blunt hasinvestigated the role of women’s writings in establishing 1857 as a significant event to theBritish public. Women’s diaries and letters, frequently published, brought the Rebellion into adomestic setting familiar to British audiences. As a result, the threat of the Rebellion was felteven to readers halfway across the globe.40 Joanna de Groot similarly finds that visualrepresentations of the Rebellion emphasized that Indian men were a physical and sexual threat toBritish women, driving home the fear and threat of the Rebellion.41 This thesis additionally seeksto build on works tracing the impact 1857 had on masculinities in fiction writing. MadisonBettle’s 2021 PhD thesis finds that the trauma of the Rebellion shaped representations ofmanhood in adventure fiction writing. Ralph Crane and Radhika Mohanram similarly argue that41 Joanna de Groot, “Depicting Conflict in India in 1857-8: The Instabilities of Gender, Violence, and Colonialism,”Cultural and Social History 14, no. 4 (August 8, 2017): 463–82, https://doi.org/10.1080/14780038.2017.1329129.40 Alison Blunt, “Embodying War: British Women and Domestic Defilement in the Indian «Rebellion of 1857»,1857–8,” Journal of Historical Geography 26, no. 3 (July 1, 2000): 403–28, https://doi.org/10.1006/jhge.2000.0236;see also Catherine Hart, “‘Oh What Horrors Will Be Disclosed When We Know All,’” Prose Studies 34, no. 3(December 1, 2012): 185–96, https://doi.org/10.1080/01440357.2012.751258; Penelope Tuson, “Rebellion of 1857Narratives and the Imperial Feminine,” Women’s Studies International Forum 21, no. 3 (May 1998): 291–303,https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-5395(98)00023-5.39 Kim A. Wagner, “‘Treading Upon Fires’: The ’Mutiny’-Motif and Colonial Anxieties in British India,” Past &Present, no. 218 (2013): 161, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23360258.18Charles Pearce’s novels used 1857 to delineate Edwardian gender norms.42 This thesis uses thestereotypes and language invoked when discussing men to analyze how masculinities weredefined. However, relying on newspapers allows it to understand how masculinities wereredefined during and immediately after 1857 to English-reading audiences; the Rebellionaffected masculinities and perceptions of power, even in nonfiction writing meant to shape howits readers understood their colonial context.Methodology and Chapter BreakdownThis thesis loosely echoes Mrinalini Sinha’s methodologies, and is based on a broad butnon-comprehensive sample of newspaper articles. Chapter 1 covers roughly 18 years, using twonewspaper issues from the beginning (January) and middle (July) of each of them. These issueswere selected from the middle of each month. Chapter 2, which is dedicated to newspaper issuespublished during the Rebellion, is based on one newspaper issue from the midpoint of eachmonth in this ten-month period. Finally, Chapter 3, which spans approximately 40 years, pullsfrom one newspaper issue per year, with the date randomly selected, as well as newspaperarticles on specific events and themes identified from secondary literature such as Sinha’s book.The Times of India database does not contain any issues from some years, but this samplingmethod allowed for a broad overview of common discourses in the newspaper, while adjustingfor the changing temporal scopes of each chapter. This thesis analyzes how newspaper articlesconstructed masculinity. Therefore, each article was read for the stereotypes of men it invoked,the ways in which it advised men to act, and its portrayal of how men were acting. This approachis loosely based on Mrinalini Sinha’s book, which traces the origins and applications of the term‘babu’, used to inscribe Bengali men with connotations of effeminacy and to communicate the42 Ralph Crane and Radhika Mohanram, “Gender/ Rebellion of 1857 in Edwardian Fiction: Charles Pearce’s Fictionof 1857,” Gender Forum, no. 43 (2013), https://go.exlibris.link/TP8bbpF6.19social, political, economic, and racial factors that helped define colonial Indian masculinities.Additionally, Sinha identifies several key moments, such as debate over the 1883 Ilbert Bill,which were used to search for relevant newspaper articles.43Chapter 1 lays out the Times of India’s depictions of British, EIC-subject Indian, andnon-EIC-subject Indian masculinities between 1839 and April 1857, to provide a foundation forunderstanding the Rebellion’s impact. This chapter demonstrates that EIC-subject Indian menwere portrayed as gallant and brave, particularly under British leadership; mostly loyal to thecolonial state; and neither a threat nor an ally to British women. Non-EIC-subject Indian men,meanwhile, were fighting the British state along its margins, and were thus caricatured ascowardly and violent brutes who terrorized their own communities but fled at the smallest signof opposition from British soldiers. They were not expected to be loyal to the British, and werefurther portrayed as liars and cheaters within their own communities. Articles and editorials inthe Times of India were also certain to emphasize British men’s exemplary military conduct,careful maintenance of British women, and reliable honesty. These portrayals of masculinitydemonstrate that the newspaper’s contributors used portrayals of masculinity to bolster notionsof British power, to associate ‘powerless’ Indian men with manliness, and to emasculate thoseIndian men perceived to be threatening. These depictions demonstrate the influence of race andrelationship with the colonial state, and illustrate how the Times of India’s correspondentsunderstood masculinity prior to the Rebellion of 1857.Chapter 2 analyzes the Times of India’s portrayals of masculinity during the Rebellion,covering May 10th, 1857 to February 1858, in order to showcase its immediate impact. Asestablished-EIC-subject Indian men’s relationship with the state changed, the newspaper’s43 Mrinalini Sinha, Colonial Masculinity: The “manly Englishman” and the “Effeminate Bengali” in the LateNineteenth Century.20contributors shifted to portray them as barbaric, deceitful, and threatening, particularly to Britishwomen. Meanwhile, EIC-newcomer Indian men became allies of the British colony, and as aresult came to be described as gallant and brave soldiers whose honesty could be depended upon.These new portrayals also helped to establish some of the features of martial race theory, whichblossomed in the 1890s. Finally, even as the newspaper’s authors and editors fretted that thecolony would collapse, British men were depicted as brave and restrained soldiers, despite theirpublicized penchants for violent revenge. Further, as stories of massacred British womenproliferated, the Times of India’s correspondents expanded on British men’s duty to protectBritish women, while indicating that these massacres were not a failure of that duty. Again, thenewspaper’s writers used discourses of masculinity to recuperate British men’s power, whileemasculating newly-threatening established-EIC-subject men, and granting some manliness toEIC-newcomer Indians seen to be firmly under British control. Overall, the Rebellion of 1857had an immediate and wide-ranging impact on the Times of India’s understandings ofmasculinity. These changes, frequently spurred by changing relationships with the colonial state,influenced new notions of race and power.Finally, Chapter 3 traces the long-term impact of the Rebellion on masculinities in theTimes of India. It covers nearly four decades, from 1860 to 1899. The memories of 1857 stillhaunting the newspaper largely echoed portrayals of masculinity that had emerged from theRebellion. They also bled into coverage of unrelated issues, such as policing, sports, and more.These continuities indicate the massive impact of the Rebellion on the Times of India’s portrayalsof non-martialized Indian, martialized Indian, and British masculinities, even decades after itssuppression. It also demonstrates how power and masculinity continued to be co-constituted. Toreaffirm British power in colonial India, the Times of India’s contributors linked them closely21with proper masculinity. Meanwhile, non-martialized Indian men were perceived as stillthreatening, and thus continued to be emasculated. Martialized Indian men were similarly stillthought to be powerless, and were ascribed with proper physical and military masculinity.Overall, the Rebellion of 1857 dramatically affected colonial society and the Times of India; byredefining masculinities along the lines of honesty, military conduct, and relationships withBritish women, it redefined race, notions of loyalty, and more for decades.22Chapter 1: Pre-Rebellion Masculinities, 1839-1857“Do any thing to a man— ruin him in business, rob him on the highway, hold a knife to histhroat, even run away with his wife, and you do not touch him so near the quick as when youdeclare your opinion to the effect, ‘He is not a gentleman.”’44Prior to 1857, the Times of India’s contributors manifested proper masculinity in manyways. Obituaries, coverage of military campaigns, jokes, and more all helped English-speakingaudiences understand both how men acted and how they were meant to act. These articlespropagated ideas, stories, and tropes to wide audiences, reinforcing existing definitions ofmanhood and perpetuating new ones. They also used masculinity as a tool to distribute social andmilitary power. This chapter will examine how English-speaking audiences understood Britishmasculinity, EIC-subject Indian masculinity, and non-EIC-subject Indian masculinity in the twodecades before the Rebellion, in order to demonstrate how the Rebellion of 1857 changed howmasculinity was understood in the newspaper.The Times of India’s coverage in the 18 years between 1839 and 1857 devoted substantialattention to the East India Company (EIC)’s military expansions and the burgeoning Britishcommunity in India. The colonial state was waging wars in Afghanistan, Nepal, Sindh, Punjab,and other border areas, pitting the armies of the Bengal, Madras, and Bombay Presidenciesagainst various hinterland groups. The Times of India’s correspondents accordingly allottedsignificant coverage to describing the lives of soldiers and officers and their conduct in battle.This focus on military activity helped emphasize its role in defining masculinity. Thenewspaper’s contributors were also interested in depicting the formation of British communitiesin India. Events such as births, deaths, weddings, balls, and social club meetings were broadcastto the paper’s subscribers daily. Finally, the Times of India increasingly covered farther-flunggroups of people, facilitated by improvements to roads, railroads, and telegraphy. These general44 “Varieties,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), July 17, 1844, 459.23foci shaped the aspects of masculinity primarily invoked in the Times of India during thepre-Rebellion period.Overall, the Times of India’s writers and editors placed British men atop their hierarchyof masculinity; British men were honest and dependable, gallant and steadfast in war, andprovided for British women. EIC-subject Indian men, meanwhile, were somewhat untrustworthy,although this was not depicted as a threat; they were brave soldiers when under British guidance;and did not interact with British women. Finally, while non-EIC-subject Indian men were lessfrequently portrayed, they were described as untrustworthy. They were shown to violently ravagetheir own communities, yet displayed frequent cowardice in battle with colonial soldiers. Theseportrayals further demonstrate that the newspaper’s contributors used masculinity to affirmBritish men’s power. Meanwhile, EIC-subject Indian men were seen as under British control, andtherefore had some characteristics of masculinity; non-EIC-subject Indian men, though, posed athreat to the EIC’s colony, and as a result were shown to lack all proper masculine qualities.Honesty and HustlersOne vital aspect of British masculinity in the Times of India was truthfulness; British menwere both assumed to be truthful and were constantly reminded of the importance of honesty.One 1844 article summed up the relationship between honesty and masculinity succinctly: “Acrooked-minded person can always play upon words, but a Gentleman never… a straightforward, well intentioned course, I imagine, will carry a gentleman through the world as well asall the law that ever was written.”45 Truthfulness had ramifications even beyond the mortal plane:“a staunch and scrupulous adherence to truth” would “secure for [a man] the approbation of the45 J. Stirling, “Correspondence: To the Editor of the Bombay Times,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce(1838-1859), July 17, 1844, 455.24public, and happiness in this as well as in the next world.”46 Indeed, even “the most base anddegraded of men, if not altogether fatuous, prefer truth to falsehood… when it is at all withintheir reach.”47 Certainly British men were not always completely honest, but the Times of India’scontributors frequently expressed that in order to be a proper British man, one needed to be.Even British men of bad character tended to default to truthfulness. Beyond the newspaper’scoverage, historian Jonathan Saha observes that in colonial legal courts during this period,British masculinity was assumed to be objective, and British men’s testimony was more heavilyweighted than that of any other group.48 This understanding of British masculinity thereforeseems to have been widespread. Thus, the Times of India’s writers portrayed British men asgenerally honest, and identified truthfulness as a vital quality for British masculinity.EIC-subject Indian men, meanwhile, were shown to lack loyalty and devotion to thetruth, although this was dismissed as a minor annoyance. Historian Amrita Sen demonstratesthat, in the early days of the East India Company, British traders frequently assumed that Indianbrokers were inherently deceitful.49 More than 200 years later, in 1856, the newspaper’s coverageof newly-opened railroad routes still took pains to emphasize the dishonest nature of EIC-subjectIndian men. “It will be hardly believed,” argued the paper, “that Native roguery is already atwork, but even on the very first day the line was open, a good deal of money was made at thestation by a gang of swindlers, — or rather ‘speculators,’-- who established themselves there.”50This framing demonstrated that EIC-subject Indian men were known to be hustlers: “Native50 “Article 3 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), July 16, 1856, 452.49 Amrita Sen, “Searching for the Indian in the English East India Company Archives: The Case of Jadow the Brokerand Early Seventeenth-Century Anglo-Mughal Trade,” Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies 17, no. 3 (2017):37–58, https://www.jstor.org/stable/90020549.48 Jonathan Saha, “Whiteness, Masculinity and the Ambivalent Embodiment of ‘British Justice’ in Colonial Burma,”Cultural and Social History 14, no. 4 (August 8, 2017): 527–42, https://doi.org/10.1080/14780038.2017.1329125.47 “Editorial Article 4 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), July 15, 1846, 471.46 NOWROJER BYRAMJEE, “Letter to the Editor 2 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce(1838-1859), January 15, 1845, 36.25roguery” was treated as an established phenomenon. Another editorial summed up EIC-subjectIndian men’s relationship to truthfulness thusly: “one of the weakest points in the nativecharacter, is want of frankness and ingenuousness, and the tendency on the slightest temptationto delude or deceive….”51 Clearly, the Times of India was engaged in conveying to its audiencethat EIC-subject men were known for lying and cheating. However, absent from this coveragewas a sense of threat. Sen’s research finds that Indian men’s dishonesty sparked significant fearin British traders, because the EIC was not well established in India and an Indian broker’sdishonesty could cause them trouble with their trading networks.52 The Times of India’scorrespondents, meanwhile, primarily treated EIC-subject men’s dishonesty as a minorannoyance. Although the newspaper’s writers portrayed them as habitually untruthful, it did sothrough coverage of minor scams or complaints, rendering them unthreatening.Finally, while the Times of India’s authors and editors did not frequently discuss thecharacter of non-EIC-subject Indian men, it did note their tendency to cheat other Indians,marking them as dishonest. In January 1844, the paper ran an article on Marwari men, who werespreading across India from their homeland. These men provided small loans to EIC-subjectIndian farmers, charging them 25% interest on one or two rupees. After the debt compounded to“thousands of rupees,” Marwari men took their debtors to court, “depriv[ing] the poor wretchesof all their substance.”53 The Times of India’s correspondent therefore advised its audience to“avoid entering into any transactions of this nature with such deceivers as these.”54 Notably,although non-EIC-subject men were dishonest, this did not affect British people.Non-EIC-subject men were liable to cheat other Indians, but their poor masculine qualities did54 R. W. M, “Bombay--Local: TO THE EDITOR Of THE PRABHAKAR,” January 17, 1844, 4.53 R. W. M, “Bombay--Local: TO THE EDITOR Of THE PRABHAKAR,” The Bombay Times and Journal ofCommerce (1838-1859), January 17, 1844, 4.52 Sen, “Searching for the Indian in the English East India Company Archives: The Case of Jadow the Broker andEarly Seventeenth-Century Anglo-Mughal Trade,” 50.51 “Editorial Article 13 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), July 14, 1855, 354.26not threaten colonial society. While non-EIC-subject Indian men’s character was infrequentlydescribed, the Times of India’s contributors ensured that its audience still understood thatnon-EIC-subject Indian masculinity was deceitful, and that these men were not to be trusted;however, they were not threatening either.“Without Yielding an Inch”: Military Conduct and Masculinity55The Times of India’s editors and authors often portrayed British masculinities as gallant,brave, and perseverant during warfare. One correspondent gushed that while the governor ofSindh was “left ‘for dead on the field,’” he survived and persevered; his conduct “on ‘thatremarkable occasion speaks volumes in favor of the ‘determination of that British soldier.’”56Indeed, reporting on combat frequently involved descriptions of British heroics. Anothercorrespondent suggested that a “conquering colonel” bravely “led the gallant corps through ashower of lead and iron hail to within forty yards of the enemy’s intrenchments.”57 Perseveranceagainst long odds and bravery in difficult situations were especially praised; a third articlecelebrated that “with this handful of men (most of them boys,) without cavalry and without guns,Captain Edwardes bravely held his position, and without yielding an inch.”58 British men wereexalted for their bravery and tenacity in battle. Lest the audience feel that gallantry was anextraordinary quality, one editorial noted that “mere personal daring is too ordinary a quality inEnglishmen to require any one to court opportunities for its display.”59 Gallantry, bravery, andendurance were thus cemented as qualities British men both should and did have.59 “Editorial Article 2 -- No Title,” January 17, 1844, 3.58 H. G. Raverty, “Mooltan,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), July 15, 1848, 536.Emphasis original.57 “Sir Charles Napier and H. M. 22nd Regt,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), January17, 1844, 7.56 “Madras,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), July 15, 1843, 453.55 H. G. Raverty, “Mooltan,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), July 15, 1848, 536.Emphasis original.27EIC-subject Indian men, alternatively, were shown to be well-behaved in battle, but tolack judgment and leadership ability. Articles frequently praised them for their bravery and skill,but undercut that praise in most instances. The Times of India’s contributors highlighted thatIndian soldiers proved themselves “good Soldiers on a tour under European Officers.”60Similarly, it mentioned that “the sepoy shewed [sic] himself worthy of serving along with theBritish-born soldier, whose countrymen led them on.”61 Thus, the Times of India’s writers arguedthat while EIC-subject Indian men were brave soldiers, they were reliant on British leadershipfor direction. A later editorial explained why: the “Native Corps… are very easily controlled, andvery easily led. They have no thoughts, no wishes, no cunning arguments beyond regular pay,good water, cheap grain, and a kind word from their officer.”62 This commentary, which echoesAshis Nandy’s argument that colonized India was seen as inherently submissive to colonizingEngland, constructed a hierarchy of military conduct, where British men were superior.63 It alsoreinforced to English-reading audiences that EIC-subject Indian men were not a military threat.After all, while they were brave soldiers who generally conducted themselves well, they lackedleadership and planning ability.Finally, the Times of India’s coverage of military news defined non-EIC-subject Indianmen as violent and barbaric, and somewhat threatening to colonial British communities. Forthese men, savagery was seen as an intrinsic part of masculinity, primarily directed at their owncommunities. One editorial graphically asked “might we not as well withdraw our troops at onceand leave the subjects of our allies to cut each other’s throats and burn each other’s houses attheir pleasure? They seem resolved on doing this, and capable of carrying their purposes into63 Ashis Nandy, The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism, Book, Whole (Delhi: Oxford,1983), https://go.exlibris.link/Nw5tSnKK.62 “Editorial Article 15 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), July 16, 1856, 451.61 “Editorial Article 2 -- No Title,” January 17, 1844, 3.60 “Article 3 -- No Title,” January 15, 1842, 36.28effect,” highlighting the newspaper’s sentiment that non-EIC-subject Indian men habituallybrutalized their communities.64 Another noted that even a minor conflict “has involved no smallamount of bloodshed— that the adjacent country has been incontinently pillaged— that itsinhabitants have suffered by the commission of those horde of mercenary ruffians, wearing amilitary garb….”65 Non-EIC-subject Indian men lived in “a state of anarchy, and perform[ed] oneach other the work of common executioner.”66 They also brutalized unrelated passers-by. Alongthe frontier, unknown attackers— thought to be “Brinjarries”— murdered three sepoys andmutilated several women in what the correspondent termed “butcher-like recreation.”67Non-EIC-subject men were therefore defined by the Times of India’s contributors as inherentlybarbaric. They constantly warred amongst themselves and used any conflict as an excuse topillage and murder. While this did not necessarily affect colonial British communities, thecolony’s soldiers were occasionally on the receiving end of this violence, demonstrating to theTimes of India’s audience that non-EIC-subject masculinity was savage, barbaric, and threateningto the colonial state.Contradictorily, the Times of India’s contributors simultaneously emphasizednon-EIC-subject Indian men’s inherent cowardice. These men often went so far as to violate theirorders to protect themselves. An account of the Battle of Moodkhee noted that “the GooreharraSuwars, who were thought so much of… were almost the first to fly… Many of them neverstopped until they reached their homes; while others took advantage of their position and beganto plunder the tents and baggage of other men of their own army.”68 Non-EIC-subject Indian menwere clearly unable to handle the stress of battle, and even the most well-regarded groups were68 “The Punjaub,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), January 14, 1846, 31.67 “Nizam’s Dominions,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), July 15, 1846, 473.66 “Editorial Article 5 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), January 14, 1846, 27.65 “Nizam’s Dominions,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), January 14, 1846, 28.64 “Editorial Article 2 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), January 15, 1845,34-35.29prone to disobeying their orders and fleeing. When contrasted with British and EIC-subjectIndian masculinities, which were stalwart and brave, non-EIC-subject men were clearly inferior.An 1846 editorial found that non-EIC-subject Indian men tended “to shrink from present troubleand to disregard future evil, however desperate its kind.”69 Another predicted that any decisivebattle would trigger a mass defection of non-EIC-subject Indian soldiers, who indeed only joinedbattles because the British were thought to be weak70. While non-EIC-subject Indian men wereargued to be violent and barbaric, they also lacked courage. These discourses appearedcontradictory, but both functioned to emasculate non-EIC-subject Indian men by emphasizingthat they failed to conform to standards of proper masculine behavior. They were both violent,rather than gallant and well-organized, and cowardly, rather than stalwart.Femininity, Domesticity, and MenThe final major facet of British masculine behavior centered around their relationshipwith British women; British men were expected to provide for them and to court them. TheTimes of India’s correspondents infrequently mentioned women, implicitly arguing that menwere the primary participants in public society, and generally treated them as a construct to helpdefine masculinity, rather than attributing them agency. British men were expected to financiallyprovide for British women; one of a very few articles authored by a woman, which laid out theconditions soldiers’ wives endured in the barracks, beseeched the editor and audience toadvocate for women. She referred to her cause as “helpless”, indicating that she could not fix herliving conditions; instead, she was reliant on men’s actions.71 In discussing the direcircumstances of widowed women, another editorial argued that their pitiful state was a stain on71 “Soldiers’ Wives in India,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), July 15, 1846, 472.70 “Editorial Article 11 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), January 17, 1849,35.69 “Nizam’s Dominions,” January 14, 1846, 28.30men’s character, again demonstrating that men were expected to take care of women, evenoutside their families.72 Indeed, British men’s role as providers for their households were a largecomponent of Victorian British masculinities. John Tosh identifies the husband and father’sexpected role as the bread-winner of the household; similarly, Ben Griffin highlights his wisdomand authority over decision making: the British man was to both direct and provide for hishousehold.73 Further, British men were expected to publicly court British women. Balls wereavenues for men and women to dance and mingle, and one extract from a book reprinted in thenewspaper describes how “the exciting gaieties of town-life” were meant to allow men andwomen to meet and court each other, while maintaining propriety.74 Notably, because theconstruct of ‘women’ was deeply racialized, British men were only expected to formally pursueBritish women, rather than Indian women, demonstrating that both femininity and masculinitywere shaped by race. Overall, British masculinity required men to provide for and publicly courtwomen, demonstrating how ‘women’ were used as a foil to portray masculinities.While British men were responsible for providing for British women, both groups ofIndian men were rarely shown to interact with British women. However, on the few occasionsthat they did, the newspaper’s contributors established that EIC-subject Indian men posed amoral threat to British women. An 1849 editorial discussing the state of British widows andorphans in India worried that “English girls should be brought up by their parents to be sold inprostitution to the party who bids the highest for the prize,-- those parties being generallyNatives!”75 This anecdote indicated that the idea of EIC-subject Indian men having sexual75 “Editorial Article 6 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), July 14, 1849, 473.74 “Editorial Article 13 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), January 15, 1851, 3;“Literature: Mr. Killwinning’s Third Wedding-Day,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859),June 15, 1853, 1132-1133.73 Tosh, Manliness and Masculinities in Nineteenth-Century Britain; Ben Griffin, The Politics of Gender in VictorianBritain: Masculinity, Political Culture and the Struggle for Women’s Rights, 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press,2012), https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057530.72 “Editorial Article 7 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), July 15, 1848, 535.31relationships with British sex workers was more scandalous than when British sex workers weresolicited by British men. The idea of one’s daughter having extra-marital sexual relations with anIndian man was worse than extra-marital sexual relations with British men. However, notably,narratives of rape or sexual violence did not appear in these articles. This tracks with PenelopeTuson’s argument that prior to 1857, narratives of Indian men as sexual threats were absent fromBritish literature.76 Generally, although EIC-subject Indian men did not pose a physical or sexualthreat to British women, they were also not shown to provide for them or protect them— indeed,they seldom interacted with British women at all. Meanwhile, non-EIC-subject Indian men werenot shown to interact with British women. In one instance, they were noted to have killed severalwomen, but they were not specified as British women.77 Therefore, while women were notexempt from their violent tendencies, their interactions with women were not strong elements oftheir masculinities.Power and MasculinityThe Times of India’s contributors’ discourses of masculinity further helped shapediscourses of power in colonial India. British men were portrayed as socially and morallysuperior, therefore allotting them social power. By depicting Indian men as dishonest,meanwhile, the newspaper’s reporting indicated to audiences that they could not be trusted,stripping them of ‘proper’ masculinity and social influence. Additionally, the newspaper’swriters implied that EIC-subject Indian men did not have the power to upset colonial society, byindicating that EIC-subject Indian men’s dishonesty was not threatening. Its portrayals of men’smilitary conduct further attributed military power to British men, by demonstrating that theywere brave soldiers and capable of leading. EIC-subject Indian men were under British control;77 “Nizam’s Dominions,” July 15, 1846, 473.76 Penelope Tuson, “Mutiny Narratives and the Imperial Feminine,” Women’s Studies International Forum 21, no. 3(May 1998): 291–303, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-5395(98)00023-5.32ironically, then, the newspaper’s correspondents and editors were willing to attribute qualities ofproper masculinity— bravery and gallantry— to Indian men who lacked power. Non-EIC-subjectIndian men, meanwhile, had some military power, as they fought colonial soldiers and rainedviolence upon their communities. The Times of India’s contributors tempered this threat byportraying them as emasculated men, who did not exhibit any qualities of proper masculinity.Finally, the newspaper’s writers used femininity to further render British men powerful and bothgroups of Indian men powerless. British men were able to transgress the boundary betweenmasculine and feminine in appropriate ways, through courtship and by providing for women. Bydemonstrating that both groups of Indian men lacked the ability to interact with British women—and by extension, colonial British domestic spheres— the Times of India’s contributorsemasculated them and implied that they were not threatening. Overall, the Times of India’sdiscourses of masculinity between 1839 and 1857 emphasized British men’s social and militarypower, while stripping Indian men of theirs. Indeed, for Indian men, masculine qualities werebestowed when they were seen as non-powerful and therefore nonthreatening, and were withheldwhen Indian men threatened colonial society.ConclusionThe Times of India’s authors and editors both reflected and helped shape definitions ofBritish masculinity, of EIC-subject Indian masculinity, and of non-EIC-subject Indianmasculinity between 1839 and 1857. British men were paragons of military skill, gallantry, anddiscipline, while EIC-subject Indian men were skilled in fighting, but lacked leadership abilityand required British officers to be effective. Non-EIC-subject Indian masculinity, alternatively,was simultaneously barbaric and cowardly. The Times of India’s correspondents also definedboth idealized and real masculine character. British men were expected to cultivate honesty, andto protect and court British women. EIC-subject and non-EIC-subject Indian men, meanwhile,33seldom interacted with British women, and were portrayed as generally dishonest. The Times ofIndia’s contributors therefore demonstrated how men in colonial India behaved, illuminatingelements of their masculinities. The Rebellion of 1857, however, radically changed perceptionsof power and Indian men’s relationship to the colonial state. As a result, masculinity, race, andpower would undergo massive transformation in the following two years.34Chapter 2: Disturbed Provinces, Disturbed Masculinities, 1857-1859“And one day a contractor makes a mess of the cartridges... How is he to be soothed? Is he to besoothed at all? Will shooting regiments to atoms mend matters? More officers? More power forColonels? Less power? Anything? Everything? What is to be done?”78Discontent that had been simmering among Indians in north and central India explodedinto open rebellion on the morning of May 10th, 1857.79 Beginning in Meerut, the Rebelliongained momentum, burning throughout north and central India. Indian men recaptured Delhifrom the British, laid siege to Lucknow and Agra; they massacred women and children inCawnpore and Delhi and decimated the countryside.80 Within a month, 30,000 Indian men hadrebelled, and nine months later, that number had more than tripled to 100,000.81 Caught bysurprise, British commentators hastily attributed the Rebellion to rifle cartridges: Hindu andMuslim troops, they alleged, had been asked to violate their religious beliefs on May 10th bygreasing these cartridges with pork and beef fat.82 However, they also observed that the Rebellionwas not simply caused by rifle cartridges; instead, it was a response to British economic,political, social, and religious encroachment in India.83 The Rebellion continued to terrify Britishobservers until it was broken in Gwalior, north-central India, in June of 1858. This marked the83OLIM SOCIUS, “THE PUNJAUB: THE MUTINIES No. II To the Editor of the Lahore Chronicle,” The BombayTimes and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), May 15, 1857, 918; "Editorial Article 3 -- no Title." The BombayTimes and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), Jun 29, 1857, 1220. For an overview of historiographical debates onthe causes of the Rebellion, see Kim A. Wagner, “The Marginal Mutiny: The New Historiography of the IndianUprising of 1857,” History Compass 9, no. 10 (2011): 760–66, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2011.00799.x;Bismawoy Pati, “Historians and Historiography: Situating 1857,” Economic and Political Weekly 42, no. 19 (2007):1686–91.82"INDIAN PRESS: ARMY REFORM." The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), Jun 24, 1857,1190.81“Editorial Article 2 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), June 15, 1857, 1124;“Copy of the Petition of the British Inhabitants of Calcutta to the Lords and Common of Great Britain and IrelandParliament Assembled,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), February 13, 1858, 91-92.80Crispin Bates, Mutiny at the Margins: New Perspectives on the Indian Uprising of 1857: Volume I: Anticipationsand Experiences in the Locality, VII vols., Mutiny at the Margins, I (SAGE Publications, 2013).79Christopher Herbert, War of No Pity: The Indian Mutiny and Victorian Trauma (Princeton (N.J.): Princetonuniversity press, 2008), 4–6.78OLIM SOCIUS, “THE PUNJAUB: THE MUTINIES No. II To the Editor of the Lahore Chronicle,” The BombayTimes and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), May 15, 1857, 918.35beginning of the decline of the Rebellion, and by mid-1859, after two years of warfare, Britishpower was completely re-entrenched.Although Britain retained control of her colony, the Rebellion seized hold of popularBritish imagination, both in Britain and India. 1857 coursed through public debate, public works,and more; the Times of India’s coverage between June 1857 and January 1859 breathlesslydetailed every individual skirmish, lionized British officers and generals, and painstakinglytraced the betrayals, escapes, trials, and executions of Indian rebels. Other contemporarynewspapers similarly treated the Rebellion as “a gigantic national disaster or nationalcataclysm.”84 In Britain, Queen Victoria proclaimed October 7th, 1857 as a national fast day,solidifying the Rebellion in British minds as a national tragedy.85 British control over India hadthreatened to break, so the Rebellion took on major public importance.The Rebellion also reconfigured the militaries of British India. Prior to 1857, the armiesof the Madras and Bombay Presidencies drew from a wide cross-section of Indian men; allIndian men were eligible to serve, and British officials ignored caste and class differences. InBengal, by contrast, ‘Native Regiments’ were primarily composed of dominant-caste Rajput andBrahmin men.86 This Bengali army almost entirely rebelled in 1857. Therefore, during theRebellion, it had to be reconstructed. Now, priority in recruiting was given to northern India,particularly Punjab. Punjabi Sikh and Muslim men, newly under the EIC’s control, came to playa vital role in quashing the Rebellion and in garrisoning the colonial state as early as 1858.87 As a87Omissi, “‘Martial Races’: Ethnicity and Security in Colonial India 1858-1939,” 250-251. EIC-newcomer men wereenticed by financial prospects, according to Rekha Yadav’s article “Popular Religious Traditions, British MilitaryRecruitment and the Social Construction of Masculinity in Colonial Haryana”; additionally, Yadav notes that86David Omissi, “‘Martial Races’: Ethnicity and Security in Colonial India 1858-1939,” in The Rise and Fall ofModern Empires, Volume I, ed. Owen White, n.d, 250-251. Omissi notes that other groups of men were generallyexcluded from the Bengal Army’s recruiting practices at the time, both through practice and through eventual policy.85Don Randall, “Autumn 1857: The Making of the Indian ‘Mutiny,’” Victorian Literature and Culture 31, no. 1(March 2003): 3–17, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1060150303000019.84Christopher Herbert, War of No Pity: The Indian Mutiny and Victorian Trauma (Princeton (N.J.): Princetonuniversity press, 2008), 2.36result, Indian men’s relationships with the state were changing significantly. Indeed, to reflectthese transitions, Chapter 2 will alter its terminology. The ‘EIC-subject’ Indian men of Chapter 1will be referred to as ‘established-EIC-subject’ Indian men. While these terms describe the samegroup of men, they were no longer the only Indian men subject to the colonial state, althoughthey had been under its control for longer. Similarly, ‘non-EIC-subject’ Indian men will bereferred to as ‘EIC-newcomer’ Indian men in Chapter 2. As the colonial state expanded, thesemen came under its jurisdiction. However, Chapter 2 will demonstrate that their relationship to itremained fundamentally different. EIC-newcomer men were becoming integral parts of thecolonial state’s military apparatus, while established-EIC-subject Indian men were rising upagainst it. These changing relationships had significant impacts on the Times of India’scontributors’ definitions of Indian masculinity.The Rebellion of 1857 sparked fear in British inhabitants of India and radically alteredBritish and Indian men’s relationships to the state and ideas of race. These factors both helpeddefine, and were defined by, Indian and British masculinities. In the general discourse ofmasculinity, British men were expected to protect women; in the context of the Rebellion, theTimes of India portrayed massacres not as failures of this duty, but as testaments to their owngrief and the power and inhumanity of rebels. While they were still depicted as honest andgallant, they also became vengeful and angry. Alternatively, Indian men who had previouslybeen EIC subjects now had radically different relationships to the state: many were activelyfighting it, while others were loyal but frequently suspected of sedition due to their race. Thosewho rebelled went from gallant, brave, and disciplined, to cowardly, barbaric, and brutal. Theirmilitary recruitment played on existing masculine self-perceptions. Yadav, Amar Farooqui, and others have alsonoted colonial British administrators’ use of division to persuade EIC-newcomer groups to ally with the British, andindeed the Times of India attributed EIC-newcomers’ loyalty to British administrators’ skill at diplomacy. See “TheNative Contingent,” The Times of India (1861-2010), December 21, 1878, 6; Yadav, “Popular Religious Traditions,British Military Recruitment and the Social Construction of Masculinity in Colonial Haryana,”; Amar Farooqui,“‘Divide and Rule’? Race, Military Recruitment and Society in Late Nineteenth Century Colonial India.”37previously-annoying dishonesty took on a threatening edge, and they became associated withsexual and physical violence against British women. EIC-newcomer Indian masculinity,meanwhile, transformed from simultaneously cowardly and barbaric to brave and dependable,occasionally even more so than British men. They were not constructed as threats to Britishwomen, complicating existing scholarship. Indeed, notions of race, fear, anger, and loyaltyradically reshaped masculinities during the Rebellion of 1857. Further, these depictions revealeda colonial society in which understandings of power had radically changed, and demonstratedhow the Times of India’s contributors used masculinity to either affirm British men’s power or tocounter established-EIC-subject Indian men’s.“The Mutinous Spirit of the Day”: Deception and Loyalty88British commentators believed the Rebellion to be the result of massive conspiracies andlies; therefore, established-EIC-subject Indian men who rebelled were depicted as intenselydishonest.89 The Rebellion surprised British observers, leading to rumors that it had beencoordinated by Indians lying about their allegiance to the colonial state. Historian Kim Wagnerhighlights British reports that the Rebellion was spread by Indians passing chapattis, or roundflatbreads, between each other, emphasizing British fears that Indians were conspiring againstthem.90 The Times of India’s coverage of the Rebellion indeed fretted that Indian soldiers weredeceiving British officers, and were liable to rise up. One report worried “that the entire NativeArmy is saturated with the mutinous spirit of the day, and are awaiting an opportunity fordeclaring themselves against Government.”91 Another author declared that “‘I shall never put theslightest faith in any of the natives of this country, should I stay in it for the remainder of my91“Meerut,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), June 15, 1857, 1126.90Kim A. Wagner, “‘Treading Upon Fires’: The ’Mutiny’-Motif and Colonial Anxieties in British India,” Past &Present, no. 218 (2013): 159–97, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23360258.89“Copy of the Petition of the British Inhabitants of Calcutta to the Lords and Common of Great Britain and IrelandParliament Assembled,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), February 13, 1858, 91-92.88“Meerut,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), June 15, 1857, 1126.38existence.”’92 A third noted that the inhabitants of Bundelkhand were “also busy circulating themost infamous falsehoods” in order to conspire against the colonial state.93 The surprise of theRebellion seemed to prove that established-EIC-subject men were dishonest; Britishcommentators observed that they were liable to hide their true intentions and loyalties. Thisrepresented a slight shift from masculine stereotypes prior to the Rebellion. While they hadalready been portrayed as somewhat dishonest, previously this untrustworthiness was minor.Now, it posed an existential threat to British people in India. After all, established-EIC-subjectIndian men’s dishonesty during the Rebellion facilitated widespread violence against Britishpeople, and seemed to threaten the colonial state itself. Whereas prior to the Rebellion, rumorsand dishonesty were minor annoyances, rumors of chapattis passed from watchman to watchmancame to signify an existential threat.Indeed, even those established-EIC-subject Indian men who did not rebel were portrayedas only tenuously honest. The Times of India’s contributors did acknowledge their truthfulnessand loyalty in some instances. Bengali men, for example, were not thought to be conspiringagainst British authorities: they “could conceive no greater national misfortune than the successof the revolt” due to the threat it posed to their financial prospects.94 Other articles noted thatmany or most Indian soldiers had remained loyal to the British standard.95 However, the tenuoustrust the Times of India’s correspondents placed in these men was undercut by their belief thatestablished-EIC-subject Indian men were inherently dishonest and conspiratorial. Rumorsfrequently flew that established-EIC-subject Indian men were still hiding conspiracies against the95“Article 6 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), March 17, 1858, 163; “Article5 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), September 11, 1858, 572.94“INDIAN PRESS: Native Feeling in Eastern Bengal,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859),February 13, 1858, 95.93“Bundlekhund,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), February 13, 1858, 93-94.92“North-West Provinces,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), January 16, 1858.39state.96 Tales abounded of entire regiments suddenly turning on their pro-British leaders as late asJune of 1858.97 Incidents like these showed “how easily the natives can deceive our officials.”98They helped create a sense to the newspaper’s readers, comprised of British people and someIndians primarily educated in British-run schools, that even if they seemed loyal,established-EIC-subject Indian men were lying about their allegiance to the colonial state. Thisportrayal reflected a changing relationship between established-EIC-subject Indian men and thecolonial state. Established-EIC-subject Indian men were no longer dependable Presidencysoldiers, but instead potential threats; they were therefore not to be trusted, even if they weresupporting the British.Alternatively, the honesty and loyalty of the EIC-newcomer Indian men who joinedBritish troops in suppressing the Rebellion was not questioned. One 1859 article observed that“men who had once been our fiercest and most chivalrous enemies, and had only lately beensubdued,” had in fact maintained “steadfast loyalty” throughout the Rebellion.99 Another quotedan officer as threatening that ‘“there is ample force in the Punjab to crush all mutineers. TheChiefs and people are loyal and obedient, and the latter only long to take your place in the army,all will unite to crush [the rebels].’”100 Clearly, British observers did not worry thatEIC-newcomer Indian men were conspiring or concealing rebellious sentiment. They wereinstead trusted to oppose the rebels, indicating that the newspaper’s contributors felt they werehonest. These portrayals helped redefine EIC-newcomer men, who had previously been depictedas dishonest swindlers, as truthful, loyal, and dependable.100John Lawrence, “Editorial Article 3 -- No Title: "FROM THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF THE PUNJAUB TOTHE HINDOSTANEE SOLDIERS OF THE BENGAL ARMY,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce(1838-1859), June 15, 1857, 1124.99“The Lahore Blast,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), January 15, 1859, 7-39.98“Editorial Article 9 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), October 13, 1858,642.97“Gwalior,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), June 16, 1858, 373.96“Article 38 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), May 15, 1858, 7.40This depiction of EIC-newcomer Indian men as truthful demonstrates connectionsbetween honesty, masculinity, and race. EIC-newcomer Indian men were now distinguished fromestablished-EIC-subject Indian men by their honesty and loyalty to the colonial state. Theirmasculinity was becoming fundamentally different than that of established-EIC-subject Indianmen, as their relationship with the colonial state changed. In turn, these changes helpedcontribute to new ideas of race, particularly ‘martial race theory’. ‘Martial race theory’ referredto a taxonomy, established by the Raj, that defined some groups of Indian men as ‘martial’ andothers as ‘non-martial’. Indeed, individual qualities were ascribed to one’s race, rather than one’spersonality. These included “self-sufficiency, physical and moral resilience, orderliness and hardwork, fighting tenacity, and above all, a sense of courage and loyalty.”101 EIC-newcomer Indianmen, later termed ‘martial races’, were understood to belong to a different racial categorybecause of their masculine traits, including honesty and loyalty.102 Therefore, while ‘martial racetheory’ would not take its full form until the end of the nineteenth century, its beginnings areevident in the Times of India’s depictions of masculinity. Masculine qualities of honesty,influenced by relationships with the colonial state, helped distinguish groups of Indian men fromeach other, laying the foundations for new understandings of race in colonial India.Barbarity, Bravery, ViolenceIndian men’s changing relationships to the colonial state also spurred a reversal in theTimes of India’s depictions of masculine conduct in warfare; previously, established-EIC-subjectIndian men were portrayed as gallant and brave, but were now defined as barbaric and cowardly.102Constable, “The Marginalization of a Dalit Martial Race in Late Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-CenturyWestern India”; Amar Farooqui, “‘Divide and Rule’? Race, Military Recruitment and Society in Late NineteenthCentury Colonial India,” Social Scientist 43, no. 3/4 (2015): 49–59, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24372935.101Philip Constable, “The Marginalization of a Dalit Martial Race in Late Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-CenturyWestern India,” The Journal of Asian Studies 60, no. 2 (2001): 439, https://doi.org/10.2307/2659700.41Stories of massacres and destruction underscored to the Times of India’s readers that Indian menwho rebelled wanted to murder Europeans in cold blood. One editorial observed that rebels werebrandishing their swords and threatening Europeans with the most cruel deaths if theycould only lay their hands on them; and indeed they did not, in their hellish frenzy, forgetto put their threats into practice, by going and laying hold of our dear country-women andchildren, and butchering them in a manner that makes the blood run chill to ponder uponfor a moment….103Another accused rebels of “committing depredations and ravages, and destroying both life andproperty.”104 Those Indian men who had been previously commended for their gallantry werenow cruel and murderous. Simultaneously, the Times of India’s correspondents reported on theircowardice in battle. A writer noted that, with a shout from British troops, “the mutineersdisappeared, with a celerity peculiar to their race,” indicating both that rebelling Indian men wereseen as cowards and that this was a trait generalizable to all established-EIC-subject Indianmen.105 Another observed that rebels were quick to retreat when in battle with British troops.106As their relationship to the colonial state changed from soldier to opponent, theestablished-EIC-subject Indian men who had previously been defined as brave and gallant werenow timid and barbaric.EIC-newcomer Indian men, however, were now noted to be heroic and brave whenfighting alongside British forces. Rohillah men, for example, were observed in March of 1858 to“make first rate soldiers and would be a great acquisition in the Infantry Regiments; alreadyseveral are serving in the Hyderabad Contingent and have proved themselves good men, theOfficers who know them wishing that they had more of the same kind.”107 Similarly, Punjabi107“Article 15 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), March 17, 1858, 166.106“Editorial Article 8 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), March 17, 1858, 162;“Gwalior,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), July 17, 1858, 444.105“Editorial Article 14 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), April 17, 1858, 2.104“Editorial Article 9 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), March 17, 1858, 165.103“Editorial Article 12 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), January 16, 1858,34.42Sikh and Gurkha men were praised for their bravery: one account from Bihar noted that they“behaved famously,” while another from Bengal described how “the gallant Seikhs, after theMajor dropped, rushed on the rebels….”108 A third intriguingly reported that “had it not been forWaller of the 40th N.I., who formed his Seikhs into a covering party, and defended theEuropeans who literally run away [sic], not a man would have returned […] The 10th and 37thran away, before, and the Seikhs covered them, and saved their lives, and now the 5th run away[sic], and the Seikhs do the same good office again.”109 It is especially striking here that the racialhierarchies of masculinity that structured colonial society before the Rebellion were being upset.British men had consistently been depicted as the most courageous— and therefore mostmasculine— of all men in India, but during the Rebellion, EIC-newcomer men couldoccasionally claim that title for themselves.Additionally, the beginnings of ‘martial race theory’ were again evident: EIC-newcomerIndian men were newly defined as men who were inherently brave and gallant, which wouldbecome a key element of their classification as ‘martial races’. Their masculine traits, now morestrongly attributed to their race, were diverging from those of established-EIC-subject Indianmen. Overall, the stereotypes of masculine conduct evident in the Times of India prior to 1857had flip-flopped in accordance with Indian men’s relationship to the colonial state. Thoseestablished-EIC-subject Indian men who rebelled had been brave and gallant, but were nowcowardly and barbaric. EIC-newcomer Indian men who supported the British military,meanwhile, went from barbaric and weak to gallant and daring. Those who were employed to109“Article 24 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), May 15, 1858, 5. Emphasisoriginal.108“Behar,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), July 17, 1858, 444; “Bengal,” The BombayTimes and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), February 13, 1858, 94.43support the British military, regardless of their origins, were described positively, while thosefighting against it were smeared.This correlation between Indian men’s masculinity in the Times of India and theirrelationship with the colonial state is further supported by its portrayals of the Indian men whomaintained their previous attitude towards the British military. While established-EIC-subjectIndian men’s honesty and loyalty was constantly questioned, when they fought alongside Britishsoldiers, the Times of India’s writers still depicted them as brave and gallant. An April 1858article noted that, although “tempted by the mutinous Artillery and other troops at Shikarpoor onone side and and by the threatened rising of the Belooch and Hill tribes on the other,” sepoys hadnot “swerved from [their] loyalty or failed to show the most willing alacrity in the performanceof [their] duties during the past year.”110 Those established-EIC-subject Indian men whoremained loyal, therefore, were still portrayed as courageous and dutiful. Similarly,EIC-newcomer Indian men who did not assist British efforts to quell the Rebellion were stilldepicted as violent and chaotic. The Times of India’s correspondent observed that “plunder andrapine are the order of the day; several villages have been sacked and property to a large extentcarried away" when Rohilla men who had not joined the British military marauded through thecountryside.111 Another article, reprinted from The Punjabee, described various groups of Indianmen as ‘savage’ or ‘wild’, further echoing notions that EIC-newcomer Indian men who did notjoin the British military were still inherently barbaric.112 Clearly, then, Indian men’s masculinitywas determined by their relationship to the state. Those who supported British forces were braveand gallant, while those who did not were barbaric and cowardly.112“The Lahore Blast,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), January 15, 1859, 7-39.111“Article 17 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), November 13, 1858, 718.110“Article 18 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), April 17, 1858, 6.44British men, meanwhile, were generally still shown to be brave and gallant; they werealso depicted as vengeful and violent themselves. The Times of India’s contributors frequentlydescribed British soldiers’ use of extrajudicial execution to extinguish the Rebellion, althoughthe newspaper’s correspondents did not describe this in the same manner as it did Indian men’smurders. Captured rebels were often immediately executed, even when this was forbidden byofficial policy. One correspondent cheerily reported, “‘I am happy to tell you that the Humanityorder has no weight with our Court Martials here, every mutineer is strung up as soon as he iscaught.”’113 This suggested not only that Indian rebels were immediately hanged, but also thatBritish soldiers were actively defying their orders to do so. A letter to the editor, meanwhile,opined, “How satisfactory and refreshing it would have been to read that these one hundred andfifty murderers had also been shot instead of being about to be first tried… such men don’tdeserve a trial.”114 Other articles casually mentioned that rebels were either hanged or “blownfrom a gun,” referring to the practice of executing Indian men using cannons.115 Although someauthors did disavow these extrajudicial punishments, most reported on hangings and executionswithout condemnation. When British men killed Indian men, they were not described asmurderous barbarians— even though they were circumventing the colonial judicial system, andin some cases flouting military orders. Indeed, these executions were not described as violence.Instead, they were a justified reaction to the Rebellion. The Times of India judged Indian men’sviolence as barbaric, even as the newspaper’s correspondents acknowledged that the Rebellion115“Sind,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), January 16, 1858, 40; Joanna de Groot,“Depicting Conflict in India in 1857-8: The Instabilities of Gender, Violence, and Colonialism,” Cultural and SocialHistory 14, no. 4 (August 8, 2017): 466, https://doi.org/10.1080/14780038.2017.1329129.114X. Y. Z, “Correspondence: To the Editor of the Bombay Times,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce(1838-1859), June 15, 1857, 1126. Emphasis original.113“Bengal,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), February 13, 1858, 94.45was the result of British provocation.116 British men’s extrajudicial executions, however, werejustified by the Rebellion. While masculinity was influenced by relationships with the colonialstate, it was also shaped by race. British men retained their status as brave and gallant, evenwhen their actions were less than that.“Neither Trouble Nor Treasure Are of Any Moment”: Femininity and Rebellion117Protecting women, in addition to providing for them, became a vital element of Britishmasculinity. British women’s experiences were some of the most widely-publicized componentsof the Rebellion, as their letters and diaries were published in Britain and India, and newspapersfrequently discussed their fates.118 Perhaps the most infamous tale was the massacre atCawnpore. In July of 1857, several hundred imprisoned British women and children were killedby rebels, and their bodies thrown into a well.119 The Times of India’s coverage of both massacresand smaller battles underscored the importance of the construct of ‘women’ in defining Britishmasculinity. British men were expected to protect British women; for example, one articlereported that “the ladies at Peshawur [had] been removed into the old Kutcherry, which [was]well guarded by European troops….”120 Another article commended General Sir Colin Campbell,G.C.B. for effecting “the rescue of the women and children, sick and wounded, long beleagueredthere.”121 Historian Penelope Tuson echoes this observation in her study of popular121C. Campbell, “Official Despatches: The Re-Capture of Lucknow Detail,” The Bombay Times and Journal ofCommerce (1838-1859), April 17, 1858, 5-6.120“Sind,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), June 15, 1857, 1127.119Penelope Tuson, “Mutiny Narratives and the Imperial Feminine,” Women’s Studies International Forum 21, no. 3(May 1998): 292, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-5395(98)00023-5.118Catherine Hart, “‘Oh What Horrors Will Be Disclosed When We Know All,’” Prose Studies 34, no. 3 (December1, 2012): 185–96, https://doi.org/10.1080/01440357.2012.751258; Alison Blunt, “Embodying War: British Womenand Domestic Defilement in the Indian «Mutiny», 1857–8,” Journal of Historical Geography 26, no. 3 (July 1,2000): 403–28, https://doi.org/10.1006/jhge.2000.0236.117“INDIAN PRESS: The Bounty for Crime,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), June 15,1857, 1129.116OLIM SOCIUS, “THE PUNJAUB: THE MUTINIES No. II To the Editor of the Lahore Chronicle,” The BombayTimes and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), May 15, 1857, 918; "Editorial Article 3 -- no Title." The BombayTimes and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), Jun 29, 1857, 1220.46representations of the Rebellion in Britain. British femininity was defined as fragile andinnocent, and British masculinity was expected to be aggressive and protective.122Thereforearticles in the Times of India reflected British men’s duty to protect British women, just as it hadencouraged British men to provide for British women prior to the Rebellion.In instances like Cawnpore, though, British women had been murdered and allegedlyraped. British men were supposed to safeguard them, but had failed in that duty. Regardless, theTimes of India’s authors and editors never discussed this failure. Its writers instead dealt with thedeaths of British women in two ways. First, they emphasized the grief of British men. One wrotethat “I myself in my perambulations have met with the hair of the heads of some of our belovedcountry-women and children; and upon examining it, and pondering over the horrible deaths thepossessers [sic] of the same met with, I was (although a stern veteran) moved to tears.”123 Whilethis sentiment reflected British men’s sorrow, the narrator did not blame anyone for these deaths.The other manner in which British men handled the deaths of British women and children wasthrough rage at Indian men. One article seethed that “neither trouble nor treasure are of anymoment when compared with the extermination of those men who have dared to break theirallegiance and have consummated their treachery with the pangs of helpless women andchildren.”124 Grief and outrage over women’s deaths was indeed likely one of the causes ofBritish men’s desire for violent revenge.This observation is revealing of the newspaper’s contributors’ understanding of newpower dynamics in colonial India. Prior to the Rebellion, British men had been perceived to havecomplete control over India, while established-EIC-subject Indian men did not have the power to124“INDIAN PRESS: The Bounty for Crime,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), June 15,1857, 1129.123“Editorial Article 12 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), January 16, 1858,34.122Penelope Tuson, “Mutiny Narratives and the Imperial Feminine,” 294.47intrude on British women, who in a sense stood in for colonial British domestic life. Bydemonstrating that established-EIC-subject men had been able to kill and allegedly rape Britishwomen, and to threaten colonial British domestic life, the Times of India’s writers perhapsreflected a sense of denial that British men lacked the power to protect British women. Itscorrespondents potentially did not want to acknowledge that they did not have complete controlover colonial India, and by denying any failure of their masculine obligations, they couldcontinue to portray themselves as the most powerful and most masculine men.Established-EIC-subject Indian men, indeed, were newly portrayed as sexual threats toBritish women. Penelope Tuson explains that “fear of native men raping white women was notpart of the colonial landscape before 1857…”, and the Times of India’s contributors did notportray Indian men as threats to women before the Rebellion.125 However, during the Rebellion,they became associated with physical and sexual violence. Historian Joanna de Groot finds thatvisual representations of the Rebellion foregrounded “the theme of female vulnerability andgendered modesty and decency violated by the ‘animal’ (unmanly/non-human) conduct of theirIndian opponents (‘murderers’).”126 The Times of India’s coverage matched the trends de Grootdemonstrates. One petition observed that “on every highway lie the dishonored and mutilatedremains of our Country Women and their Children….”127 While Indian men were not explicitlymentioned, by arguing that rape and murder were ubiquitous in India, the Times of India’s writersinsinuated that Indian men frequently dishonored and mutilated British women. Anothercorrespondent reported that “‘Two of these accursed Princes violated our women, and then hadthem cut up in pieces’”, although the Times of India’s editor tempered this lurid story by noting127“Copy of the Petition of the British Inhabitants of Calcutta to the Lords and Common of Great Britain and IrelandParliament Assembled,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), February 13, 1858, 91-92. Notethat Victorian writers often used terms like “dishonored” to refer to sexual violence, to comply with social norms.126Joanna de Groot, “Depicting Conflict in India in 1857-8: The Instabilities of Gender, Violence, and Colonialism,”Cultural and Social History 14, no. 4 (August 8, 2017): 466, https://doi.org/10.1080/14780038.2017.1329129.125Penelope Tuson, “Mutiny Narratives and the Imperial Feminine,” 296.48that it, alongside stories “like the crucifixion of a European woman in the King’s Palace atDelhi— should be cleared by by thorough research into the basis of them….”128Established-EIC-subject Indian men who had rebelled were therefore now known for sexual andphysical violence against women.However, the Times of India’s correspondents did not meaningfully discuss relationshipsbetween EIC-newcomer Indian men and British women, demonstrating that Indian men’srelationship to the state played a large role in determining whether they were a threat to Britishwomen. There are some scant references to EIC-newcomer men guarding British women andchildren, but the newspaper did not otherwise mention their interactions.129 This suggests thatEIC-newcomer Indian men were not seen as a threat to British women; further, they were treatedas more properly masculine for remaining outside the sphere of British femininity anddomesticity, unlike established-EIC-subject men who transgressed it through violence. Althoughthis may have been due to a lack of opportunities for interaction between the two groups, theTimes of India’s readers nevertheless would not have linked EIC-newcomer Indian men withviolence against women in the same way as established-EIC-subject Indian men. Clearly, here,Indian men’s status as threats to British women was related to their position vis-à-vis the colonialstate. Those who rebelled were charged with massacres and widespread crimes against Britishwomen, while those who did not rebel were not, because they were supporting the colonial state.The Times of India’s coverage therefore complicates historical works on gender, race, sexuality,and the Rebellion. Joanna de Groot and Penelope Tuson, among others, generalize their findings129“Article 4 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), June 8, 1857, 1078; “INDIANPRESS: The Old Native Landed Interest and Our Revenue and Legal Systems,” The Bombay Times and Journal ofCommerce (1838-1859), January 29, 1859, 69; “LITERATURE: The Meerut Volunteers,” The Bombay Times andJournal of Commerce (1838-1859), December 11, 1858, 775-776.128“Article 10 -- No Title,” The Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce (1838-1859), February 13, 1858, 95.49to all Indian men.130 The Times of India’s contributors, however, demonstrated that associationsbetween Indian men and sexual violence were more nuanced. Indeed, only some Indian menwere portrayed as threats during the Rebellion. This coverage, again, points to deepeningdifferentiation between established-EIC-subject and EIC-newcomer Indian men, which wouldtransform into ‘martial race theory’. Overall, the newspaper’s pieces did not link EIC-newcomerIndian men with sexual and physical violence against British women in the same way as it didestablished-EIC-subject Indian men, complicating existing historical work and helpingdemonstrate the growing divide between groups of Indian men.Shifting Manhood, Shifting PowerOnce again, the Times of India’s contributors’ discourses of masculinity and notions ofpower in colonial India were co-constitutive. Established-EIC-subject men were generallyframed as dishonest, barbaric, and threatening to women, in an attempt to reduce the power theyhad demonstrated during the Rebellion. By tarring them as dishonest, by emphasizing theirsimultaneous barbarity and cowardice, and by demonstrating that they did not cross the boundarybetween masculine and feminine through courtship or protection, but through violence, thesewriters and editors clearly argued that established-EIC-subject men lacked qualities of propermasculinity. This indicates that masculinity and power continued to be inversely related in theTimes of India’s coverage. As established-EIC-subject men became a military threat to thecolony, the newspaper’s contributors emasculated them. Meanwhile, EIC-newcomer Indian menwere no longer understood as a threat. While they were militarily powerful, they were controlledby British authorities. Their lack of power to upset colonial society therefore meant that the130Joanna de Groot, “Depicting Conflict in India in 1857-8: The Instabilities of Gender, Violence, and Colonialism,”Cultural and Social History 14, no. 4 (August 8, 2017): 463–82, https://doi.org/10.1080/14780038.2017.1329129;Penelope Tuson, “Mutiny Narratives and the Imperial Feminine,” Women’s Studies International Forum 21, no. 3(May 1998): 291–303, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-5395(98)00023-5.50Times of India’s correspondents were willing to attribute them some qualities of propermasculinity: they were portrayed as strong and brave soldiers, and were dependably loyal.Masculinity and power were again inversely related, with powerful Indian men emasculated andnon-powerful Indian men lauded for some masculine qualities. British men broke from this rule,however. Indeed, the newspaper’s discourses of British masculinity were intended to reinforceBritish men’s power. Their violence was treated as a marker of decisiveness, as it emphasizedtheir ability to reassert firm control. They were also able to properly interact with British womenby protecting them. Thus, power, race, and masculinity were co-constructed in the Times ofIndia’s articles. Masculinity was used to either temper or bolster notions of colonial power, withrace determining which.ConclusionThe Times of India’s coverage during the Rebellion of 1857 maintained many of the samedefinitions of Indian and British masculinities, but changing relationships to the state and ideasof race helped rework some aspects. Notions of Indian men’s dishonesty were sharpened; thoseEIC-subject men who rebelled were demonstrated to be conspiratorial, conniving, and lying. TheTimes of India’s correspondents also frequently insinuated that EIC-subject men who remainedloyal were potential traitors. Alternatively, EIC-newcomer Indian men were accepted as honest,loyal allies, helping strengthen distinctions between the two groups that would form the basis fornew definitions of race. Therefore, truthfulness and loyalty were structured along racial andstate-relationship lines. Similarly, Indian men who rebelled were now defined by the Times ofIndia’s writers as barbaric and violent, even though many of them had been brave and gallantprior to the Rebellion. Those who remained loyal, though, were now brave and gallant, even ifthey had been barbaric and brutal previously. Indian men’s masculinity in the Times of India thus51depended on one’s relationship to the state. Race also affected British descriptions of militaryconduct: not only were British men unquestioned despite their acknowledged violent reprisals,but EIC-subject and EIC-newcomer Indian men were further differentiated. Finally, British andIndian men’s relationships to women were challenged and changed by the Rebellion. Britishmasculinity strongly emphasized protecting British women in addition to providing for them.However, British men did not view massacres of women and children as failures. EIC-subjectIndian men, previously unthreatening, were now sexual and physical threats to British women.Complicating historiography of race and threat in the Rebellion, EIC-newcomer Indian men werenot portrayed as threats to British women. Finally, the Times of India’s contributors’ depictionsof masculinity were also shaped by their perceptions of power; their discourses used manliness tobolster depictions of British power, while masculinity was used to reduceestablished-EIC-subject men’s influence. EIC-newcomer men were thought to have nosignificant power, and were therefore portrayed as masculine in some senses. Overall, theRebellion of 1857 clearly affected definitions of masculinity in the Times of India.52Chapter 3: “Dormant Now, but Not Extinct”: Masculinity and Memory, 1860-1899131“If the motive had been so nobly, so superhumanly, unselfish, England might have departed, bagand baggage, from India when her ungrateful sons rose in mutiny thirty years ago and killedevery Englishman, woman, and child they could lay their hands upon.”132In the aftermath of the Rebellion of 1857, colonial India underwent wide-ranging changesto many aspects of life. Colonial law, military, government, and more were dramaticallyreshaped. In August 1858, Queen Victoria assumed control of the Raj from the East IndiaCompany, putting it under the rule of the British government rather than a British corporation.Colonial society and governance were rapidly changing in state and local contexts, as well: forexample, Punjabi communities melded both older practices of communal justice with the use ofcolonial legal structures to handle cattle theft, demonstrating rapidly changing understandings ofauthority and responsibility.133 Cattle theft was one of countless aspects of life being reshaped bythe colonial state’s interventions after 1857. Policing and military procedure were overhauled in1861, instituting new regimes of dress, conduct, and administration; growing numbers of Indianmen were also graduating from British-run schools and seeking civil jobs.To recognize that governments and men’s relationship to the colonial state were settlinginto new patterns, this chapter will modify its terms again. ‘British men’ will continue to refer tomen who had either immigrated to India, or were descended from British immigrants. As theBritish Crown took over India, though, Indian men ceased to be subjects of the EIC, renderingthe terminologies of Chapter 1 and 2 inaccurate. Chapter 3 will instead derive its terms from‘martial race’ theory, which became institutionalized in the late nineteenth century. Those menreferred to as ‘EIC-subject’ Indian men in Chapter 1 and ‘established-EIC-subject’ Indian men inChapter 2 will be referred to as ‘nonmartialized’ Indian men in Chapter 3. This chapter133 David Gilmartin, “Cattle, Crime and Colonialism: Property as Negotiation in North India,” The Indian Economic& Social History Review 40, no. 1 (January 2003): 54, https://doi.org/10.1177/001946460304000102.132 “The Native Papers,” The Times of India (1861-2010), August 24, 1891, 6.131 “Indian Loyalty,” The Times of India (1861-2010), August 11, 1885, 6.53demonstrates that the men who were subjects of the East India Company in 1839 were roughlythe same men who would come to be classified as non-martial in the later decades of thenineteenth century. Similarly, Chapter 1’s ‘non-EIC-subject’ and Chapter 2’s ‘EIC-newcomer’Indian men were generally referred to as ‘martial races’ by the end of the century, so Chapter 3will refer to them as ‘martialized’ Indian men.Despite these radical changes, the Rebellion of 1857 remained firmly lodged in thecolonial consciousness. Historian Christopher Herbert contends that 1857 was a “‘terriblebreak,”’ because “educated Britons suddenly were afforded a deeply disillusioning view into thenational soul and found that they could never return afterward to their prelapsarian state ofunawareness.”134 Alex Tickell, meanwhile, identifies the Rebellion as a turning point both forthis reason and because “the uprising also persisted in the colonial imagination as a terrifyingexample of betrayal, vulnerability, and fallible governance.”135 As a result, colonial society wasinvested in continually remembering and commemorating it. Sites associated with the Rebellion,such as Lucknow and Cawnpore, were inscribed with new meanings, and memorials, cemeteries,and siege sites further preserved public memory of 1857.136 Fiction writing was also shaped bythe Rebellion. Children’s fiction, adventure fiction, and works by authors Rudyard Kipling,Joseph Conrad, and Charles Pearce reflected the betrayal, trauma, and heroics of 1857.137 Thus,137 Madison A. Bettle, “Unmade and Unmanned Men: Reading Traumatized Masculinity in Late Nineteenth-CenturyBritish Adventure Fiction Through the Lens of the Indian ‘Mutiny’ of 1857” (Ph.D., Canada -- Ontario, CA, TheUniversity of Western Ontario (Canada), 2021),https://www.proquest.com/docview/2714900708/abstract/A911542B75EF4E62PQ/1; Ralph Crane and RadhikaMohanram, “Gender/ Mutiny in Edwardian Fiction: Charles Pearce’s Fiction of 1857,” Gender Forum, no. 43(2013), https://go.exlibris.link/TP8bbpF6; Amanda Lynn Phillips, “Masculinity in Peril: Mutiny Fiction andVictorian Man-Making” (M.A., United States -- Alabama, The University of Alabama), accessed November 22,2023, https://www.proquest.com/docview/304842507/abstract/7A08EDB0A536483FPQ/1.136 Tickell, “Cawnpore, Kipling and Charivari: 1857 and the Politics of Commemoration,” 3.135 Alex Tickell, “Cawnpore, Kipling and Charivari: 1857 and the Politics of Commemoration,” Literature & History18, no. 2 (November 1, 2009): 3, https://doi.org/10.7227/LH.18.2.2.134 Christopher Herbert, War of No Pity: The Indian Mutiny and Victorian Trauma (Princeton (N.J.): Princetonuniversity press, 2008), 16-17.54even as colonial governance and society rapidly changed, the Rebellion continued to haunt theRaj.The Times of India mirrored colonial society’s emphasis on 1857 as a turning point. In thelatter half of the nineteenth century, colonial Indian print journalism was a dynamic field, withrapidly-expanding readerships and circulations, and new newspapers popping up frequently. Asmore Indian men graduated from British-run schools, the Times of India’s potential readershiplikely diversified. However, its focus remained solidly on British colonial society and news fromacross the British empire. This can perhaps be explained by the exponential increase invernacular publications, as well as the launch of two English-language papers meant for Indianaudiences: The Hindu, launched in 1878, and The Tribune, launched in 1881.138 Indian audiencesinterested in English-language news might have switched away from the Times of India, leavingit with a more monolithic subscriber base. Regardless, the Times of India’s issues continued toprimarily reflect colonial British perspectives, despite its non-British influences. Theseperspectives were undoubtedly still shaped by memories of 1857. The newspaper’s contributorsfrequently referenced the Rebellion directly, through reviews and critiques of books published bywitnesses, soldiers, and survivors, and through comparisons between it and contemporary events.This helped cement the Rebellion as an inflection point for colonial society.Overall, the Times of India’s retrospective coverage of 1857, manifested in book reviews,obituaries, military reports, and more, continued to invoke many of the same elements ofmasculinity established in the coverage of the Rebellion. Nonmartialized Indian men were stilldepicted as dishonest, conspiratorial, and threatening to British women, helping to counter theirpower to threaten colonial society by emasculating them. Martialized men, meanwhile, were138 “About Us,” The Hindu, https://www.thehindu.com/aboutus/; “The Tribune: About,”https://www.tribuneindia.com/aboutus.55loyal and excellently-behaved soldiers, who did not interact with British women. These menwere seen to be under the control of the colonial state, so the Times of India’s contributorsattributed them some masculine qualities. Finally, British men were simultaneously andcontradictorily gallant and brave soldiers, and decisively violent executioners. Theirresponsibility to protect British women was reaffirmed by memories of the Rebellion in theTimes of India. These discourses of masculinity helped to bolster their perceived power byinsisting that British men were the most masculine. The newspaper’s coverage of unrelatedevents, such as policing, sports, riots, and more were influenced by these new understandings ofmasculinity and power, demonstrating the long-running impact of the Rebellion of 1857 on bothmasculinities and power dynamics in colonial India.Conspiracies, Rumors, TrustThe Times of India’s contributors continued to emphasize nonmartialized Indian men’scharacteristic dishonesty in their retrospectives of the Rebellion. Those who had rebelled wereremembered as liars and deceivers, and were shown to still be conspiring to conceal the crimesthey had committed in 1857. One 1861 article reported that one of a pair of sepoys “got drunk,fought with his companion, and threatened to make the secret which had hitherto remainedburied in their hearts public.”139 The deceit and conspiracy of the Rebellion were therefore shownto be ongoing; nonmartialized Indian men were still habitually concealing their true motivationsand actions. Additionally, the Rebellion was referred to as “cruel and cowardly deceit,”indicating its continuing status as a marker of nonmartialized Indian men’s propensity to concealand lie.140 While an 1889 retrospective demonstrated to readers that “even then there were goodmen and true in the native ranks in the very thick of the rebellion,” even this observation reveals140 H. G. Keene, “ANOTHER REBEL CONVICTED: SESSIONS COURT, CAWNPORE, 30TH AUGUSTCROWNS versus ANUNDEEDEEN,” The Times of India (1861-2010), September 11, 1865, 3.139 “Article 5 -- No Title,” The Times of India (1861-2010), July 15, 1861, 3.56that deception and disloyalty was the widely-known and accepted narrative of nonmartializedIndian masculinity during the Rebellion.141 After all, by attempting to reshape British colonialperceptions of nonmartialized Indian men’s actions in the Rebellion, the author implicitlydemonstrated that their dishonesty and deceit was the dominant narrative in memories of 1857.Overall, the Times of India’s reflections on the Rebellion continued to remind readers thatnonmartialized Indian men were habitually dishonest. These memories also shaped how theTimes of India’s correspondents portrayed nonmartialized men in its coverage of contemporaryevents.The Times of India’s writers continued to draw on the masculinities established during theRebellion by depicting nonmartialized Indian men as conspiratorial and dishonest in othercontexts. The newspaper’s authors frequently fretted that nonmartialized Indian men were stillharboring treasonous plots. One 1881 editorial argued that forming a large reserve military ofnonmilitarized Indian men would be like “playing with an edged tool of which the edge might beturned against ourselves at any moment, and probably would be in an hour of direstextremity.”142 The belief that nonmartialized Indian men were deceptive and so could not betrusted affected the newspaper’s coverage of non-military stories, as well. An 1874 articleinsisted that Indian officials were lying about conditions in their district, observing that “themanufacture of famine appears to be, like the game of Badminton, a fascinating pursuit. We readoccasionally in the papers of the efforts made by energetic officials to get up famines in theirneighborhood, in the hope of we know not what reward… now we learn that an intelligentDeputy Baboo and Sub-Deputy to match fired by the Sahib’s example, have tried their hands atproducing the kind of famine article so much in demand at present, in the district of Jessore.”143143 “Article 9 -- No Title,” The Times of India (1861-2010), July 15, 1874, 3.142 “Editorial Article 1 -- No Title,” The Times of India (1861-2010), July 16, 1881, 2.141 PEN, “Celebrities at Home: Jack Sepoy,” The Times of India (1861-2010), September 21, 1889, 4.57Nonmartialized Indian men were not only dishonest about their true loyalties and intentions, theyalso concocted stories about famine, perhaps to gain fame or money. Historian Kim Wagnerexplores a similar theme in his article on the ‘Mutiny-motif’: British observers noticed muddaubed onto trees seemingly without a pattern or meaning. Due to their belief in nonmartializedmen’s dishonesty, these observers whipped up a panic that these markings were meant tocoordinate another uprising.144 The masculinities established by memories of the Rebelliontherefore helped influence coverage of unrelated events.Retrospective coverage of the Rebellion, meanwhile, continued to portray martializedIndian men as honest and dependable under British direction. In 1878, a Times of Indiacorrespondent reminded its audiences that various Punjabi Sikh states had been truthful and loyalin their allegiance to the British in 1857.145 Even in 1886, nearly three decades past the outbreakof the Rebellion, a correspondent congratulated several British-led regiments of martialized menfor their service in 1857. The Malwa Bheel Corps of Rajputana “behaved very well at the time ofthe Mutiny, and served in defence of the Indore Presidency,” while the 3rd Goorkha Regimentsupported British forces; overall, the correspondent observed, “each race, each caste” was vying“to show the whole world their love and devotion to their Queen Empress— theirKaiser-i-Hind.”146 Clearly, the Times of India’s coverage continued to emphasize the honesty andloyalty of martialized Indian men during the Rebellion.Memories of martialized men’s loyalty during the Rebellion were often used to assuageBritish fears about the state’s reliance on military regiments composed primarily of martializedIndian men, demonstrating how the masculinities that emerged out of 1857 continued to shape146 “The Indian Exhibition: Models of Indian Soldiers,” The Times of India (1861-2010), August 3, 1886, 5-6.145 “The Native Contingent,” The Times of India (1861-2010), December 21, 1878, 6.144 Kim A. Wagner, “‘Treading Upon Fires’: The ’Mutiny’-Motif and Colonial Anxieties in British India,” Past &Present, no. 218 (2013): 159–97, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23360258.58public discourses. An 1876 article noted that regiments of martialized Indian men often only hadseven British officers; while this article did worry somewhat that this ratio might lead to thebreakdown of discipline, it did not mention potential disloyalty or conspiracy.147 Other articlescommented on the natural instance among martialized Indian men to “carry themselves wellwhen placed under arms” indicating that the Times of India’s editors and authors saw them asloyal to the British standard, even when armed.148 Thus, memories of martialized Indian men’sloyalty and truthfulness during the Rebellion helped to shape other discourses on militarycomposition.The Times of India’s writers’ frequent references to memories of Indian men during theRebellion also helped to cement new understandings of race. Indeed, categories of ‘martial’ and‘non-martial’ races became part of colonial military recruiting policy during this period, withelaborate taxonomies of Indian men’s racial characteristics dictating what groups should berecruited from.149 One characteristic of non-martial races, which comprised nonmartializedIndian men, was disloyalty.150 Meanwhile, martialized Indian men’s inherent loyalty and honestyhelped define them as ‘martial’. Interestingly, historian Prem Chowdhry observes thatmartialized Indian men internalized British portrayals of them as loyal. “Clearly,” he writes,“loyalty, as symbolized by the militarized groups, had come to be firmly associated withmasculinity in this region and disloyalty as feminine and effeminate.”151 Overall, memories of151 Prem Chowdhry, “Militarized Masculinities: Shaped and Reshaped in Colonial South-East Punjab,” ModernAsian Studies 47, no. 3 (2013): 731, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24494165.150 Gavin Rand, “‘Martial Races’ and ‘Imperial Subjects’: Violence and Governance in Colonial India, 1857–1914,”European Review of History: Revue Européenne d’histoire 13, no. 1 (March 1, 2006): 15,https://doi.org/10.1080/13507480600586726.149Rekha Yadav, “Popular Religious Traditions, British Military Recruitment and the Social Construction ofMasculinity in Colonial Haryana.”148 “Editorial Article 2 -- No Title,” The Times of India (1861-2010), August 13, 1884, 2.147 H. M. Havelock, “The Indian Army: To the Editor of the Times,” The Times of India (1861-2010), June 15, 1876,4.59the Rebellion helped reinforce and perpetuate connections between martialized masculinity,qualities of martial race status, and loyalty.Martiality and Physical SkillMartialized Indian men’s military conduct continued to be favorably portrayed inreminiscences of the Rebellion. Gurkha soldiers were recalled to have done “excellent service”in 1857, with the same article describing them as “brave soldiers and awkward customers toencounter when they came to close waters.”152 Sikh regiments, meanwhile, had performed“imperishable deeds of valour” in suppressing the Rebellion.153 One author used martializedIndian men’s military conduct in 1857 as proof that “India, as a school for soldiers, cannot besurpassed, and even presents opportunities which few others can afford.”154 Clearly, martializedIndian men’s military conduct during the Rebellion was recalled favorably. They were celebratedfor being brave, well-conducted, and skilled at warfare, in contrast with their pre-Rebelliondepiction as cowardly brutes.This laudatory coverage of martialized Indian men’s military conduct and skill during theRebellion had a significant influence on the Times of India’s authors’ retellings of theirpre-Rebellion wars with the British. The newspaper’s writers often radically recast theirhistorical military conduct, demonstrating the impact of the Rebellion on depictions ofmasculinity. An 1883 article argued that in 1844, Sikh soldiers had “proved to us that they werenot foes to be despised [...] The Sikh soldiers, though basely betrayed by their leaders, defendedtheir entrenchments like heroes.”155 Similarly, another author noted in 1889 that “no soldiers everfought more splendidly than did the Sikhs in that grand struggle they had with us for the155 “Life of John Lawrence: First Notice,” The Times of India (1861-2010), April 14, 1883, 5.154 “The Indian Exhibition: Models of Indian Soldiers,” The Times of India (1861-2010), August 3, 1886, 5-6.153 “The Indian Exhibition: Models of Indian Soldiers,” The Times of India (1861-2010), August 3, 1886, 5-6.152 “The Indian Exhibition: Models of Indian Soldiers,” The Times of India (1861-2010), August 3, 1886, 5-6.60Punjab.”156 While these wars were occurring, the Times of India’s contributors had framed theirmasculinities as barbaric yet cowardly. However, the Rebellion and its attendant changingrelationships with the state had so profoundly reshaped the newspaper’s portrayals of martializedmasculinities that its authors were engaged in rewriting history to fit the new understandings ofmasculinity that emerged from 1857.Additionally, the Rebellion affected the Times of India’s coverage of martialized men’scontemporary military conduct. A Times of India correspondent gushed that martialized Indiansoldiers “will be the flower of the Army of Upper India, and our European friends will see howadmirably Asiatic mercenaries comport themselves under English training and leadership.”157Beyond the military context, the newspaper’s reporting on police conduct also invoked thestereotypes of masculinity established by the Rebellion. An 1899 article reported that “theenquiry reveals many acts of heroism to the greatest possible credit of the police. Wherever thenative police had a leader they readily and willingly risked their lives. In two cases only thepolice declined to leave their post without leaders, but had these little Gurkha policemen beenled, they would have maintained their reputation for bravery. The people speak highly of thedash and daring of the police, especially of Mr. O’Connor, Inspector-in-Charge, who led one ofhis Gurkhas where others feared to go.”158 This article did observe that British leadership wasnecessary, implying that masculinity was contingent on being under British control. Generally,though, martialized men were being portrayed as courageous, even in a civil context. Meanwhile,another article defended Sikh policemen against charges of excessive brutality because of theirmasculine tendency to bravery and restraint. Its author insisted that the accuser “could never158OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT, “The Darjeeling Catastrophe: Behaviour of the Police the Arcadia Children,”The Times of India (1861-2010), October 5, 1899, 5.157H. M. Havelock, “The Indian Army: To the Editor of the Times,” The Times of India (1861-2010), June 15, 1876,4 (emphasis original); “Article 13 -- No Title,” The Times of India (1861-2010), October 24, 1885, 5156PEN, “Celebrities at Home: Jack Sepoy,” The Times of India (1861-2010), September 21, 1889, 4.61have seen the Sikh police in action, or he would have known that whatever their faults may be nobody of men have ever shown greater gallantry.”159 Therefore, the portrayals of martializedmen’s military conduct during the Rebellion continued to influence the Times of India’s authors’portrayal of martialized Indian masculinities. They were portrayed as brave, skilled, andwell-behaved police and soldiers, just as they had been in 1857.By shaping the portrayal of martialized Indian men’s military conduct and skill, theRebellion also continued to shape notions of race and martiality. The Times of India’scorrespondents heaped praise on martialized men’s bravery and good conduct, helping toassociate those traits with their status as ‘martial races’. Additionally, military skill and conductgrowingly connoted physical traits. While the newspaper’s writers did not reference physicalskill in direct connection with the Rebellion, it linked notions of martialized men’s militaryconduct and skill with the Rebellion, and then correlated physical and military skill, thereforeindirectly linking them. An 1876 article emphasized “that the men are of finer physique andselected from more martial races than before the Mutiny,”160 whereas before the Rebellion, men’sbodies were not commented upon. Similarly, an 1892 writer noted that “both the Cavalry andInfantry are [...] of excellent physique,” specifying that they were made up of Gurkha and Dogramen.161 As the Times of India’s contributors strengthened the link between the Rebellion, martialrace status, and military conduct, it also linked those traits to physical ability. Indeed, martialrace status led to similar links between physicality and masculinity in martialized communitiesthemselves. The physical capacity to inflict violence and establish control was valorized insouth-east Punjab, for example, whereas in other areas, “the stress on exclusivity, martial161 “Inspection of Cashmere Troops,” The Times of India (1861-2010), March 7, 1892, 9.160 H. M. Havelock, “The Indian Army: To the Editor of the Times,” The Times of India (1861-2010), June 15, 1876,4.159 “Serious Allegations Against Sikh Military Police,” The Times of India (1861-2010), April 17, 1894, 6.62qualities, physique and race, together with the peasant attributes of courage contributed to theconsolidation of the obsession with the masculine man.”162 Clearly courage, which the Rebellionhelped enshrine as a condition of martialized men’s masculinity, was increasingly tied to physicalskill. The Times of India’s authors and editors therefore demonstrated that similar links werebeing forged in British colonial society. Overall, the Rebellion both helped reify the definition of‘martial race’ and helped establish physical skill as an aspect of martialized masculinity morefirmly by linking military conduct, race, and physicality.Meanwhile, the Times of India’s writers’ remembrances of British men’s military conductduring the Rebellion continued to celebrate their violent retribution, while emphasizing theirheroism. One 1872 article weighed whether soldiers deserved to be prosecuted for ignoringorders not to execute rebels, implying that fear of the Rebellion justified the extrajudicialexecution of 50 men.163 Other authors celebrated stories of violence from the Rebellion: an 1894retelling of the Siege of Delhi recounted that a British officer and 50 Sikh men trapped aregiment of unarmed rebels in a building and blocked the air holes, suffocating them allovernight.164 The same article eulogized a British officer by reminding audiences that “many afaithless sepoy did he hang without trial. He had proclaimed that the punishment for mutiny wasdeath, and he never hesitated for a moment to make good his dictum.”165 British men’s violenceduring the Rebellion was therefore remembered as a mark of decisiveness and devotion to theBritish standard. British men were also celebrated for their bravery and gallantry. They werecommended for having been the last to die during massacres, illustrating their fearless defense of165 “A New Story of the Siege of Delhi,” The Times of India (1861-2010), November 24, 1894, 4.164 “A New Story of the Siege of Delhi,” The Times of India (1861-2010), November 24, 1894, 4.163“The Kooka Executions,” The Times of India (1861-2010), June 15, 1872, 3-4.162 Rekha Yadav, “Popular Religious Traditions, British Military Recruitment and the Social Construction ofMasculinity in Colonial Haryana,” Current Research Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (CRJSSH) 4, no.Special Issue (2021): 6, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/crjssh4&i=211.63other British combatants and positions.166 The Times of India’s contributors lionized British menfor their skill and courage: for example, Sir Hope Grant and his men “had fought so gallantly” torelieve Lucknow, while those who held onto Lucknow were noted for their ceaselessdetermination.167 In general, the newspaper justified British men’s violence during the Rebellion,and mythologized their courage as singular. The Times of India’s authors’ interest in stories ofheroics in 1857 helped reinforce the portrayals of British masculine military conduct that hademerged during the Rebellion.Similarly to martialized Indian masculinities, the Times of India’s correspondents beganto draw on stories of British men’s superior military conduct, established through memories ofthe Rebellion, to emphasize their physical skill. Physical prowess had long been an element ofBritish masculinity. However, historians John Tosh and Bradley Deane note that a succession ofperceived embarrassments in colonial wars, beginning with the Rebellion, sparked fears thatBritish men were physically degenerating. As a result, after 1857, British public schools began toreemphasize physicality to prepare young men for colonial service.168 Deane further finds thatBritish men were borrowing elements of Indian masculinity, suggesting a more complicatedrelationship between masculinity and race: the Times of India’s contributors drew sharpdiscursive boundaries between Indian and British masculinities, while subtly adopting someelements of Indian masculinity for themselves.169 As the Times of India’s editors and writersbegan to highlight martialized Indian men’s physical skill in connection with their service duringthe Rebellion, it also started to attribute similar qualities to British men, particularly through169 Bradley Deane, Masculinity and the New Imperialism: Rewriting Manhood in British Popular Literature,1870–1914, 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 3, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107588806.168 John Tosh, Manliness and Masculinities in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Essays on Gender, Family and Empire(London: Routledge, 2016), 196-198, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838533.167 “Article 8 -- No Title,” The Times of India (1861-2010), June 7, 1884, 4; “Lucknow,” The Times of India(1861-2010), November 24, 1888, 4.166 “A New Story of the Siege of Delhi,” The Times of India (1861-2010), November 24, 1894, 4.64coverage of sports. Although this change cannot be completely explained by the impact of theRebellion on masculinities, it was partially triggered by memories of British men’s militaryconduct in 1857. The post-1857 decades saw an exponential increase in coverage of cricket,rugby, shooting, and more, tethering notions of strong British masculinity to physical ability.Additionally, British women were encouraged to seek out athletic men as partners. After all, “itis true these athletes do not shine in conversation [...] but then these are mere trifles, not to beweighted in the balance with chest measurement, or the ability to score a hundred in a first classmatch.”170 In attempting to convince female readers of the suitability of athletic men perhaps notblessed with social grace, the author indicated the increasing importance of physical traits.British men were now praised for being “forty inches round the chest, and able to do their mile inmost creditable time.”171 Another article sported a subsection titled “Englishman’s Love ofManly Games”, which argued that sports like cricket and racing were in fact explicitly masculinepursuits.172 While retrospective coverage of the Rebellion did not necessarily touch on physicalskill, it helped link notions of military conduct and skill to physical prowess. Therefore,memories of British men’s glory in suppressing the Rebellion necessitated a new emphasis onBritish men’s ability in sports.Meanwhile, the Times of India’s authors’ and editors’ recollections of Rebellioncontinued to remind readers that nonmartialized Indian men were barbaric and violent; it alsofocused its coverage on the Rebellion’s leaders, omitting nonmartialized men from the narrativeof the Rebellion in many cases. When the newspaper’s contributors did invoke nonmartializedIndian men’s actions in the Rebellion, it was certain to emphasize their poor military conduct. An1891 article on human sacrifice declared that “when we read then as in the Mutiny narratives, or172 “The Native Papers,” The Times of India (1861-2010), August 24, 1891, 6.171 “Article 14 -- No Title,” The Times of India (1861-2010), November 20, 1886, 4.170 “Article 14 -- No Title,” The Times of India (1861-2010), November 20, 1886, 4.65in the story of the terrible event which has just shaken Indian society to its very depths, not onlyof deliberate slaughter, but even of the mutilation of the victims, it is well to remember that theidea of human sacrifice is one which is thoroughly familiar to the native mind…”173 TheRebellion clearly continued to prove to the Times of India’s authors and audiences thatnonmartialized men were uniquely barbaric, even retroactively erasing mentions of theirgallantry and bravery prior to 1857. However, the newspaper tended to focus on the Rebellion’sleaders, such as Tantia Topee and Nana Sahib, while erasing mentions of regiments or individualsoldiers. For example, when Nana Sahib— the son of a prince and a noted leader of theRebellion— was alleged to have been captured in 1874, the Times of India devoted an entirearticle to recounting his deeds, attributing to him sole responsibility for the massacre atCawnpore.174 By doing this, the author deemphasized the actions of the men supporting him.Nonmartialized Indian men’s behavior during the Rebellion therefore became abstract, with thefocus on their leaders and on British heroism. They themselves disappeared in many cases. Thus,the Times of India’s coverage of the Rebellion tended to omit them from its narratives, focusinginstead on the villainy of its leaders and the heroics of British men. When they were mentioned,they were still cast as barbaric, but overall they were absent.The newspaper’s invocations of their barbarity during the Rebellion did help shape itscoverage of nonmartialized men beyond recollections of 1857. While they were no longer thetargets of military recruitment, and therefore were not generally described in military news,nonmartialized men made up significant proportions of colonial Indian police forces.175 TheTimes of India’s contributors both drew from and contributed to reshaped masculinities by175 Deana Heath, “Bureaucracy, Power and Violence in Colonial India: The Role of Indian Subalterns,” in Empiresand Bureaucracy in World History: From Late Antiquity to the Twentieth Century, ed. Peter Crooks and Timothy H.Parsons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 364–90, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316694312.016.174 “THE ENGLISH PRESS ON THE CAPTUEE OF NANA SAHIB: Times, Oct. 22 Daily News, Oct. 23 DailyTelegraph, Oct. 23 Standard, Oct. 23 Hour, Oct. 23,” The Times of India (1861-2010), November 13, 1874, 1-3.173 “Human Sacrifice,” The Times of India (1861-2010), April 18, 1891, 6.66portraying nonmartialized Indian men as violent and barbaric in police contexts. One 1874 articleobserved that the author saw “the subordinate ranks of the police, such as chief constables andinspectors, daily recruited from the worst class of natives in point of ignorance &c., being mostlyMahomedan sons of decayed sowars, &c., Dhairs, and a few Brahmins; the latter are the best asbeing more astute, by their religion enjoined and by nature averse to cause unnecessary painalthough sometimes found corrupt, but the two first are ignorant, heartless, and cruel to adegree.”176 Others further described nonmartialized Indian officers’ propensity to torturesuspects.177 Although these articles did not directly reference the Rebellion, they built on thesame tropes of nonmartialized Indian masculinities that emerged from 1857. This was supportedby the Times of India’s writers’ different handlings of allegations of police misconduct: asestablished earlier, when martialized Indian men were accused of it, the newspaper’scorrespondents defended them on the basis of their historical gallantry. Nonmartialized men,meanwhile, were already understood to be cruel and brutal, so the newspaper’s contributorsaccepted that they were guilty of torture. Coverage of policing in colonial India thereforedemonstrated the influence of the Rebellion on understandings of masculinity: nonmartial Indianmen were accepted to be violent, sadistic, and barbaric in enforcing the law.Simultaneously, the abstraction of nonmartial Indian men from narratives of theRebellion helped reinforce their status as ‘non-martial’ and physically weak by stripping them ofany historical military skill. Mrinalini Sinha traces the stereotype of the ‘babu’ or effeminateBengali man, who was educated and strove for roles in the colonial government. She notes thatin colonial Indian society, “the degeneration of the body of the elite Hindu male” was a signifier177 “Article 20 -- No Title,” The Times of India (1861-2010), June 15, 1872, 3; “Article 11 -- No Title,” The Times ofIndia (1861-2010), June 15, 1876, 3.176 OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT, “Police Torture,” The Times of India (1861-2010), August 26, 1874, 3.67of effeminacy and non-martiality.178 Indeed, nonmartialized Indian men’s lack of martial ability,reinforced by the frequent absence of combatants from memories of 1857, was also connected totheir supposed physical inability. One 1874 article observed that “nature gives the ‘mild Hindu’”a warning “that his physical frame is incapable of enduring the wear and tear of the grosser formof the struggle for the right to live,” clearly indicating a belief that nonmartialized men’s lack ofmilitary ability also indicated physical weakness.179 A later editorial explicitly connectedmartialized men’s physical skill to nonmartialized men’s lack: “the Babu is not as the Punjabi inphysique nor as John Bull in aptitude for self-control, and he knows it.”180 These articles stand inclear contrast to coverage of nonmartialized men prior to the Rebellion, which proclaimed themto be skilled soldiers who conducted themselves admirably under British guidance. Therefore,while they did not directly reference the Rebellion, the Times of India’s authors and editors drewfrom the disappearance of nonmartialized men from memories of 1857 to label them asphysically weak and non-martial.Threats and Saviors: Masculinity and British FemininityWhile nonmartialized Indian men were depicted as sexually threatening during theRebellion, retrospective coverage in the Times of India generally did not invoke the same tropesin the decades afterwards. According to historians Alex Tickell and Penelope Tuson, Britishinvestigations after the Rebellion found no evidence to substantiate stories of sexual violence andrape, which perhaps accounted for its disappearance from the newspaper’s retrospectivecoverage.181 As a result, nonmartial Indian men were not directly linked with sexual violence in181 Alex Tickell, “Cawnpore, Kipling and Charivari: 1857 and the Politics of Commemoration,” 4; Penelope Tuson,“Mutiny Narratives and the Imperial Feminine,” 296.180 “Editorial Article 1 -- No Title,” The Times of India (1861-2010), August 31, 1891, 4.179 “Article 10 -- No Title,” The Times of India (1861-2010), July 15, 1874, 3.178 Mrinalini Sinha, Colonial Masculinity: The “manly Englishman” and the “Effeminate Bengali” in the LateNineteenth Century, Studies in Imperialism (Manchester ; New York : New York: Manchester University Press ;Distributed exclusively in the USA and Canada by St. Martin’s Press, 1995), 7.68the same manner as during the Rebellion, even in news coverage that directly referenced it.Nevertheless, audiences were reminded that nonmartial Indian men had been responsible forphysical violence against British women. An 1861 article recounted two nonmartial Indian men’smurder of two women during the Rebellion, referring to them as “the butchers.”182 Anotherreminisced that thirty years prior, England’s “ungrateful sons rose in mutiny” and “killed everyEnglishman, woman, and child they could lay their hands upon.”183 Thus, althoughnonmartialized Indian men were not explicitly remembered to be sexual threats, they continuedto be portrayed as physically threatening to British women.This sense of threat manifested in coverage of later rebellions, riots, and disturbances;nonmartialized Indian men were assumed to be physical threats to British women. Onecorrespondent described a group of five British women, traveling back to their homes andinadvertently caught in a riot. He narrated that “you, therefore, can easily imagine the danger inwhich five English ladies, in two ticca gharries, would be in such a place and at such a time. Thecrowd gathered about them jeering and shouting— a few screamed out ‘maro, maro’-- and thereseemed no chance of their escape.”184 Implied was the notion that Indian men were widelyviewed as threatening; after all, the author relied on their presence in the crowd to imply that thiswas a dangerous situation to be in. A different author urged heavy policing of the same riot,arguing that “any leniency now will show weakness, and as the Europeans and Christians havebeen singled out— even defenceless women and children— stern and just measures should beadopted to put a stop once and for all to this lawlessness…”185 Even though nonmartial Indianmen were no longer sexual threats, they were still shown to be physically threatening to women.185 A. RATE PAYER, “The Riot and Its Instigators: To the Editor of the Times of India,” The Times of India(1861-2010), March 11, 1898, 4.184 AN ENGLISHMAN, “Ladies and the Rioters: To the Editor of the Times of India,” The Times of India(1861-2010), March 11, 1898, 4.183 “The Native Papers,” The Times of India (1861-2010), August 24, 1891, 6.182 “Article 5 -- No Title,” The Times of India (1861-2010), July 15, 1861, 3.69Meanwhile, the Times of India’s reporting on memories of the Rebellion continued toreinforce British men’s responsibility to protect British women. Stories of the heroism of Britishofficers in putting down the Rebellion emphasized their rescue of British women andprioritization of women’s safety. One 1878 article justified the evacuation of the Residency atIndore by emphasizing the presence of 11 women and children, implying that those 11 needed tobe protected even if it meant giving up the Residency.186 Another related the dying orders of SirHugh Lawrence at Lucknow: “‘Let every man,’ he said, ‘die at his post, but never make terms.God help the poor women and children.’ With his last words he bequeathed to the care of hiscountry the children of the British soldiers who had been the special objects of his charity duringhis noble and unselfish life.”187 British men’s noble deaths in service of keeping women andchildren safe underscored the responsibility of British men to safeguard British women. Further,Penelope Tuson postulates that British officials were relieved to find no evidence of sexualviolence, even though British women had been murdered: it exonerated British men from anyfailure of their masculine duty to protect British women’s morality and to enforce the barrierbetween masculinity and femininity.188 Therefore, even when British men had failed and womenhad been killed, they had still kept British women from being dishonored. However, thisresponsibility rarely showed up in news coverage that did not directly reference the Rebellion.One 1892 article did reference British men’s responsibility to provide for British women, and inproclaiming nonmartialized Indian men as a threat to British women the Times of India’scontributors designated British men as responsible for handling it.189 Otherwise, however, thenewspaper’s authors rarely invoked British men’s duty to protect.189“The Uncovenanted Civil Service Family Pension Fund,” The Times of India (1861-2010), March 7, 1892, 9; A.RATE PAYER, “The Riot and Its Instigators: To the Editor of the Times of India,” The Times of India (1861-2010),March 11, 1898, 4.188 Tuson, “Mutiny Narratives and the Imperial Feminine,” 296.187 “Lucknow,” The Times of India (1861-2010), November 24, 1888, 4.186 OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT, “Our Military Letter,” The Times of India (1861-2010), June 15, 1878, 2.70Finally, martialized Indian men were still shown to seldom interact with British women,both in retrospective coverage of the Rebellion and in coverage of contemporary events;however, when they did, they were not depicted as a threat. While martialized Indian men werebrave, gallant, and loyal during the Rebellion, the glory and praise for protecting British womenwas reserved for British men. Coverage of later events similarly almost never detailedinteractions between martialized Indian men and British women. When it did, martialized Indianmen were generally not a threat, and properly interacted with the British feminine sphere. Anarticle describing a bandit raid on a British fort praised a Sikh orderly for “extraordinarilygallant” conduct, emphasizing his protection of and genteel interaction with the author’s wife.190Additionally, a fascinating 1893 article mentioned that “Sikh rajahs and nobles have notinfrequently taken a Christian bride [...] But the young lady whose wedding is announced hasfollowed the dutiful conduct of Ruth all through, as we are told, accepting her husband’s faithwith his hand.”191 The author remarked that this “change of circumstances is most strikinglydisplayed by the fact— if we can credit it— that ‘all the leading Europeans in the Patiala State’were present at the marriage of an English woman who had abjured her Christian creed, in aheathen temple.”192 This article demonstrated a surprising acceptance of British women marryingmartialized Indian men, and further indicated that British colonial society accepted theserelationships. Notably absent is a sense of physical or sexual threat. Instead, martialized menwere portrayed as being able to properly engage with the British feminine sphere throughcourtship and marriage, unlike nonmartialized men who threatened British women. Therefore,while martialized Indian men were not portrayed as interacting with British women in192 “Article 3 -- No Title,” The Times of India (1861-2010), May 1, 1893, 7.191 “Article 3 -- No Title,” The Times of India (1861-2010), May 1, 1893, 7.190 “The Raid at Mandalay Fort: Statement of Major ... Statement of Lieutenant Harington,” The Times of India(1861-2010), October 28, 1897, 6.71retrospectives of the Rebellion, they were also not shown to be as threatening as nonmartializedIndian men.Memory and PowerThe Times of India’s contributors continued to use depictions of masculinity to eitherstrip or reinforce men’s power in the aftermath of the Rebellion. Non-martialized men were stillperceived as threatening, as demonstrated by colonial responses to rumors of conspiracies andmilitary service. The newspaper’s contributors denied that threat by emphasizing their lack ofconformity with standards of proper masculinity, such as their dishonesty, barbarity, andthreatening interactions with British women. The Times of India’s writers also began to portraythem as physically weak, and demonstrated that they did not interact with British women unlessthey improperly crossed the boundaries of masculine and feminine. Meanwhile, martializedIndian men were not perceived as particularly threatening or powerful, because they were underBritish control, and were thus portrayed as having masculine qualities such as physical strengthand honesty. Newspaper articles indeed emphasized that martialized police officers, for example,were only brave when led by British officers, and martialized Indian men’s military units werecommanded by British men. Therefore, when martialized men lacked power, they were treated asmasculine. Further, while they rarely interacted with British women, when they did so, theyconformed to standards of proper masculinity by courting and marrying them. Finally, Britishmen were still allowed to be both powerful and masculine; portrayals of their masculinity indeedhelped increase their perceived power. The Times of India’s writers portrayed them as physicallystrong, militarily powerful, and able to interact with British women and colonial domesticity,helping reestablish readers’ sense of their control over colonial India. Further, this once againindicated that understandings of power and masculinity were also shaped by race, as only British72men could be powerful and manly. Overall, the Rebellion of 1857 continued to exert influenceon depictions of both Indian and British masculinities, even decades after its suppression. Thesemasculinities shaped how the Rebellion was remembered, how unrelated events were discussed,and how power was perceived in colonial India.ConclusionThe Rebellion of 1857 had a significant impact on the Times of India’s depictions ofmasculinity, even decades after it had been extinguished. The newspaper’s correspondentsfrequently referenced and remembered the Rebellion, reifying the stereotypes of Indian andBritish masculinities that emerged during it. These portrayals continued to emphasizenonmartialized Indian men’s deceptiveness, lack of military skill, barbarity, and threateninginteractions with British women. Simultaneously, the Times of India’s writers fondly recalledmartialized Indian men’s military skill and loyalty, while British men’s heroism and dedication toBritish women, irrespective of their failure to protect them, continued to frame memories of1857. These portrayals of masculinity also leached into the newspaper’s coverage of unrelatedevents, as well. martialized police officers, for example, were celebrated for their conduct andskill, whereas nonmartialized police officers were renowned for torturing suspects. These samemen were constantly suspected of concealing schemes to exaggerate famines or to rebel again.British men, meanwhile, were portrayed as excellent sportsmen and guardians of British women.Clearly, the Rebellion of 1857 continued to exert a notable influence on masculinity in the Timesof India long after it had been put out.73ConclusionThe Rebellion of 1857 triggered countless changes to understandings of masculinity incolonial Indian society. British men’s masculinity continued to rely on narratives of militaryheroism, but their responsibility to British women shifted slightly from providing to protecting,while carefully denying any sense of failure when British women were killed. Their physicalprowess was also emphasized in response to the Rebellion, as was their exemplary militaryconduct. EIC-subject/nonmartialized Indian men, meanwhile, transformed from loyal subjects inneed of a little character reform and leadership to simultaneously savage threats and weakcowards. They were perpetually assumed to be concealing plots and plans, and threatenedcolonial society. Non-EIC-subject/martialized Indian men, finally, morphed from distantbarbarians along the colony’s borders to exemplary soldiers possessed of innate military skill andability; they were trusted to be loyal to the colonial state, and did not pose a threat to Britishwomen. These radical changes to the very definitions of manhood in colonial India demonstratethe deep and lasting impact of the Rebellion of 1857.Similarly, changing masculinities led to changing definitions of race. While a racialhierarchy topped by British men existed much earlier than 1839, the Rebellion’s reshapedstereotypes of masculinity would eventually become the defining characteristics of both ‘martialraces’ and ‘non-martial races’. Indeed, masculine traits were ascribed biological origins in theaftermath of the Rebellion. Therefore, by triggering reimaginings of manliness, the Rebellionalso triggered redefinitions of race. This analysis of the Rebellion of 1857 certainly demonstrateshow masculinities changed, but it also showcases the deep and rapid changes to many of theassumptions and beliefs undergirding colonial society.This exploration of the influence of the Rebellion of 1857 on the Times of India’sinvocations of masculinity necessarily leaves some stones unturned, opening up several avenues74for further research. For example, it focuses on the Times of India, which served English-readingaudiences. It primarily reflects how British and English-educated Indian people viewedmasculinities, rather than broader Indian communities’ perspectives. Further research mightutilize some of the dizzying array of vernacular newspapers to understand how Indians definedIndian and British masculinity before, during, and after the Rebellion. Similarly, further researchmight invoke sources beyond newspapers, to understand how other genres reflected changingmasculinities. Historians have pursued studies on the Rebellion’s influence on British fictionwriting, but currently magazines, cartoons, pamphlets, Indian fiction, and more have beenignored. These sources might provide further insight into the many avenues that channeled theRebellion into new masculinities. The Times of India is invaluable for understandingEnglish-language discourses of masculinity in news coverage, but innumerable other genres andsources both influenced masculinity and carried on themes of Rebellion. This thesis thereforeopens up many avenues of future inquiry.The Times of India’s coverage before, during, and after the Rebellion of 1857demonstrated changing understandings of masculinity and race, as well as the interplay betweengender and power dynamics. Within the newspaper, masculinities were redefined as Indian men’srelationship to the state changed; these new understandings then bled into coverage of unrelatedissues. They also helped establish the characteristics that would come to define martial racetheory. Further, masculinity was used to temper perceptions of threat and power.Nonmartialized/EIC-subject Indian men were understood to be threatening; this depiction bothhelped shape and was shaped by masculinity, which emasculated them. Similarly,martialized/non-EIC-subject/EIC-newcomer Indian men were emasculated when they posed athreat to the colonial state, but portrayed as masculine when they were seen to be under control.75Overall, the Rebellion of 1857’s impact on British and Indian masculinities not only redefinedwhat it meant to be a man in colonial India; it also reshaped race and power, demonstrating boththe mutability of gender and its ramifications for other social structures.76BibliographyPrimary SourcesThe Times of India (1838-2010). ProQuest Historical Newspapers.Secondary SourcesArondekar, Anjali R. For the Record: On Sexuality and the Colonial Archive in India. NextWave. Durham, [NC] London: Duke Univ. Press, 2009.Banerjee, Swapna M. “The Familial and the Familiar: In Search of Fathers and Children inIndian History.” In Fathers in a Motherland, by Swapna M. Banerjee, C1-C1.N1, 1st ed.Oxford University Press Delhi, 2022.https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9789391050245.003.0001.Bates, Crispin. Mutiny at the Margins: New Perspectives on the Indian Uprising of 1857:Volume I: Anticipations and Experiences in the Locality. VII vols. Mutiny at the Margins,I. SAGE Publications, 2013.Bates, Crispin, and Marina Carter. Mutiny at the Margins: New Perspectives on the IndianUprising of 1857: Volume 7: Documents of the Indian Uprising. First Edition. MathuraRoad, New Delhi, 2017. https://doi.org/10.4135/9789353287726.Bettle, Madison A. “Unmade and Unmanned Men: Reading Traumatized Masculinity in LateNineteenth-Century British Adventure Fiction Through the Lens of the Indian ‘Mutiny’of 1857.” Ph.D., The University of Western Ontario (Canada), 2021.https://www.proquest.com/docview/2714900708/abstract/A911542B75EF4E62PQ/1.Blunt, Alison. “Embodying War: British Women and Domestic Defilement in the Indian‘Mutiny’, 1857–8.” Journal of Historical Geography 26, no. 3 (July 1, 2000): 403–28.https://doi.org/10.1006/jhge.2000.0236.Bonea, Amelia. “3 Journalists and Journalism in Nineteenth-Century India.” In The News ofEmpire: Telegraphy, Journalism, and the Politics of Reporting in Colonial India, c.1830-1900, n.d.———. “Making News and Views: Colonial Policy and the Role of Reuters.” In The News ofEmpire: Telegraphy, Journalism, and the Politics of Reporting in Colonial India, c.1830–1900. Oxford University Press, 2016.https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199467129.001.0001.Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Thinking Gender. NewYork: Routledge, 1990.Chakravarty, Gautam. The Indian Mutiny and the British Imagination. Cambridge Studies inNineteenth-Century Literature and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2005. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511484759.77Chatterjee, Indrani. “When ‘Sexuality’ Floated Free of Histories in South Asia.” The Journal ofAsian Studies 71, no. 4 (November 2012): 945–62.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021911812001246.Chowdhry, Prem. “Militarized Masculinities: Shaped and Reshaped in Colonial South-EastPunjab.” Modern Asian Studies 47, no. 3 (2013): 713–50.https://www.jstor.org/stable/24494165.Codell, Julie F. “Introduction: The Nineteenth-Century News from India.” Victorian PeriodicalsReview 37, no. 2 (2004): 106–23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20084001.Constable, Philip. “The Marginalization of a Dalit Martial Race in Late Nineteenth- and EarlyTwentieth-Century Western India.” The Journal of Asian Studies 60, no. 2 (2001):439–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/2659700.Crane, Ralph, and Radhika Mohanram. “Gender/ Mutiny in Edwardian Fiction: Charles Pearce’sFiction of 1857.” Gender Forum, no. 43 (2013): N_A. https://go.exlibris.link/TP8bbpF6.Danahay, Martin A. Gender at Work in Victorian Culture: Literature, Art and Masculinity.London: Routledge, 2016. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315254654.Deane, Bradley. Masculinity and the New Imperialism: Rewriting Manhood in British PopularLiterature, 1870–1914. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, 2014.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107588806.Dharwadker, Vinay. “Print Culture and Literary Markets in Colonial India.” In LanguageMachines: Technologies of Literary and Cultural Production, edited by Jeffrey MastenVickers Peter Stallybrass, Nancy J. New York: Routledge, 2016.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315786872.Doss, M. Christhu. “Pedagogy of the ‘Secluded’ Women and Changing Femininity in ColonialIndia, 1830s–1930s.” Paedagogica Historica 0, no. 0 (2023): 1–24.https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2023.2210067.Erll, Astrid. “Re-Writing as Re-Visioning.” European Journal of English Studies 10, no. 2(August 1, 2006): 163–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825570600753485.Farooqui, Amar. “‘Divide and Rule’? Race, Military Recruitment and Society in Late NineteenthCentury Colonial India.” Social Scientist 43, no. 3/4 (2015): 49–59.https://www.jstor.org/stable/24372935.Fhlathúin, Máire Ní. “The Campaign against Thugs in the Bengal Press of the 1830s.” VictorianPeriodicals Review 37, no. 2 (2004): 124–40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20084002.Finkle, Clea T. “State, Power, and Police in Colonial North India.” University of Washington,1999.Ghosh, Durba. “Making and Un-Making Loyal Subjects: Pensioning Widows and EducatingOrphans in Early Colonial India.” The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History31, no. 1 (January 1, 2003): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/714002216.78———. “Who Counts as ‘Native?’: Gender, Race, and Subjectivity in Colonial India.” Journalof Colonialism and Colonial History 6, no. 3 (2005).https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/192172.Gilmartin, David. “Cattle, Crime and Colonialism: Property as Negotiation in North India.” TheIndian Economic & Social History Review 40, no. 1 (January 2003): 33–56.https://doi.org/10.1177/001946460304000102.Grey, Daniel J. R. “Importing Gendered Legal Reasoning from England: Wife Murders in EarlyColonial India, 1805–1857.” Cultural and Social History 14, no. 4 (August 8, 2017):483–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780038.2017.1329123.Griffin, Ben. The Politics of Gender in Victorian Britain: Masculinity, Political Culture and theStruggle for Women’s Rights. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, 2012.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057530.de Groot, Joanna. “Depicting Conflict in India in 1857-8: The Instabilities of Gender, Violence,and Colonialism.” Cultural and Social History 14, no. 4 (August 8, 2017): 463–82.https://doi.org/10.1080/14780038.2017.1329129.Gupta, Abhijit. The Spread of Print in Colonial India: Into the Hinterland. 1st ed. CambridgeUniversity Press, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108979870.Gupta, Charu. “Anxious Hindu Masculinities in Colonial North India: Shuddhi and SangathanMovements.” CrossCurrents 61, no. 4 (2011): 441–54.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-3881.2011.00194.x.———. “Women, Gender and Sexuality: Changing Historiographies of Colonial India—ABibliographical Essay.” Studies in People’s History 7, no. 2 (December 2020): 192–204.https://doi.org/10.1177/2348448920951548.———. “Writing Sex and Sexuality: Archives of Colonial North India.” Journal of Women’sHistory 23, no. 4 (2011): 12–35. https://doi.org/10.1353/jowh.2011.0050.Gupta, Uma Das. “The Indian Press 1870-1880: A Small World of Journalism.” Modern AsianStudies 11, no. 2 (1977): 213–35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/311549.Hart, Catherine. “‘Oh What Horrors Will Be Disclosed When We Know All.’” Prose Studies 34,no. 3 (December 1, 2012): 185–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/01440357.2012.751258Heath, Deana. “Bureaucracy, Power and Violence in Colonial India: The Role of IndianSubalterns.” In Empires and Bureaucracy in World History: From Late Antiquity to theTwentieth Century, edited by Peter Crooks and Timothy H. Parsons, 364–90. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316694312.016.———. “The Facilitators I: Policing.” In Colonial Terror, by Deana Heath, 69–105. OxfordUniversity Press, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192893932.003.0003.79———. “Torture, the State, and Sexual Violence against Men in Colonial India.” Radical HistoryReview 2016, no. 126 (October 1, 2016): 122–33.https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-3594469.Herbert, Christopher. War of No Pity: The Indian Mutiny and Victorian Trauma. Princeton (N.J.):Princeton University Press, 2008.Hirschmann, Edwin. “The Hidden Roots of a Great Newspaper: Calcutta’s ‘Statesman.’”Victorian Periodicals Review 37, no. 2 (2004): 141–60.https://www.jstor.org/stable/20084003.Imy, Kate. “Sex, Power, and Resistance in Colonial South and Southeast Asia.” In TheRoutledge Companion to Sexuality and Colonialism. Routledge, 2021.Jha, Madhavi. “‘Men Diggers and Women Carriers’: Gendered Work on Famine Public Works inColonial North India.” International Review of Social History 65, no. 1 (April 2020):71–98. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859019000579.Kapila, Shruti. “Masculinity and Madness: Princely Personhood and Colonial Sciences of theMind in Western India 1871-1940.” Past & Present, no. 187 (2005): 121–56.https://www.jstor.org/stable/3600708.Kapila, Shruti. Violent Fraternity: Indian Political Thought in the Global Age. PrincetonUniversity Press, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691215754.Kolsky, Elizabeth. “No ‘Signs of Weakness’: Gendered Violence and Masculine Authority on theNorth-West Frontier of British India.” Modern Asian Studies 55, no. 3 (May 2021):902–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X19000398.Mani, Lata. “Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India.” Cultural Critique,no. 7 (1987): 119–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/1354153.Nandy, Ashis. The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism. Delhi:Oxford, 1983. https://go.exlibris.link/Nw5tSnKK.Omissi, David. “‘Martial Races’: Ethnicity and Security in Colonial India 1858-1939.” In TheRise and Fall of Modern Empires, Volume I, edited by Owen White, n.d.Ortner, Sherry B. “Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture?” Feminist Studies 1, no. 2 (1972):5–31. https://doi.org/10.2307/3177638.Perusek, Darshan. “Subaltern Consciousness and the Historiography of the Indian Rebellion of1857.” NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction 25, no. 3 (1992): 286–301.https://doi.org/10.2307/1345889.Phillips, Amanda Lynn. “Masculinity in Peril: Mutiny Fiction and Victorian Man-Making.”M.A., The University of Alabama. Accessed November 22, 2023.https://www.proquest.com/docview/304842507/abstract/7A08EDB0A536483FPQ/1.80Prasad, Nita Verma. “Remaking Her Family for the Judges: Hindu Widows and Property Rightsin the Colonial Courts of North India, 1875–1911.” Journal of Colonialism and ColonialHistory 14, no. 3 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1353/cch.2013.0046.Prasad, Ritika. “Imprimatur as Adversary: Press Freedom and Colonial Governance in India,1780–1823.” Modern Asian Studies 55, no. 2 (March 2021): 335–70.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X19000374.Rand, Gavin. “‘Martial Races’ and ‘Imperial Subjects’: Violence and Governance in ColonialIndia, 1857–1914.” European Review of History: Revue Européenne d’histoire 13, no. 1(March 1, 2006): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13507480600586726.Rand, Gavin, and Kim A. Wagner. “Recruiting the ‘Martial Races’: Identities and MilitaryService in Colonial India.” Patterns of Prejudice 46, no. 3–4 (July 1, 2012): 232–54.https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2012.701495.Randall, Don. “Autumn 1857: The Making of the Indian ‘Mutiny.’” Victorian Literature andCulture 31, no. 1 (March 2003): 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1060150303000019.Ray, Subhasish. “The Nonmartial Origins of the ‘Martial Races’: Ethnicity and Military Servicein Ex-British Colonies.” Armed Forces & Society 39, no. 3 (2013): 560–75.https://www.jstor.org/stable/48609021.Rosselli, John. “The Self-Image of Effeteness: Physical Education and Nationalism inNineteenth-Century Bengal.” Past & Present 86, no. 1 (February 1, 1980): 121–48.https://doi.org/10.1093/past/86.1.121.Saha, Jonathan. “Whiteness, Masculinity and the Ambivalent Embodiment of ‘British Justice’ inColonial Burma.” Cultural and Social History 14, no. 4 (August 8, 2017): 527–42.https://doi.org/10.1080/14780038.2017.1329125.Sen, Amrita. “Searching for the Indian in the English East India Company Archives: The Case ofJadow the Broker and Early Seventeenth-Century Anglo-Mughal Trade.” Journal forEarly Modern Cultural Studies 17, no. 3 (2017): 37–58.https://www.jstor.org/stable/90020549.Sen, Indrani. “Gendering the Rebellion of 1857: The ‘Loyal Indian Woman’ in ‘MutinyFiction.’” Indian Historical Review 34, no. 2 (July 1, 2007): 36–57.https://doi.org/10.1177/037698360703400203.Sinha, Mrinalini. Colonial Masculinity: The “manly Englishman” and the “Effeminate Bengali”in the Late Nineteenth Century. Studies in Imperialism. Manchester ; New York : NewYork: Manchester University Press ; Distributed exclusively in the USA and Canada bySt. Martin’s Press, 1995.———. “Giving Masculinity a History: Some Contributions from the Historiography of ColonialIndia.” Gender & History 11, no. 3 (1999): 445–60.https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0424.00155.81Sramek, Joseph. “‘Face Him Like A Briton’: Tiger Hunting, Imperialism, And BritishMasculinity In Colonial India, 1800-1875.” Victorian Studies 48, no. 4 (2006): 659–80.https://www.jstor.org/stable/4618910.Stokes, Eric. The Peasant and the Raj: Studies in Agrarian Society and Peasant Rebellion inColonial India. 1st ed. Vol. 23. Book, Whole. Cambridge;New York; CambridgeUniversity Press, 1978. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511563416.Tosh, John. Manliness and Masculinities in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Essays on Gender,Family and Empire. London: Routledge, 2016. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838533.Tuson, Penelope. “Mutiny Narratives and the Imperial Feminine.” Women’s StudiesInternational Forum 21, no. 3 (May 1998): 291–303.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-5395(98)00023-5.Wagner, Kim A. “The Marginal Mutiny: The New Historiography of the Indian Uprising of1857.” History Compass 9, no. 10 (2011): 760–66.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2011.00799.x.———. “‘Treading Upon Fires’: The ’Mutiny’-Motif and Colonial Anxieties in British India.”Past & Present, no. 218 (2013): 159–97. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23360258.Yadav, Rekha. “Popular Religious Traditions, British Military Recruitment and the SocialConstruction of Masculinity in Colonial Haryana.” Current Research Journal of SocialSciences and Humanities (CRJSSH) 4, no. Special Issue (2021): 1–9.https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/crjssh4&i=211.
Graduating Project
eng
Unreviewed
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Undergraduate
University of British Columbia. HIST 449
India’s Rebellion of 1857 and Ideologies of Masculinity in the Times of India, 1839-1899
Text