The novel “The Jewel in the Crown” abounds in instances of callous contempt which signified the British attitude towards Indians during the last says of British Raj in India.

Hari Kumar, brought up and educated in England, hoped to be treated as a friend by the British in Mayapore. Unfortunately, his very first encounter with an Englishman, Mr. Merrick, dashed his hopes to the ground.

Sister Ludmila had brought Hari at her own residence known as the Sanctuary when she found him lying drunk in a nearby ditch. He has been allowed to sleep it off. In the morning Mr. Merrick arrived there on a routine round. He saw Hari and questioned about his identity. Hari’s superior English accent made him jealous. He asked Hari to accompany him to the police station for further inquiry but Hari bluntly refused to obey. The Sub-Inspector with Mr. Merrick slapped Hari in the face. Then Hari was overpowered and hustled away in the back of a truck.

The treatment was the worst shock in Hari’s life. It knocked him off the pedestal of his well-deserved prestige. He saw, though he could hardly believe it that in India the English and the Indian could never meet on an equal footing.

Another blow to Hari’s pride in his English accent came in the form of his rejection by the British management of an Electrical Company where he had applied for a job. He was almost sure of getting the job, as the British manager seemed impressed by his educational career and excellent English accent.

Poor Hari had hoped to win due respect, even friendship of the English in Mayapore for he regarded himself as one of them. But soon after his arrival in India he realized that he had become invisible to the British. Even his best friend, Colin Lindsey, ignored him when he suddenly found himself standing face to face with Lindsey.

Statement of Mr. Srinivasan, Brig. Reid, Mr. Vidyasagar and even Daphne Manners contain several other instances of callous indifference of the British towards the Indians.

Military action against the rioters at the Bridge was hardly justified. So was Mr. Merrick’s use of force near the railway station. More incidents of this nature are reported all over India. The official count of casualties, although a reduced version, is appalling. Many, if not all, the lives lost in the action might have been saved if the situation had been handled tactfully through negotiations with the leaders.

Vidyasagar’s account of torture inflicted on the suspects in Bibighar rape case adds more grim details to the horrible picture. The riots were not a sudden upshot. Hatred against the rulers had been rising at a terrible rate ever since the rulers had changed from friends to masters. The revolt in 1857 was a sadly ignored warning. General Dyer’s bungling of the Jallianwala Bagh affair had only added fuel to the fire. His use of armed forces in 1942 was a further re-play that sealed the fate of the British Raj in India.

The Raj had to go anyway, but it might have gone with a better grace if only the rulers had been a bit humane in their dealings with the ruled. As it is, their exit was hailed as a coveted change. Nobody mourned the snapping of centuries old ties except a few anglicized individuals who were favourites of the Raj. The rest of the nation blamed, still blame the white rulers for every evil under the sun.

Only two of the English characters, Brig. Reid and Mr. Merrick, represent the ruling nation in their attitude towards the Indians. Miss Crane, Daphne Manners and Mr. White are soft towards the Indians for various reasons. Scott presents these three characters as exceptions to the general rule. Their softness towards the Indians is not in keeping with the national character.

The remarks made by these characters on various occasions clearly show that they deplore their nation’s behaviour with the Indians. Miss Crane’s unspoken thought, phrased by the writer, are a mild assessment of the Anglo-Indian relationship.


She is speaking of the promise of independence which was being ignored by the British. Mr. White, speaking on the same theme says:

Daphne Manners, though she came to India reluctantly, gradually came to like it. She too is critical of the attitude of her nation towards the Indian. She writes to her Auntie:

Commenting on Anglo-Indian relationship she says that the Indians slaved to the British because of fear. Then she writes:


The stage of tiredness had already come, judging by the country-wide riots in 1942.

Daphne believes that at the early stage of the Raj in India, Anglo-Indian relationship might have been friendship, even love.


Yes, the spoilers were there, had always been – people like Merrick and Brig. Reid on the English side, and hooligans like those who killed Mr. Chaudhuri and those who raped Daphne Manners, on the Indian side. But the English are the more to blame, because they were in power and, therefore, in a better position to save the situation from getting worse.