"The Jewel in the Crown" explores the Anglo-Indian relationship which hastened the end of British Raj in India. To the conservative old-timers, the end of the Raj was a shock. They looked upon it as a national catastrophe. Who could have believed that the Empire on which the sun never set would ultimately shrivel back to the tiny old island known as England.

Some have ascribed it to war, others to disloyalty of the Indians. Rudyard Kipling and E. M. Forster treated this theme in their own separate ways. Paul Scott was the first to ascribe the fall to the failings of his own nation. Commenting on Scott’s contribution to this theme, Max Beloff says:


Scott took up the theme as a project and handled it like an investigative assignment. The project comprised four novels known as “Raj Quartet”. Scott visited India twice to collect the required details.

“The Jewel in the Crown”, first of the four volumes in the Quartet, comprises seven parts. The details come through interviews with some of the characters, about half a dozen letters of the characters to each other, from the memories of Brig. Reid, a brief account of the events by Mr. Robin White, and a journal addressed by Daphne Manners to her aunt, Lady Manners. The story comprises two main events – manhandling of an Englishwoman, Miss Crane and rape of an English girl, Daphne Manners.

Some of the comments by various characters aptly point out the mistakes made by the English rulers in dealing with tricky situations which might well have been averted. Referring to mishandling of congress agitation, Mr. Srinivasan, the Indian lawyer of Mayapore, says to the writer:


The policies were liberal in concept but imperialistic in practice. As the government of India Act, 1935 gave Indians the right to form their own government. Theoretically it was a liberal measure, but practically the government thus formed was not of the people, but of touts and toadies who loved to lick the boots of their white masters. The common man never got the regard he deserved as a human being.

Hari Kumar, a well-groomed young Indian, brought up and educated in England, soon learnt that:


Hari, who thought, spoke and behaved like an Englishman, was looked down upon by the English in India just because he was an Indian. The way he was treated by Mr. Merrick was shamefully inhuman and an insult and injury to the British claims of liberalism. Merrick was jealous of Hari’s better education and superior accent. For all their sincere loyalty and absolute obedience the Indians was looked upon as thieves and culprits and got only kicks and spurns. Even the best educated and cultured among them were not allowed to enter the Gymkhana Club. Hari could not get a job in a British firm as he was an Indian.

Mr. White rightly says that the English were in India for what they could get out of it and the Indians gladly allowed them to have it. It was wrong on the part of the British to regard India as a Victorian acquisition. They forgot that their relations with India began on almost friendly terms in the Elizabethan Age. This sad change, from the friends to the masters, was at its worst during the war years.

The Indians, sick of the false promises and dominant attitude of the British, saw the British at the snag in the war and took the chance. On 18th August 1942 the Congress voted in favour of Gandhi’s non-violence non-cooperation movement. Things can be prevented from going too far by taking a friendlier attitude. But the power-blind rulers tried to gun the movement down as they done in Jallianwala Bagh in 1919. This fatal mistake aggravated the situation which deteriorated faster than anybody could imagine.

The British were in hot water in India from 1942 to 1947. They realized that they would have to quit India sooner than they wished. The war exposed the myth of British power. The Indians started questioning the validity of British hold over India. Summing up the post-war position of the rulers and the ruled, Mr. Srinivasan says:

There were individuals among the English who found it hard to agree with the attitudes and policies of their nation. Miss Crane considered the Indians a part of the British power and glory. She shared Mr. Disraeli's view that India was the brightest jewel in the British Crown. She regarded the Indians as sincere friends of the British nation until she saw them on the roads in revolt against the Crown. She could not see the reason for this break-away for she did not know it, though the reason was there all the time. Living an isolated life she did not know how the people of her nation felt towards the Indians.

But Mr. White was aware and critical of his nation’s attitude towards the Indians. That is why Brig. Reid found him a hard nut to crack in his attempt to win his favour for his plan to crush the riots with a heavy hand. Referring to his meeting with Mr. White, Brig. Reid writes:

Mr. White makes the most realistic judgment of decline of the British Raj in India. He says:


It would be true to say that Paul Scott’s treatment of the theme is a remarkable achievement – remarkable especially for the writer’s honesty. Whatever conservative critics of his own nation may say about his achievement, he has done nothing but justice to this sensitive theme