Excerpt: The Anglo-Indians: A Portrait of a Community by Barry O’Brien

This extract attempts to answer the question: Who is an Anglo-Indian?

First things first, let’s address the elephant in the room. There is one, all right—always has been. Not so with any other community. You will never hear anyone say, but who exactly is a Tamilian, a Bihari, a Malayali, or a Sikh? Not the same with the Anglo-Indian. The inevitable opening question is: but who IS an Anglo-Indian?

A crowd celebrating Christmas at Bow Barracks, a street in Kolkata where many Anglo-Indians live. (Shutterstock)

I decided to ask a hundred educated people — randomly selected non Anglo-Indians from across the country who they think an Anglo-Indian

538pp, ₹999; Aleph

But to be fair, the question, “Who is an Anglo-Indian?”, is a far more difficult question to answer than “Who is a Bengali?” or “Who is a Gujarati?” Some would say more complex too, simply because it is.

Complex and interesting — like the community itself. Because we are a little of this, a little of that, and lots of ourselves. That makes writing about us a complex and interesting exercise, challenging, and exciting. One that would leave the Anglo-Indian autobiographer filled with pride, humility, joy, remorse, regret, even anger, and a deep sense of contentment. See how complex we are!

Now to the question: who am I, or who are we? To put it simply — of European descent from father’s lineage; Indian nationality; and born and living in India. Interestingly, the Anglo-Indians are the only community to be specifically defined in the Constitution of India. Article 366(2) says:

An Anglo-Indian means a person whose father or any other of whose male progenitors in the male line is or was of European descent but who is domiciled within the territories of India and is or was born within such territory of parents habitually resident therein and not established there for temporary purposes only.

To demystify the definition and answer the FAQs that may be racing through your mind, here is a yes/no quiz:

• Is it mandatory for an Anglo-Indian to be a citizen of India and live permanently in India?

Simple answer: Yes, because the definition in the Constitution clearly specifies this.

Complex explanation: I have a brother who was an Anglo-Indian till the age of 34. He then emigrated and is now a citizen of his adopted country. He is now “habitually resident” in that country, not in India. He is not an Anglo-Indian by definition any longer, though he, and many like him, continue to be Anglo-Indian by culture and lifestyle. His children aren’t Anglo-Indians, and never were, since they were not born in India.

What about Anglo-Indians who were born in an undivided India and then chose to stay in Pakistan? Well, technically, I suppose they would be AngloPakistanis (and now Anglo-Bangladeshis, too), though I have never heard the term on any of my visits to Pakistan to conduct inter-school quizzes, nor have I met any who claim to be. Though I am sure there must be a few who fit the definition and lead lifestyles not very different from ours, I am equally sure that they are not an organized or recognized community in either Pakistan or Bangladesh, as we are in India.

Attempting to define "Anglo-Indian". (Shutterstock)

• Does an Anglo-Indian have to be a Christian?

Simple answer: No, not by definition.

Complex explanation: Almost all Anglo-Indians are Christians but you don’t necessarily have to be one to be an Anglo-Indian. I personally know a few who are atheists, at least two who are Buddhists, and a handful who are Hindus or Muslims. But they are still Anglo-Indians. Faith, or being baptized a Christian, is a personal choice, while being an Anglo-Indian is something you have no control over. (William Gardner who raised Gardner’s Horse, now known as 2 Lancers, converted to Islam.)

• Can one become an Anglo-Indian?

Simple answer: No, you can only be an Anglo-Indian by birth and from birth.

Complex explanation: You could change your name to William Shakespeare, speak in English at home, adopt an Anglo-Indian way of life, even call yourself an Anglo-Indian…but technically you will not become one.

• Do Anglo-Indians almost always have European surnames?

Simple answer: Yes, because they are, by definition, of European descent from their father’s ancestral line. However, you do have the rare exception of Anglo-Indians changing their surname to a non-European one. Technically, they would remain Anglo-Indians.

Complex explanation: Patriarchal convention has it set in stone that you assume your father’s surname. That being the case, you would have a European surname if you are an Anglo-Indian. So, if your surname is Gandhi, and that was your father’s surname too, you wouldn’t be an Anglo-Indian, even if your mother was Italian or from any European country for that matter.

Today, there are many in the community who strongly feel that the children of Anglo-Indian mothers and non-Anglo-Indian fathers who have been brought up, culturally and linguistically, as Anglo-Indians, should be considered a part of the community in the social scheme of things — constitutional and legal definitions notwithstanding.

• Are you an Anglo-Indian if you were not born one but have been adopted by an Anglo-Indian father and taken his surname?

Simple answer: No, because he is not your biological father; your progenitors are not of European descent.

Complex explanation: The dictionary meaning of the word ‘progenitor’ is ‘a direct ancestor or person…from the past of which a person is descended….’

On the other hand, I would remain an Anglo-Indian even if I legally changed my surname and became Barry Khan or Barry Bachchan, since that would not have any effect on my birth or my male ancestry. Even the first name or Christian name of a person is of no relevance here — I know Anglo-Indians named Priyanka and Ritesh.

Philomena Teresa Berkeley and Valerie Beecham, residents of the Grant Govan old age home in Delhi, dance. (Raj K Raj/HT Photo)

• Do all Anglo-Indians have English ancestors in their father’s lineage?

Simple answer: No, because their male ancestors may have arrived in India from some other country in Europe.

Complex explanation: “Anglo” is a Latin prefix used to indicate a relation to England or the English people, now even the British Isles. The term “Anglo-Indian” is therefore somewhat misleading since it implies that the community’s male ancestors descended exclusively from the English, Irish, Scottish, or Welsh. The truth is that their male ancestors could have been from anywhere in Europe — Portugal, France, Holland, Germany, and so on, or indeed from Britain. In retrospect, “Eurasian” — the term used to describe the community till the early twentieth century — was more accurate. Some would say “Euro-Indian” would have been even more accurate. Having said that, through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries there were very few Europeans around who were not British. They married Indian or Eurasian women and fathered children of mixed descent. Their male offspring married other children of mixed descent, and since the community was largely endogamous, a community with its own identity and way of life was born, with a culture, connect, and mindset which was very British.

• Is the Anglo-Indian community a linguistic and cultural minority in India?

Simple answer: Yes, because it is a microscopic community, with its own culture and language; a community that continues to sparkle in the wonderful mosaic that is India.

Complex explanation: It is widely accepted that there are about four lakh Anglo-Indians in India today. That makes it not only a microscopic community when looked in the context of a national population of 1.4 billion, but also a minority community in the respective states. Add to that the fact that, like other communities in India, it too has its own cultural identity, language, and way of life. So, yes, it is very much a linguistic and cultural minority in India. And, since almost all Anglo-Indians are baptized, it is also a part of the larger Christian community which is a religious minority.

However, some still argue that being an Anglo-Indian, going strictly by the constitutional definition, has everything to do with blood, race, and one’s father’s lineage, and nothing to do with culture, language, and way of life. There lies the Big Question and the Big Debate. Used to be the Big Fight.

Here’s one side of the argument: I am an Anglo-Indian if my male progenitor (forefather in my direct line) from anywhere in Europe set foot on Indian soil, made it his permanent home and had a son from a woman in India, and he had a son, and he had a son…and so on. It doesn’t matter one iota what blood the mothers had. Even if I have a minutely insignificant drop of his blood flowing through my veins and I carry his name, I am an Anglo. Indian. Period. I may have nothing else remotely European or Anglo-Indian about me, but that doesn’t matter as far as I am concerned or as far as the Constitution of India is concerned. What matters is race — blood and lineage.

Here’s the other side of the argument: your name is Barry D’Coutho. You live in Kerala. Your father is certain that he is of Portuguese descent. You speak Malayalam at home — what you now refer to as your “first language”. Your culture, clothes, and lifestyle are exactly like that of the majority of the local people. You follow the same customs and traditions as they do. You belong to the minority Christian community. But how can you claim to be an Anglo-Indian?

The definition coming down the ages in the Articles of Association of the All-India Anglo-Indian Association (from now on referred to as the Association) includes a line which is not a part of the constitutional definition. It says: ‘… whose mother tongue is English.’ Frank Anthony, who led the Association for half a century refused to accept the “feringhees of Kerala” as bonafide Anglo-Indians on these grounds — that their language was Malayalam, and they had not “the slightest claim culturally, linguistically, or historically” to be included in the Anglo-Indian community. He said, “Never in history was the term ‘Anglo-Indian’ extended to a person whose mother tongue was not English” and “that English is the mother tongue is axiomatic” and that is why it was not specifically mentioned in the constitutional definition.

This was countered by AAD Luiz, president-in-chief of the Union of Anglo-Indian Associations (Kerala State), who was of the view that feringhees are historically and racially of mixed European descent. He countered, “Colour, costume, and language are not the criteria for deciding as to who is an Anglo-Indian and so constitutionally feringhees are to be included in the Anglo-Indian community.”

The eminent writer Allan Sealy, an Anglo-Indian himself, turned this theory on its head while speaking at a panel discussion at the World Anglo-Indian Reunion in Chennai in 2019. He urged the community to set aside “this obsession with race”, saying, “we have been defined over and over again as a community of mixed-race. I would like to think that we could exchange this notion of race for a simple one — culture. Culture is not something that flows in your veins. It is something that you don’t have to explain. If I were to sing God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen you will immediately be able to sing the next line. It is not encoded in your genes, it is not part of your blood, it is part of your culture, it is part of what you have picked up since birth. Race is just a blank slate — you can write anything you want on it. Language is what determines something, race determines nothing.”

Author Barry O’Brien (Courtesy the publisher)

I leave you to draw your own conclusions. Who am I to decide who is an Anglo-Indian and who isn’t? All I can say is that if we belong to the same community, we should feel a strong spontaneous connect with it and be very comfortable in the company of others from our community. How that can happen if we don’t speak the same language or share the same culture is something I just cannot wrap my head around.

My own take on the issue of Anglo-Indians, and people who claim to be, is this: I believe there are three categories of people. One, those who are of European descent (including Luso-Indians in Kerala), culturally Anglo-Indians, whose mother tongue is English (a fraction of whom may have been speaking Portuguese in Kerala or French in Pondicherry till not so long ago). Two, those of European descent but who are culturally very different from other Anglo-Indians; they do not speak English (or Portuguese or French, for that matter) or even claim that it is their mother tongue. Their only claim is that they are Anglo-Indian by race, by definition, and therefore should be treated as part of the community by the government. And three, those who are not of European descent. They were originally “Natives of India” who became Christians, adopted European names (mostly Portuguese), and even a part of their culture.

I suppose if the Anglo-Indian community had to fill in its “status” column, it would have to write ‘it’s complicated’. What complicates matters even more is the fact that today it is extremely difficult to prove whether you are indeed of European descent or not. Even those who are an integral part of the community find it difficult when it comes to documentary evidence. As an out-and-out Anglo-Indian once told me, “I don’t have papers to prove it. But I’m ready for a DNA test.”

One of my brothers actually did a DNA test recently — just like that. It turns out that he, and therefore my other brother and me, are 27.3 per cent English, 7.7 per cent French-German, 4.3 per cent Central American, and 60.7 per cent Indian. But since I have always believed in the Cedric Dover mantra, I am convinced that if you, any of you, get a DNA test done, you will be in for one helluva surprise, and start believing in the Dover dictum: “there are no half-castes since there are no full castes”.

So, today, I don’t for a moment think of myself as being of mixed-race. I belong to one race — the Anglo-Indian race — which happens to be of mixed race, like most other races of the world. And, more importantly, of Indian nationality. I’d be lying if I said that one day I would like to visit Cork in Ireland, which is where I am told my great-great-great grandfather came from almost two centuries ago, even though there are invariably two or three O’Briens in the Irish cricket team, and unlikely that there will ever be one in the Indian team. According to me, you can only find your roots in one place — under you.