1
Question
How did the British react to Indian styles of dressing? How did Indians rate British attitudes?
Open in App
Solution
(i) Indians used to wear turbans to protect them from the heat and it was also a sign of respect. Turban could not be removed at will. In contrast Europeans used to wear hate which had to be removed before social superiors as a sign of respect.
(ii) This cultural difference created misunderstanding. The British were often offended if Indians did not take off their turban when they met colonial officials. Many Indians on the other hand wore the turban to consciously assert their regional or national identity.
(iii) Another such conflict related to the waering of shoes, At the beginning of the nineteenth century, it was customary for British officials to follow Indian etiquette and remove their footwear in the courts of ruling kings or chiefs.
(iv) Some British officials also were Indian clothe, But in 1830, Europeans were forbidden from wearing Indian clothes at official functions, so that the cultural, identity of the the white masters was not undermined.
(v) In 1824-1828, Governor-General Amherst insisted that Indians take their shoes off as a sign of respect when they appeared before him, but this was not followed strictly.
(vi) When Lord Daihousle became Governor General, shoe respect was made stricter and Indian were made to take off their shoes when entering any government institution. Those who wore European clothes were exempted from this rule. Many Indian government servants were increasingly uncomfortable with these rules.
(vii) In 1862, Manockjee Cowasjee Entee, an assessor in the Surat Fouzdaree A.dawlut, refused to take off his shoes In the court of the sessions judge. He was barred entzy into the court room and he protested against his exclusion by sending letters to the governor of Bombay.
(viii) In response to it, the British insisted that since Indians take off their shoe. when they entered a sacred place or home, they should do so when they entered the courtroom. But Indians were not ready to accept their logic.
(ii) This cultural difference created misunderstanding. The British were often offended if Indians did not take off their turban when they met colonial officials. Many Indians on the other hand wore the turban to consciously assert their regional or national identity.
(iii) Another such conflict related to the waering of shoes, At the beginning of the nineteenth century, it was customary for British officials to follow Indian etiquette and remove their footwear in the courts of ruling kings or chiefs.
(iv) Some British officials also were Indian clothe, But in 1830, Europeans were forbidden from wearing Indian clothes at official functions, so that the cultural, identity of the the white masters was not undermined.
(v) In 1824-1828, Governor-General Amherst insisted that Indians take their shoes off as a sign of respect when they appeared before him, but this was not followed strictly.
(vi) When Lord Daihousle became Governor General, shoe respect was made stricter and Indian were made to take off their shoes when entering any government institution. Those who wore European clothes were exempted from this rule. Many Indian government servants were increasingly uncomfortable with these rules.
(vii) In 1862, Manockjee Cowasjee Entee, an assessor in the Surat Fouzdaree A.dawlut, refused to take off his shoes In the court of the sessions judge. He was barred entzy into the court room and he protested against his exclusion by sending letters to the governor of Bombay.
(viii) In response to it, the British insisted that since Indians take off their shoe. when they entered a sacred place or home, they should do so when they entered the courtroom. But Indians were not ready to accept their logic.
Suggest Corrections
0
Similar questions
View More
Join BYJU'S Learning Program
Explore more
Join BYJU'S Learning Program
