Search results
indiscriminately allowed the privilege . . . was both unjust and illiberal’. 30 Ten years later he was agitating ‘to put the Indians on the same footing as the white . . . [taking] some of the privileges which they had superior to those of the white men, such as the privilege of hunting at unseasonable times . . . [and] the privilege under some circumstances of not paying their debts’. 31
The Times , Abdurahman appealed directly to the people of Great Britain in the name of ‘the millions of loyal British subjects whom we have been delegated to represent’ to challenge the act’s clauses barring non-whites from election to the Union parliament on grounds that: (a) They are illiberal, unjust, and unreasonably offensive
India as a laboratory for utilitarianism. Because of the ambivalent nature of philosophical radicalism, Javed Majeed contends, utilitarianism had only a limited impact on British rule in India. 20 Nowhere is this illustrated better than in the edition of the History edited by Horace Hyman Wilson, who defends orientalism against the ‘harsh and illiberal spirit’ of the book. And if India was the focus
of Wales was in his interactions with the child prince who replaced the troublesome gaekwad, Albert Edward could never escape the perception of the Indian press that British rule was fundamentally illiberal. To many South Asian intellectuals, the rule of law – endlessly used by the British to legitimise imperial rule over local misrule and despotism – represented a tool of imperial rule, employed
about British inaction to live up to the promises of the liberal empire as violent and illiberal action. As a transitional period, the late nineteenth-century empire was a dynamic and interconnected political space where a modern, global politics of respectability and imperial citizenship was made. In this context, the nationalist political movements of the twentieth century have their origins in local