|
| ||
|
|
||
British India (british + india)
Selected AbstractsAuthority, accountability and representation: the United Provinces police and the dilemmas of the colonial policeman in British India, 1902,39*HISTORICAL RESEARCH, Issue 192 2003David A. Campion This article examines police administration and the experience of colonial policing in the villages and towns of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, one of the largest and most important regions of British India in the early twentieth century. During this time it was the inefficiency and weakness of the British in their policing methods, rather than the brutally effective use of the Indian Police Service, that fuelled resentment among the population of colonial India and led to widespread discontent among European and Indian officers and constables. Yet throughout this period, the police remained the most important link between Europeans and Indians, and were a frequent conduit for social exchange as well as a point of bitter conflict. [source] Predatory Care: The Imperial Hunt in Mughal and British IndiaJOURNAL OF HISTORICAL SOCIOLOGY, Issue 1 2001Anand S. Pandian Taking the hunt as both metaphor of rule and political practice, this paper compares the predatory exercises of two imperial formations in India: the late British Raj and the sixteenth-century Mughal empire. The British pursuit of man-eaters confronted feline terror with sovereign might, securing the bodies and hearts of resistant subjects through spectacles of responsible force. The Mughal hunt, on the other hand, took unruly nobles and chieftains as the objects of its fearful care, winning their obedient submission through the exercise of a predatory sovereignty. Both instances of ,predatory care' shed light on the troubling intimacy of biopolitical cultivation and sovereign violence. [source] "Roll Back Malaria, Roll in Development"?POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, Issue 1 2009Reassessing the Economic Burden of Malaria Recent efforts to mobilize support for malaria control have highlighted the economic burden of malaria and the value of malaria control for generating economic development. These claims have a long history. Beginning in the early twentieth century, they became the primary justification for malaria-control programs in the American South and in other parts of the globe, including British India. Economists conducted none of these studies. Following World War II and the development of new anti-malarial drugs and pesticides, including DDT, malaria control and eradication were increasingly presented as instruments for eliminating economic underdevelopment. By the 1960s, however, economists and demographers began to raise serious substantive and methodological questions about the basis of these claims. Of particular concern was the role of rapid population growth, resulting in part from the decline of malaria mortality, in undermining the short-term economic gains achieved through malaria control. Despite these concerns, malaria continues to be presented as an economic problem in the work of Jeffrey Sachs and others, justifying massive investments in malaria control. The methodological basis of these claims is examined. The paper concludes that while malaria takes a dreadful toll in human lives and causes significant economic losses for individuals, families, and some industries, the evidence linking malaria control to national economic growth remains unconvincing. In addition, the evidence suggests that there are potential costs to justifying malaria-eradication campaigns on macroeconomic grounds. [source] Mawl,na Mawd,d? and the Future Political Order in British IndiaTHE MUSLIM WORLD, Issue 3-4 2003Omar Khalidi First page of article [source] | ||||||||||