Another Glorious Day in the British Empire
09.02.07 - 05:53pm
British military scientists tested mustard gas on Indian soldiers in the years leading up to the the Second World War, it has been revealed.
The soldiers were sent into gas chambers as part of experiments to measure the effects of the terrifying gas, according to newly discovered documents at the National Archives. The Indian soldiers were under the command of the British military at the time, with the nation subject to colonial rule.
The experiments were conducted by scientists from the Porton Down chemical warfare establishment in Wiltshire, England, scientists who had been posted to the sub-continent to develop poison gases to use against the Japanese.
According to the Guardian:
The Indian tests are a little-known part of Porton’s huge programme of chemical warfare testing on humans. More than 20,000 British soldiers were subjected to chemical warfare trials involving poison gases, such as nerve gas and mustard gas, at Porton between 1916 and 1989.
Many of these British soldiers have alleged that they were duped into taking part in the tests, which have damaged their health in the years after the trials.
The reports record that in some cases Indian soldiers were exposed to mustard gas protected only by a respirator. On one occasion the gas mask of an Indian sepoy (a private) slipped, leaving him with severe burns on his eyes and face.
The tests were used to determine how much gas was needed to produce a casualty on the battlefield.
Alan Care, a lawyer representing British troops tested at Porton, said:
“I would be astonished if these Indian subjects gave any meaningful consent to taking part in these tests, particularly as they were conducted during the days of Empire. No one would have agreed … if they knew beforehand what was going to happen.”
Porton Down’s squalid history also includes the outright killing of a soldier in 1953 with liquid nerve gas and dosing soldiers with LSD without their knowledge or consent.
There is still a barely concealed nostalgia here in Britain for this nation’s inexcusable colonial past. Given revelations such as this, one wonders why.
Bravo. Focus on the dark side of British history (don’t forget every nation has one), and make British people feel ashamed and Indian people angry. Well done.
And what a dark side it is, unfortunately. The problem now I feel is rather, as I mentioned, that there is a continuing nostalgia among a not insignificant sector of the population for our colonial past. A lot of this nostalgia depends on a completely illegitimate rosy picture of what the empire was actually like.
As an example of how this lunacy endures: the man the Tories will no doubt be selecting as their candidate for Mayor of London thinks the problem with Britain’s former colonies is “not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more”.
Would the world be a better place if the British empire had not existed?
Would another of the ‘Great Powers’ have been more dilligent in their social responsibilities to the colonised nations?
I’m not sure the empire is seen through rose-tinted specs by hhe majority of the UK population, in fact I very much doubt that most people under 20 have ever heard of it.
We certainly were eager to condem ourselves over our links to slavery in a way that most nations would scough at, especially those that still ‘enjoy’ it’s benefits. The Royal navy ended the African-based international slave trade to it’s credit.
I wouldn’t say the empire is seen in such a way by “the majority” but I think it is by a significant number.
As far as slavery is concerned, while I think it is important to remember that part of history I do not really have a strong opinion on the relevance of overt and recurring self-flagellation over it.
Slavery, the empire, all these things are, I think, important lessons to help us interpret the present and make decisions about the future.
It always amazes me how people try and give the Empire “credit” for abandoning slavery. The Empire never chose to do so, it was forced by the efforts of tireless human rights campaigners and tried to get around the ban in many ways - such as the use of transported indentured labourers from India right into the early years of the 20th century (http://throwawayyourtelescreen.wordpress.com/2007/08/18/coolies-how-britain-reinvented-slavery/). Also, while slavery had existed in one form or another since the dawn of human history, the British slave trade was a major escalation.
Credit is also given to Britain for granting independence to its former colonies. Beginning a story right towards the end can be a great way to distort the truth, it’s the same game as those who say that Israel’s Summer War with Lebanon was provoked by Hizbullah.
You’re right, Furious, that a lot of people - especially young people - are largely unaware of Imperial history, but I don’t see how that’s a good thing. Greater awareness of the past helps us make a lot more sense of our present, and understanding the British Empire helps cut through a lot of the implicit assumptions of modern foreign policy rhetoric. I suspect that this is behind the Hitlerisation of the national history syllabus - when I was in school (~7 years ago), far more time was spent on the six years when we were the goodies by default than on the preceding four centuries. Ireland, India, the ethnic cleansing of the Highlands, the Opium wars - strangely, none of this came up (though, credit where it’s due, we did spend a long time on the enclosure acts of the agrarian revolution).
Dave - good points.
The history of nations is one of human greed. Britain’s is no worse than any other nation I suspect, and focusing on the darker side of our history serves no beneficial purpose to society, at least not that I can see. I think there’s already an erosion of national pride in Britian, especially in England. I would hope that our leaders make policy based on the lessons of history, but I doubt it (Afghanistan anyone).
There’s no doubt that Wilberforce’s movement to abolish slavery was the main driver behind the Royal Navy’s efforts to stop the trade. But when you refer to ‘Empire’ you seem to be implying that the Empire was the military and not the human rights activists. In my mind the Empire was driven by trade (and greed), expanded by trade, diplomacy and the military but tempered by the middle classes who thought it may be a vehicle for good.
I think if other nations recognised the British Empire as being the monster that some would imply, there would be no Commonwealth.
“The history of nations is one of human greed. Britain’s is no worse than any other nation I suspect, and focusing on the darker side of our history serves no beneficial purpose to society, at least not that I can see.”
Now, you see you and I have disagreed about this before. I thought it was very interesting that you went on to say:
“In my mind the Empire was driven by trade (and greed), expanded by trade, diplomacy and the military but tempered by the middle classes who thought it may be a vehicle for good.”
There is an element of truth in this. The trouble is that to this very day the barely examined notion that our nation’s influence on others is going to be benevolent and a jolly good thing persists.
I agree 100% with Dave’s comment:
“You’re right, Furious, that a lot of people - especially young people - are largely unaware of Imperial history, but I don’t see how that’s a good thing. Greater awareness of the past helps us make a lot more sense of our present, and understanding the British Empire helps cut through a lot of the implicit assumptions of modern foreign policy rhetoric.”
Actually, I should clarify that I am not of the opinion that Britain’s history is darker than other nations, except to the extent that it has had significantly more power to exercise control than most other nations have.
I think there is a lot of truth to Bakunin’s quotation:
“Powerful states can maintain themselves only by crime, little states are virtuous only by weakness.”
I think that people and their nations are governed by Darwinian laws far more than most would like to admit to. We’re all one hoot away from being monkeys, even you philosopher types.
The question is not what we have been but what we aspire to.
As far as the end of slavery is concerned there is an interesting article here:
http://www.haitianalysis.com/2007/8/25/amazing-grace-whitewashing-the-history-of-abolition
History has plenty of examples of slaves and repressed people revolting against their masters.
In the case of Haiti the French revolution and the Napoleonic wars prevented the french from stamping out the rebellion.
I fail to see why the author would think such a series of events could be compared with the abolishment of the slave trade.
Certainly American hypocrisy is evident, but then that’s not going to win in breaking news slots.
You don’t seem to have understood his argument correctly. He appears to be arguing that there are grounds for considering the revolt he relates in his article as that which started the chain of events which led to the end of slavery (or at least the Atlantic manifestation of it). I am sure he is fully aware that something like that is unlikely “to win breaking news slots” but is rather making a point about what perhaps should, or is at least worth marking or remembering.
Now that is a question of judgment, as well as one of historical analysis and scholarship; and the writer obviously seems to have a considerable interest and perhaps bias towards Haiti.
On a broader level actually, the historical record tends to present every major positive political change as being handed down by certain benevolent protagonists when as a general rule they were in fact the final outcome of significant movements by large numbers of people whose efforts received little reward and whose contributions are routinely downplayed. I think that generalises pretty much, from the slave trade to the US civil rights movement.
‘He appears to be arguing that there are grounds for considering the revolt he relates in his article as that which started the chain of events which led to the end of slavery’
Yes he does, and I’m disagreeing with him.
I am not sure I agree with him either, although I do not feel I have sufficient knowledge to make a judgment on the issue.
The Haitian revolt is a pretty good candidate for the beginning of the end of the Atlantic slave trade. Certainly, it was not the first time oppressed peoples had risen up against their masters, but nor were Wilberforce and co the first conscientious objectors to imperial racism. We have to look at the specific context, and without wanting to unfairly trivialise the Abolitionists it was the Haitian revolt that really opened the future of the slave trade up for discussion.
Those who profited from it became concerned that it would come crashing down around them - and simply by putting slavery on the headlines, it galvanised people’s awareness and objection. Interestingly, after the Abolition, the Empire simply began again elsewhere, transporting indentured labourers (ie slaves) from India all accross the world. The moral issue was the same.
Just to underline the key point, I second you on this one:
Isn’t it nice when we can all agree