Talk:Black Hole of Calcutta
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
Copied this from the "John Zephaniah Holwell" discussion page, as it may be of interest to readers here. Sikandarji 16:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the text below from the article page to the talk page. The reasons, I think, are obvious. Everyone feel invited to improve this. KF 16:15 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The notorious episode of the "Black Hole" of Calcutta furnishes an extraordinary instance of the manner in which narratives are constructed and the place of iteration in historical narratives. It points equally to the difficulty of ascertaining "truth" in history. In 1756, Siraj-ud-daulah <Siraj.html>, the Nawab of Bengal, occupied Fort William and Calcutta, then the principal possession of the East India Company. 146 people are said to have been imprisoned, at the orders of the Nawab, in a small and airless dungeon at Fort William. Next morning, when the door was opened, 123 of the prisoners had died. This story was recounted by the survivor John Zephaniah Holwell, and soon became the basis for representing Indians as a base, cowardly, and despotic people. Innumerable journalistic and historical works recounted the story of the "Black Hole" of Calcutta, but Holwell's account was the sole contemporary narrative. 146 people could not have been accommodated in a room of the stated dimensions of 24 x 18 feet, and it is now almost universally conceded that Holwell greatly embellished his story. Indian scholars have shown the Nawab had no hand in this affair, and that the number of incarcerated prisoners was no higher than 69. It may even be possible to argue that the episode of the "Black Hole" never transpired. Though for the British it became an article of faith to accept the veracity of the episode in its most extravagant and sordid form, all accounts relied, without stating so, upon the sole authority of the contemporary narrative of Holwell. As Edward Said, following Foucault, has suggested in Orientalism (1978), once something is said often enough, it becomes true.
- Hmm, well neither Foucault nor Said was a historian, or had any understanding of the principles of historical evidence. Indeed, they came close to denying the existence of any historical truth, arguing that nothing existed except "narratives" and "representations" dependent on "power relationships". All no doubt very interesting, but of little use to mere mortals who think that sometimes things happen and are then recorded: if you don't believe that, then stick to literary theory and forget about writing History at all. If Holwell's account is unreliable (and it may well be) what of the evidence used by these unspecified 'Indian Historians'? Or is that beyond reproach because they are Indian? In fact the British Historian H.E. Busteed wrote back in 1885 (at the height of British Imperial power) that the Nawab was probably unaware of what transpired; J.H. Little, another British historian, was the first to question Holwell's figures, in the Edwardian period: hardly the elaborate discursive conspiracy alleged above. There are also numerous interviews with survivors and articles in the contemporary press which corroborate elements of Holwell's account. It is far from being settled that 'only' 69 people were incarcerated (anyway, surely that's bad enough)? as this figure only takes into account the garrison, and not the large numbers of civilians (Anglo-Indian and Anglo-Portuguese) who took shelter in the Fort. In any case I find it hard to understand why this incident generates such emotions. Whatever the truth of the matter, it is in no way a slur on modern Indians or Bengalis to admit that the Black Hole occurred and that it was a very nasty incident. Serious historians have always recognised that it was a tragic cock-up, not an act of calculated malice and cruelty Sikandarji 15:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Significance of the event
There is no mention of the significance of this event. I will get around to adding a section on this at some stage but if someone wants to make a start. Cwiki 05:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How easy it was to turn this from yet another anti-British rant into a reasonable, balanced account
I deleted a grand total of about 10 words! That wasnt so hard now was it? Samgb 09:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bad Math
The article says:
- Bholanath Chunder, a Bengali landlord, opined that a floor area of 267 square feet (25 m²) could not contain 146 European adults. In order to prove this, Bholanath fenced round an area 15 by 18 feet (4.6 by 5.5 m) with bamboo stalks and counted the number of his Bengali tenants who could be crammed into it. The number was found to be much less than 146, and a Bengali villager's body occupies much less space than a British soldier's. (By comparison, modern subway standards specify 3 square feet for rush-hour standees, 146 people in the Black Hole would have had slightly under 2.5 square feet.)
Where does the "slightly under 2.5 square feet" figure come from? As I see it, 267 sq ft for 146 people is clearly less than 2 sq ft; my calculator (that's not original reasearch, is it?) gives a figure of under 1.83 sq ft, and I'd like to move that figure into the article.--Keeves 13:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- spot on. also, im not quite sure what the guy is getting at here with all this 'modern subway standards require 3 sq feet.' well duh! no prizes for showing that it was more than a little bit cramped and unpleasant in the black hole of calcutta! Samgb 14:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm happy to say that I made sure the 2.5 figure was added by an anon, not me! I do cop to adding the subway thing, just because it was the best way I could visualize it (maybe it would be better in a footnote?). The issue that doesn't fit into that paragraph is the modern estimate of perhaps just 69 people in the room, so they would have had around 3.8 sq. ft. per person. Of course space statistics are just a distraction if the room was too hot and they had no water or fresh air, but this is (as cited) one of the ways the controversy has been interpreted in the past. Ultimately I was hoping that a better citation of the Chunder "analysis" would turn up. Also, the way it was originally written, it isn't clear to me whether this was part of or merely contemporary with Little's analysis. --Dhartung | Talk 03:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tone
This whole article is a little odd. Surely the significance of the event extends beyond the fact that the number of killed may have been exagerated? If there's a point to be made about how the exaggeration of this incident was used as anti-Indian propaganda then I propose that that is placed in a seperate section at the end, rather than dominating the narrative. 88.105.103.136 20:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't want to toot my own horn, exactly, but back in 2005 this article was on Cleanup and I gave it a good scouring, resulting in much of the present form. My reworking was largely based on the materials already in the article, however; I am not an Indian history expert and so I just made sure that what we had was expressed as neutrally as possible, and tried to eliminate confusion. Obviously the article could use citations and reputable sources (Cecil Adams and Banglapedia are not really the best starting points for an important historical article). I agree that the article lacks context as to how the event figured in British-Indian history, other than explaining the local and immediate politics, and I strongly encourage any expansion along those lines. I think the controversy is central to the issue, though, because it clearly was pro-British propaganda (and conversely, alleging it is only propaganda has been a type of pro-Indian propaganda). A broader context would put that ancient POV dispute in its own context. --Dhartung | Talk 02:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Topaz
In the article a topaz is described as being a native soldier and also a black catholic soldier. --Richard Clegg 14:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Never a Deliberate Atrocity
To paraphrase Banglapedia,the incident is definitely diplorable but it was never a deliberate atrocity. As such it should never be used as a propaganda means to belittle Siraj, who had every right to protect independence of Bengal/India.Hossain Akhtar Chowdhury 10:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
