Talk:Black Hole of Calcutta

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)

[Untitled]

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)

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)

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)

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)

For future reference: the world record for the number of people in a traditional British red telephone box (3 ft x 3 ft) is 12 adults plus 2 children. 79.75.162.53 (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Never a Deliberate Atrocity

To paraphrase Banglapedia,the incident is definitely deplorable 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)

"In conformity with the rising British imperialism"

This is badly expressed English and not neutral. I suggest "as part of the growth of British influence in India"? I have made this change. --83.221.80.199 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Never a Deliberate Atrocity

There is no evidence to suggest it was a deliberate atrocity, and there is no evidence to suggest it was NOT a deliberate atrocity. All original sources are unclear. Nevertheless, if half of what was written about Siraj is true, we shouldn't put it past him.

TB

LIES

I QUOTE

"Absence of any independent confirmation: apart from Holwell's account..."

Rubbish!!

Secretary Cooke, another European survivor of the Black Hole, gave very detailed evidence before the Parliamentary Committee of 1772. If anything this was better than Holwell's account.

"(who was not a neutral witness)"

What!!! So, who were "nuetral witnesses"?? The guards? Nobody else saw it.

"...no other source mentioned such an incident."

Rubbish!!! What about Orme? His detailed study was published before Holwell's. And he shed some new light on to the affair.

"Given its nature, it seems very unlikely that all traces of such a thing having happened would have disappeared."

It didn't! There was a Parliamentary Committee, that studied it, and who interviewed Cooke. Plus there was Holwell's account, plus the research of Orme in the 1750's, plus numerous other mentions of it, in Calcutta, some years afterwards. There are MANY MANY "traces" as the writer puts it.

"It must be remembered that the Bengal sultanate was a decaying, bureacratic one, not at all suited to systematic suppression of information."

No, but the anarchy was well suited for small details such as the Black Hole to be overlooked by Indians, that never even saw it.

"Historian RC Majumdar in his An Advanced History of India says that Holwell's story is entirely baseless and can not be considered reliable historical information."

AND WHY IS THAT!It is known that 40+ Europeans were taken captive, and that only a few were ever seen alive again. So what happened to these 40+ Europeans? Why can their deaths not be considered "reliable historical information".

I personally think there is a truck load of evidence to support the Black Hole story, but if the likes of "RC Majumdar" (whoever he is) says that Holwell was the only source, then he has got the basic facts wrong - and if he has got the most basic facts wrong, then he is not much of a historian is he? So why quote him?

What has been entered into this article is FALSE. Far be it for me to contradict "RC Majumdar" who is an "historian" and who wrote an "advanced history" but can I refer the editors to the esteemed Calcutta historian H. E. Busteed, who writes about Cooke, and other aspects of the case. Or if you don't believe him, try R. Orme who wrote a huge amount about it a few years after it happened, or if you don't like either of those, try the English parliamentary records for 1772!

TB

Please provide a citation to a source that described the incident INDEPENDENTLY of Holwell's acount. Loom91 10:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand why some Bengalis deny the black hole incident.The nawab did a great thing.I think the british got what they deserved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.48.91 (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Links with pictures

Somebody who knows how to attach pictures might find these links useful. The first one shows a picture of the Curzon monument in the grounds of St. John's church, after it had been removed from Dalhousie Square,

[1]

The second one shows the memorial tablet when it was still on the wall beside the building that is just to the north of the GPO at Dalhousie Square. The marks where the memorial tablet was, can still be seen on the wall in a narrow gap behind a hut in an alley between that building and the GPO. The tablet is now on display in the nearby postal museum. This link shows that tablet on the wall. The resolution is not good and the tablet just shows up as a black rectangle on the wall, but it is probably the only existing picture of the tablet when it was on that at the exact location of the incident,

[2]

The third one shows a sketch of the Holwell monument when it was still at the north west corner of Dalhousie Square,

[3]

David Tombe (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Victims section was vandalized

The "victims" section has been completely butchered, I have tried to repair it. An interesting footnote about the meaning of "Portuguese" in 18th century Calcutta, was partially reworked into the text so it didn't make any sense at all. Either the person that did it, didn't really speak English, or it was a deliberate vandalism of the page, given the sensitive nature of the subject matter, sabotage does not seem out of the question. Would the editors please either leave my repairs, or revert the casualty list back to what it was before it was vandalized.

THIS IS WHAT I TRIED TO PUT.... And more or less what was there before tyhe vandalism.

This is Holwell's actual list of the victims (source: Busteed, 1888 appendix section of Echoes of Old Calcutta)

List of the smothered in the Black Hole prison (exclusive of sixty-nine, consisting of Dutch and English sergeants, corporals, soldiers, topazes, militia, whites, and Portuguese, (whose names I am unacquainted with), making on the whole one hundred and twenty-three persons.’

Of Council - E. Eyre, Wm. Baillie,. Esqrs., the Rev. Jervas Bellamy.

Gentlemen in the Service-Messrs. Jenks, Revely, Law, Coales, Valicourt, Jeb, Torriano, E. Page, S. Page, Grub, Street, Harod, P. Johnstone, Ballard, N. Drake, Carse, Knapton, Gosling, Bing, Dod, Dalrymple.

Military Captains - Clayton, Buchanan, Witherington.

Lieutenants-Bishop, Ifays, Blagg, Simson, Bellamy.

Ensigns-Paccard, Scot, Hastings, C. Wedderburn, Dumbleton.

Sergeants, &c. - Sergeant-Major Abraham, Quartermaster Cartwright, Ser geant Bleau (these were sergeants of militia).

Sea Captains-Hunt, Osburne, Purnell (survived the night, but died next day), Messrs. Carey, Stephenson, Guy, Porter, W. Parker, Caulker, Bendall, Atkinson, Leech, &c., &c.

List of those who survived - Messrs. Holwell, Court, Secretary Cooke, Lushington, Burdett, Ensign Walcott, Mrs. Carey, Captain Mills, Captain Dickson, Mr. Moran, John Meadows and twelve military and militia, blacks and whites, some of whom recovered when the door was opened.

"Portuguese" was the general, albeit confusing, name used for Calcutta's Anglo-Indians: a term commonly used from the early 18th century to the mid 19th century - but no later than 1850. In 1829 Victor Jacquemont (travelling naturalist, to the Museum of Natural History, Paris) wrote: "There is a fairly large Portuguese population in Calcutta. Few of them, it is true, can boast a purely European origin; there are some, but they are all black, blacker than the natives... " In 1798 ‘Portuguese and other Christian inhabitants’ (IE, Eurasians and Indian converts) occupied 2,650 houses out of a total of 78,760 city abodes. They were often the distant offspring of Portuguese soldiers who had established the first European settlement in Bengal at Hooghly.

-

The information on the Portuguese was (and should be) a footnote.

It is important that Holwell's actual unadulterated list of survivors should appear in the article. His list is the very core of the subject matter. It should speak for itself.

I am not surprised that the victims section was vandalized, as Holwell clearly states within it that the victims were a completely multi-racial group: British, some other Europeans, many Anglo-Indians ("Portuguese") and some full-blooded Indians. This makes a mockery of much nationalistic Indian ranting about the affair, and leaves many leftist and nationalistic Indians so-called historians with egg on their faces, because it quickly disproves half their allegations. They are happy to attack Holwell, but they refuse to quote him on the most important issue.

The whole tone of the article is skewed anyway. It has "alledged" written all over it, and the Indian historians (and Little) that have attacked it have been given mention, and the many historians past and present, that support the standard view, that it did happen,go unmentioned.

The incident was as well documented as any other similar minor 18th century atrocity. Of the 11 European survivors, 2 gave very detailed accounts in print, and there are some anecdotal traces of a third, another very detailed account was given by R. Orme, in the 1760's ( a high ranking East India Company officer and respected historian), it was also the subject of a parliamentary enquiry in the 1770's, and it was widely reported in the English press at the time. In truth, it is probably quite well documented by 18th century standards! And yet we are told here that it's unreliable history..... hmmmmm. What is history anyway?

Well, I know if I tried to cut out all the anti-British bias within the text, my efforts would be quickly wiped out, but it really is a matter of common sense and fairness that, if all the controvesy is about Holwell's list of victims, then Holwell's list of victims should be in the artcle for all to read and judge. Indeed, in all fairness to wikipedia, so it was before the vandalism.

TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.46.136 (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is a saying, for example in a book there was a dark alley way you could name it the black whole of calcutta because that's the sort of thing you would kind of describe it as but i don't know what it means!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.182.82 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bombaugh's version of the Black Hole

Bombaugh, writing in 1875, notes:

[The Black Hole of Calcutta] was only eighteen feet by eighteen, containing, therefore, three hundred and twenty-four square feet. When Fort William was taken, in 1756, by Surajah Dowla, Nabob of Bengal, one hundred and forty-six people were shut up in the Black Hole. The room allowed to each person a space of twenty-six and a half inches by twelve inches, which was just sufficient to hold them without their pressing violently on one another. To this dungeon there was but one small grated window, and, the weather being very sultry, the air within could neither circulate nor be changed. In less than an hour, many of the prisoners were attacked with extreme difficulty of breathing; several were delirious; and the place was filled with incoherent ravings, in which the cry for water was predominant. This was handed them by the sentinels, but without the effect of allaying their thirst. In less than four hours, many were suffocated, or died in violent delirium. In five hours, the survivors, except those at the grate, were frantic and outrageous. At length most of them became insensible. Eleven hours after they were imprisoned, twenty-three only, of the one hundred and forty-six, came out alive, and those were in a highly-putrid fever, from which, however, by fresh air and proper attention, they gradually recovered. [4] — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 00:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent additions by Sabiba Hossain

This looks like original research to me. There are no direct citations and adding a section called "Conclusion" is almost stating that it is OR. What references there are are not relevant to this article. Given that it might be a slightly sensitive article I will leave it to others to decide on this. Mtpaley (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Turned out to be copied from another site and was deleted by Diannaa Mtpaley (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Calcutta or Kolkata?

The "background" section uses both, which is confusing. Whichever version is chosen, the name should be consistent throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"Black Hole" Etymology

Given that this event is commonly suggested to be the origin of the term for black holes in astronomy, should this be mentioned in the introduction to the article? It seems a prominent thing to mention.

Swampycow (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)