The Sedalia weekly bazoo. [volume] (Sedalia, Mo.) 187?-1904, 1889-08-20
HINDOO SERVANTS.
Their Love of Giving Understanding Titles
to Every Body.

to Every Body.
Indian servants are in many respects
like children, in their helplessness,
their ndicete, their timidity, their
readiness to be pleased, their foolish
ness. their prOneness TO falsehood,
their strong personal attachment
Even in their total lack of any sense
OF humor they resemble children. No
Englishman could hear English spoken
in the commically barbarOus way in
which the Hindustani is commonly
spoken by the British soldier without
betraying amusement. But the Indian
face remains darkly impassive. Not
the faintest twitch betokens any lurk-
ing laughter. Their love, too. of CIV
ing high-sounding titles is childish in
its prodigality. Undetermined as
they are, and with deep-rooted respect
for all differences of rank, il arises
from no vulgar wish to appear other
than what they are, and in its ex-
aggerated indulgence savorS even OF
sarcasm. A tailor and a cook both
enjoy the privilege OF being ad-
dressed by the exalted title of "ka-
lipha," or emperor. The water-carrier
is always ''jemadar, or captain.
and the bearer is 'sirdar." signify
ing chief among men, while. as
browning irony. the sweeper, who
ranks but little higher than the dogs
he looks after, is invariably called
s.mehter," or prince. The necessity
OF keeping "a great number OF servants,
often wondered at by dwellers at home,
is caused chiefly by the waste of time
involved by caste prejudice. Instead
OF having one dinner for all, and one
man to cook for all, there are few who
are not obliged to cook for themselves.
The table servants can not eat with
the grooms, nor they with the coach
man, nor he with the sweeper. So
each man has twice a day TO light his
own little fire, draw water from the
well and cook his own bowl OF rice-a
proceeding which wastes no small
amount OF time. One servant Wa
had was of the caste of OIL
sellers, and he told US there
was not one of our twenty-four other
servants with whom he could eat
bread, 1. e., if the other cooked the
food, and only one who could eat with
with him if he cooked. We asked
him if this distinction had not its
drawbacks. He merely replied that il
was the custom - what could
he do? He, himself, was
the humble recipient of four
thin rupees a month. shared doubtless
by wife and many dusky youngsters,
and yet he would have cheerfully sub
mitted to be whipped to death rather
than eat any thing that had been
placed on our table. 1t is strange
how uncomplainingly men wear the
iron letters forged by the great god
dess custom. They may ridicule her
with their lips. but they obey her ia
their lives. in curious contrast to the
many zealots who worship with their
lips god whose preeepts they per-
sistently ignore. The table servants
are men Of infinite resources. Moth.
ing daunts them. If you do not like
the way a vegetable marrow is cooked,
your man will say: Your majesty
has but to give the order and to-mor-
row it shall be made into French
beans" II they tell you there is beef
steak for dinner. you will ask. quite as
q matter of course: What is it made
OFF" when the answer will frequently
be: 'Of mutton, as no beef could be
procured" The want of beef was a
misfortune. but it could not be allowed
TO affect the menu.-Cornhill Maya
zine.