Keep statue where it is

As someone from India, having lived in the UK for almost 60 years, I have been reading the correspondence regarding the fate of the statue of James Neill, an officer in the private army of the British East India Company, with great interest.

The plinth below the statue describes the General as having “stemmed the torrent of rebellion in Bengal.”

The first thing to be realised is that the British East India Company was in India to trade, not to conquer territory. To trade on their terms, they resorted to raising their own private army, which fought battles against the rightful inhabitants, and took over their land.

It is well-known that General James George Smith Neill was responsible for the death of many Indians. The statue was erected to commemorate a distorted history – history is, of course, written by the winners. However, as far as removing the statue is concerned, I have given this a great deal of thought, and have come to the conclusion that its removal would effectively erase a disgraceful chapter from the History of the British Empire. I think the statue should be left where it is, and a large plaque placed by it, detailing the man’s misdeeds, thereby informing future visitors of his true character. As far as the question of slavery is concerned, I am in full agreement with Norman MacLean that people should be educated about this, and a Museum of Slavery established. There is a good Museum in Liverpool, a city which has come to terms with its shameful history of the slave trade, and something along those lines, albeit smaller, would be a good idea. I would also suggest, that a statue of a slave with an accompanying explanatory plaque, be erected in front of each of the properties founded on the proceeds of slavery. viz. Belleisle, Rozelle, Auchincruive, and any others. Nazim Merchant, Ayr.