Introduction

132
Sabina Fazli
treasure in “slavery” (207) and thus justifies his right to ownership by his suffering
for the coveted treasure like Thomas Vandeleur.
In a British fort, besieged by Indian mutineers, Jonathan Small enters into a
close relation with the Sikhs, who, as Jeffrey Richards points out, bear “impossible
Moslem names” (17) which they soon exchange for “The Sign of Four”, the appellation
of their secret pact. By “the threefold oath which no Sikh was ever
known to break” Jonathan Small becomes one of them (Doyle, Sign 219). As in
The Moonstone and “The Rajah’s Diamond”, in view of the diamonds, loyalties shift
and Jonathan Small adheres to the pact’s principles. His scruples about murder are
waived by Abdullah Khan’s unmasking comment that he must only “do that
which your countrymen came to this land for […] to be rich” (219). The Sikh
Khan unmasks the hypocritical nature of colonialism where the hunt for treasure
is hidden under the mask of the civilising mission and other myths of empire. As
this is voiced by a native and a criminal the impact and credibility of this statement
is lessened. However, it is noteworthy that the imperial maxim of gain in the colony
is perpetuated and acted upon by the Sikhs themselves, the colonial subjects.
The implication is that they assume the exploitative stance of the coloniser, thus
exculpating Small who has been seduced by the stereotypical arguments for empire
voiced by the colonised themselves. Jonathan Small only has to consent to
“be rich”, and he becomes part of the Indian plot of “the Four” and is subsumed
under the strange signature, which erases racial differences in the commitment to
crime. He agrees to his accomplices’ murder of Achmet, the carrier of the treasure
and becomes involved in colonial crime like John Herncastle and Thomas Vandeleur.
While “the Four” pursue the treasure in the labyrinth of the old Agra fort the
Mutiny rages outside the walls. The Mutiny, the quintessential manifestation of
Indian cruelty and violence serves as the background for British crimes in The Sign
of Four and “The Rajah’s Diamond” which aligns the perpetrators with their Indian
accomplices.
In both “The Rajah’s Diamond” and The Moonstone the British crimes in India,
which surround the diamonds, are unspeakable: “It was said he [John Herncastle]
had got possession of his Indian jewel by means which, bold as he was, he didn’t
dare acknowledge” (Collins, Moonstone 40) and Thomas Vandeleur rendered a
“service which had been often whispered” (Stevenson, “Rajah’s” 71). The initial
silence around the circumstances under which the diamonds have been acquired
mirrors the unspeakability which surrounded the Mutiny in contemporary British
discourse. Despite an outpouring of texts on the subject, Christopher Herbert
observes, many of them refer to the “unspeakable horror” (Herbert 21; also
Sharpe 66) which can only be hinted at but not fully expressed. Thomas’ brother
John Vandeleur served the government in the Mutiny through “services, by which
the Government profited, but which the Government dared not recognise” (Stevenson,
“Rajah’s” 96). The second-hand account of the Moonstone’s theft em-