In defence of imperialism
Ejaz Haider
Imperialism is a much-decried idea. Should it be? Post-colonial studies thrive on bashing imperialism and celebrating local cultures. Edward Said’s Orientalism and Culture and Imperialism are of course the highpoint of such critical writings whose numbers have been swelling over the last two decades. I love both works for the vastness of the sources they draw on, the beauty of Said’s style and the incisiveness of his criticism. But forgive me, dear reader, if I can’t find much fault with imperialism.
No one objects to the mating or crossing of species in the animal or plant kingdom. It is generally accepted that the process lies at heart of better natural selection and species’ survival. Studies have also confirmed that cross-cultural or cross-ethnic marriages result in healthier children.
Of course, I see the danger of pressing this analogy. I could be blamed for reviving, through this reference to biology, the degenerate and hated modernist theory which Western imperialism threw up in its moment of triumph. But I would reject this criticism for two reasons. One, the reference to biology must not be seen in biological terms but, in the realm of nations, should be translated into achievements that make one collection of people superior to the others, even though at a particular point in time. Two, a provocative point is always a good beginning.
Throughout history, people and tribes and nations have fought each other, striven for resources, and done it both for survival as well as to create surplus. History is thus the logic of might. The Romans fought the Phoenicians (Carthaginians) on land and sea. The Puni, as the Romans called them were sailors, a great naval power with vast commercial interests. Romans weren’t. Polybius reports how the Romans turned themselves into sailors by systematically building up a navy. By the time they faced the Carthaginians in the First Punic War, they managed to destroy nearly all of the Carthaginian fleet.
In this long struggle through three wars, Rome’s final victory owed to a number of factors. Two were most important: the ability of Rome to maintain its political unity and to emerge as a great naval power from a near-total lack of a naval tradition and successfully challenge Carthage. That feat contained in it the germs of the Roman spirit. It is instructive to compare this with the slothful Mughals who made absolutely no attempt to develop a strong navy. Indeed, throughout Islamic history, there has been no serious attempt, except by Suleiman the Magnificent, to try to build a navy. (Even today, Pakistan has the worst allocation ratio of any middle-sized power with the navy getting Re 1 for every Rs 40 spent on the ground forces. That this situation has not changed even after the country’s nuclearisation should worry the defence planners.)
Romans also created a workable political system, established colonies and ruled them through an administrative order that was efficient and quite just for those days. Their most important contribution was not just military conquests but the nature of their interaction with the subjects. Indeed, Roman colonisation ended up empowering the subjects, some of whom successfully challenged the Roman hegemony.
No one wants to study the empowerment imperialism brings to the “natives”, a phenomenon that is played out at multiple levels. Even the use of violence, from Frantz Fanon’s viewpoint, leads to empowerment in that — to quote Sartre — it, “like Achilles’ lance, can heal the wounds that it has inflicted”. Said knew he was the product of imperialism and he acknowledged it. The fact is that the destruction of imperialism lies in its very success, whether that success denotes oppression (as in the case of France in Algeria) or a more benign spirt (as in the case of British in India). Those who fought for the independence of India were educated in British schools and universities and empowered by imperialism. British imperialism produced some of the best minds among us. Again, it will be instructive to compare the intellectual activity of that time — both qualitatively and quantitatively — with what we have achieved since 1947.
From literature to religion to the sciences and the arts and even learning modern military techniques, we have imbibed from British imperialism. The point is not that we should have allowed ourselves to be subjugated. But if the process of struggle between peoples is accepted — and history is nothing but the account of such struggles — then we lacked something and, in the process of natural selection, had to go through the experience of subjugation at that point in history. In order to make use of this experience we need to see its positive side rather than keeping lamenting its seamy side.
When Muslims were strong, they were an imperial power. Most of us tend to forget the Arab, Turkish, Iranian and Afghan imperialism and focus merely on the British rule. But all the invaders added something to the local flavour even as they left behind incidents of loot and plunder and carnage. Jallianwala Bagh was a tragedy but so was the sacking of Delhi by Nadir Shah. There is no reason to be selective in our condemnation. And there is even less reason to condemn imperialism outright.
Ejaz Haider is News Editor of The Friday Times and Contributing Editor of Daily Times
_____________________
when they make no laws but what they themselves and their posterity must be subject to; when they can give no money, but what they must pay their share of; when they can do no mischief, but what must fall upon their own heads in common with their countrymen; their principals may expect then good laws, little mischief, and much frugality
The best of imperialism is when it brings knowledge and when it improves the lot of those occupied.
I'm reminded of the movie life of brian. "what did the romans ever do for us? well they gave us sanitation. okay but apart from sanitation what did the romans ever do for us? well they built bridges. okay, but apart from sanitation and bridges what did they ever do for us. schools? well okay but apart from sanitation, bridges and schools, what did they ever do for us... etc"
The problem with Imperialism is that one set of people are enslaved by another.
There is no democracy per se.
The assets of the vassal state goes to the conquering nation.
Therefore, is it good?
The author should do an audit as to what an imperialist nation gives and what it takes.
This article is an ideal example of misuing facts and reconsturcting them to suit the author's convenience to promote an idea that is controversial.
It is a neat way to promote the idea of Islamic imperialism (last paragraph) to unite the Islamic nations.
The clever ploys should be observed.
He states "Post-colonial studies thrive on bashing imperialism and celebrating local cultures". What is the hottest 'post colonial imperialism' imafge around the world that is current? It is the US action in Iraq. . Though it is not imperialism per se, the US pre-emptive strike on Iran (maybe for good reasons for the US) does smack of a Nation forcing its will on another = imperialism (sic!)
In an oblique way he suggest Romans were succesful since they were a naval power etc. Now, unlike the US, an average prson couldn't care less what the Romans did. He would remember only that it was a great Empire. Note great Empire. The Us reader would not appreciate 'the word empire' but subconsciously they will substitute the word 'empire' with the thought 'the sole superpower doing the world a lot good' or a 'great country - the best'. This neutralises them from the distaste of the word ' empire' and yet they feel that like the Romans (the image of baths, romans highways, buildings etc are the first thoughts that hit when discussing the Roman Empire) the US too is doing a great job. So that it neutralises the US readers and lulls them in believing that doing good to the world with military might is great! Thus, they see the article without the acrimony and may even agree.
The author's job completes. US opinion neutralised and yet the subtle message of rejuvenate Islamic imperialism to its own gets justified and the enemy (US) neutralised!
It is the same style as those who wish to push the Islamic fundamentalism under the carpet by saying that they fundamentalists are not 'true Moslems'.
Islam has many military traditions that have marvelled me. Apart from the willing sacrifice of oneself for the Cause (as all militaries around the world would like their soldiers to do), issue like not using the same road that was used to go for prayers and instead return by a different route is exactly what one does during patrolling in the Army so taht one is not ambushed! Though only obliquely military ,yet the narration of Ibn Majaah in the Sunaan ibn Majah on Page 267 is great. It says " The best hair dye for you is black which will cause love in the hearts of women and awe in the hearts of your enemies". Indeed, if the enemy sees a white bearded man, he would know that that man is feeble and old and so the enemy wil take heart. But with black beard, the enemy would be cautious since it could be a young man with a lot of fervour.
Therefore, one should not brush under the carpet the intrinsic military aspects and the inherent aggressive attitude of Islam. In fact, it is a famous saying in the subcontinent that is propogate (though without sceientic validity) that one Moslem is equal to 10 kaffirs. This does give a lot of impetus to the Moslems in times of crisis in teh sub continent.
I think the author makes the mistake that knowledge, which is the benefit, can only come through imperialism. The cross-infection of ideas is something that many regimes try to prevent. I've been racking my brain trying to come up with a time when ideas crossed boundaries without militarism, maybe the renaissance?Originally Posted by Ray
Parihaka, Ray
Imperialism, I think most people would agree that we tend to associate with the West, exclusively, -, and on that line of thinking, can we not make a very credible case that imperialism, especially Western Imperialism, was a net positive, especially in the case of India?
"The problem with Imperialism is that one set of people are enslaved by another."
Is this really the case, or has rhetoric got the better of our friend? Were Indians really the "slaves" of the English?
"There is no democracy per se."
Yes, but doesn't the author have a valid point that imperialism brought with it the emancipation of the "natives" - for instance, when in the entire history of India did there were exist ideas of human liberation as forceful as those brought by Western imperialism??
"The assets of the vassal state goes to the conquering nation."
Especially with relation to INdia, this is most definitely not true, the English continued to run deficits with India
"Therefore, is it good?"
Well, we have now added new light and hope that a more complex response may be generated.
Ray, a particular theme you continue to have a problem with is the idea that good and bad are not equal but are opposites -- you have cited the case of Iraq as an example "Western" IMperialism (really, is there any other kind - only if we are unlucky) - if tomorrow a elected govt sits in Baghdad, will that be good? If the idea of human liberation and responsibility for the consequences of choices takes hold in Iraq and radiates inward and out, would that be yet another failure of "imperialism"?
_____________________
when they make no laws but what they themselves and their posterity must be subject to; when they can give no money, but what they must pay their share of; when they can do no mischief, but what must fall upon their own heads in common with their countrymen; their principals may expect then good laws, little mischief, and much frugality
No. The British were a slave to them."The problem with Imperialism is that one set of people are enslaved by another."
Is this really the case, or has rhetoric got the better of our friend? Were Indians really the "slaves" of the English?
Note: Indians included your folks too in those days. I am sure they would not say that the British were slaves to them.
Slave also means a society which is completely dominated by some influence. The influence was the British and they controlled every aspect of life excepting domestic.
Emancipation? They did not bring any 'human liberation'. It was the Congrees Party and the Khilafat Movement, the Gaddar Movement of the Sikhs and things like that. It was influenced by the happenings around the world. Did the Sepoy Mutiny come out by 'human liberation' as you imply by the British? It came about by the tyranny of the British perpetuated by Lord Dalhousie and his indirect way to build an Empire through the 'Doctrine of Lapse'."There is no democracy per se."
Yes, but doesn't the author have a valid point that imperialism brought with it the emancipation of the "natives" - for instance, when in the entire history of India did there were exist ideas of human liberation as forceful as those brought by Western imperialism??
I reckon you should read the history again."The assets of the vassal state goes to the conquering nation."
Especially with relation to INdia, this is most definitely not true, the English continued to run deficits with India
All your statements so far is rather odd. It is almost similar to the author whose article you have posted. It appears as if you wish to provoke me.
Even individuals lived off the wealth of India, let alone the British govt. Heard of Lord Clive (who cme as a writer or clerk) became a Lord or Hastings? Both amassed their wealth from the loot in India? No. Read the Impeachment of of Warrran Hastings.
Just a question for you. If India was not the Crown Jewel of the British Empire as it was called so in British history, do you think that they fought wars with the local Kings just because they wanted to test their weapons and decrease the British population in India?
I am tempt to do a 'Leader' i.e. write 'red herring'.Ray, a particular theme you continue to have a problem with is the idea that good and bad are not equal but are opposites -- you have cited the case of Iraq as an example "Western" IMperialism (really, is there any other kind - only if we are unlucky) - if tomorrow a elected govt sits in Baghdad, will that be good? If the idea of human liberation and responsibility for the consequences of choices takes hold in Iraq and radiates inward and out, would that be yet another failure of "imperialism"?
What exactly are you implying?you have cited the case of Iraq as an example "Western" IMperialism (really, is there any other kind - only if we are unlucky)
It is a question of a big 'IF'. In Islam which is militaristic and obeys rules and orders without question, the concept of 'human liberation' does not arise. It is and will always be 'Islamic way of life and supremacy'. So long as there is the Mullah and Imam who dictates the lives of individuals (including that of Musharraf), the concept of democracy and human liberation radiating inwrd, outward, sideways does not arise. Imagine Sistani an Ayotollah is the boss who decides the Fate of Iraqis, especially Shias. Individualism is a concept that is absent in Islam.If the idea of human liberation and responsibility for the consequences of choices takes hold in Iraq and radiates inward and out, would that be yet another failure of "imperialism"?
My knowledge of Islam is borrowed, but if I am wrong, I sure would like to learn.
Ray is FAR better qualified to answer this than me but to generalise: A net positive? no.
Certainly by the later stages, yes
The ideas can be transfered without military conquest. I think???
I would be amazed if Britain did not have a net benefit from the conquest of India
RAY
I assure you the only provocation I am up to is academic and entirely intellectual - But I do see how it is provocative and that's what so appealing about it - We have a certain comfort level with regard to some ideas and I had hoped that we may reevaluate the basis of our comfort with those ideas.
Lets review again, whether Indian were were slaves of the English - this idea, and I suggest that it's only substance is it's value as rhetoric, really we have no credible evidence to offer that the Indian were ever "slaves" of the English.
you view the suggestion that the Imperialists introduced into our society ideas political and human liberation, as yet more, provocation, you say:"aboutEmancipation? They did not bring any 'human liberation'. It was the Congrees Party and the Khilafat Movement, the Gaddar Movement of the Sikhs and things like that. It was influenced by the happenings around the world. Did the Sepoy Mutiny come out by 'human liberation' as you imply by the British? It came about by the tyranny of the British perpetuated by Lord Dalhousie and his indirect way to build an Empire through the 'Doctrine of Lapse'"
Look it, "Congress Party" -- which part of this idea is at all Indian?? Which part of the political ideology of the Congress party Indian or takes any frame of reference from within Indian history and culture??
THink about the entire idea of "movement" - since when was that any other than Western in inspiration and method??
How abou the notion of political liberation? did that not come with Western Imperialism? Isn't Democracy in India the fruit of such?
BTW do you think the Swami Viveknanda's epic project would have any meaning without "secularism" in the Western sense ??
Many people imagine that Western civ means technology but not ideas, perhaps they can be afforded an opportunity to reevaluate that idea.
"What exactly are you implying?" You ask ,- well, just that we could have done a lot worse than Western imperialism
_____________________
when they make no laws but what they themselves and their posterity must be subject to; when they can give no money, but what they must pay their share of; when they can do no mischief, but what must fall upon their own heads in common with their countrymen; their principals may expect then good laws, little mischief, and much frugality
Parihaka,
No.
The British came to India since they wanted to be SLAVES!
The very thought that any country would build an empire for the lark of it or as an adventure or one of those TV virtual adventure (or whatever it is called) is too much for imagination and sanity!
So, the French occupied all that sand in North Africa just because they wanted to get lost in it or get the sand in their eyes and experience the same if it stings or not or maybe wanted to teach French to the Arabs and North Africans.
Oh yes, imagine those Arabs with their funny script getting to be educated (being westernised or speaking English or French in some countries is equated as education)! Now that is 'human liberation'! In fact, the French took less and gave so much to their colonies - the French language. Vive le France!
"What exactly are you implying?" You ask ,- well, just that we could have done a lot worse than Western imperialism[QUOTE]
What makes you so sure?
Crystal gazing into history? Or have you taken a trip on HG Wells Time machine and gone back?
I don't know about Pakistan but after indpendence we (India) have done pretty well without our masters, so much so that a CIA document (as posted by leader) dreads the fact that India would outpace the western world! It is anotehr form of crystal gazing.
I thought crystal gazing ws done by the gypsies.
Parihaka,
Oh yes another gift from the colonials.
The Arabd learnt to write from left to right and not in the cockeyed way of right to left.
Now, that is a great gift!
I really cannot fathom as to why people ahve no self confidence and think others alone can help one to find one's palce in the sun.
I presume the Chinese are doing well because of the colonials who came to Shanghai and made it an international city and zone.
Or maybe because they learnt to smoke opium because of the British Opium Wars and that gave them a greater insight!
Good for the colonials.
Parihaka, ray
" I've been racking my brain trying to come up with a time when ideas crossed boundaries without militarism, maybe the renaissance?"
TRADE
Now, if this experienceof Western imperialism was really a though out policy of "enslaving" the natives, certainly it was misconcieved - imagine if the evil Westren imperialists had used the genuinely demonic weapons at their disposal, with which to lead astray us natives, I am thinking of course of Viennese Pastry, Italian Pastry, Danish cakes - We have a huge sweet tooth, they could have us pay them for being their slaves - that is if they had started out with the plan to enslave us.
Truth is they started out with a plan to trade with us - and truth is that they used the opportunities that were available to them and some which they created - lest recall that the English state did not get directly involved in India until after the Mutiny.
And about education?? Would Ray challenege the education most Indians got after the English found, in a commission, that neither arabic nor Hindi provided for the natives the kinds of education they required??
We must reject ethnocentric, racists ideas to which we have fallen victim, the bit about solonialism, imperialism and our marxist rhetoric needs ot be examined critically and fairly.
_____________________
when they make no laws but what they themselves and their posterity must be subject to; when they can give no money, but what they must pay their share of; when they can do no mischief, but what must fall upon their own heads in common with their countrymen; their principals may expect then good laws, little mischief, and much frugality
I admire the British for what they have given.
However, I don;t agree that they came to India to bear the whiteman's burden. They came to get rich, which they did. Their country could become an imperial power 9superpwoer in terms of those days) to reckon with because of its colonies.
As soon as the colonies forced their independence, Britain lost its value and today sadly it is just hanging to the coat tails of the US jsut to remain in the reckoning. I say that from an academic point of view.
Ray
You attemnpt wit and ask "What makes you so sure?"
Well, for one the experience of the Maharajas and Moghuls produced only Hindus and Muslims, not Indians - Surely that's a Western idea you can be grateful, for?
_____________________
when they make no laws but what they themselves and their posterity must be subject to; when they can give no money, but what they must pay their share of; when they can do no mischief, but what must fall upon their own heads in common with their countrymen; their principals may expect then good laws, little mischief, and much frugality
No one has suggested thatthe English or anyone else came to bear any burden, but that does not mena that they did not. Because they most certainly did.
Think abou the entire idea of education of a single unitary state - uncaring briutes would have done better?
_____________________
when they make no laws but what they themselves and their posterity must be subject to; when they can give no money, but what they must pay their share of; when they can do no mischief, but what must fall upon their own heads in common with their countrymen; their principals may expect then good laws, little mischief, and much frugality
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: