The 7 features of colonial rule
*International Political Dimension
*Bureaucratic elitism and authoritarianism
*Use of 'customary' authority figures in colonial society
*Use of force
*Technological advantage
*Statism
*Hegemonic ideology
Colonial states had little or no say in their laws or economy. Colonial states depended on traditional authority figures to carry out their laws. These people were village chiefs or upperclassmen. Hegemonic power ingrained helplessness into the people's minds. They thought they were supposed to follow the rules. Hegemonic power prevents rebellions and uprisings because people inherently believe that their rulers are beneficial. One challenger of colonial rule was Gandhi.
"The idea that British rule was invincible was challenged by the law-breaking mass movements led by Gandhi and others- movements whose basic objective was to show that British rule could be challenged and to build up confidence and courage among the people so that they could develop the capacity to struggle successfully against that rule." (p. 284)
I like this quote because it is so true. The masses were subject to unfair exploitation however Gandhi became the voice of the people- and he had many followers that believed in independence. What's more incredible was that he led people in peaceful protest. This way has more impact because it brings out the injustices of colonial rule. When people protest peacefully, they open up the tables for negotiation and represent readiness for reconciliation. Gandhi was the pioneer for mass protest and civil disobedience during the Indian Independence movement. He led protests by rounding up peasants, farmers, urban laborers and led nation-wide campaigns to ease poverty, expand women's rights, rid "untouchability" and build religious and ethnic amity (wikipedia.org).
The British raj was the name of British colonial rule in India. India gained its independence in 1947.
Statism means the state has massive control over the economy. An example is Britian's East India Company, who controlled much of present-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh & Sri Lanka. In 1858, the Crown gained power of India from the East India Company. Railways, roads, canals and bridges, telegraph stations were built in India for easy communication and transportation and were thus ruled by the state. However, while this benefited Britain, it harmed India because it did not create jobs for Indians, left India with high unemployment and crippled India's economy for the local businesses. Also, there were a series of famines in India, resulted from poor colonial administration and the economic constraints in India.
Britain controlled by force, exercising control through zamindars (landlords in India) and the military. Zamindars were Indian landlords who collected taxes from the peasants, then handed the money to Britain and keeping a portion for themselves. The majority of rules were enforced by the military. The text notes multiple rebellions in the Madras Province of India. In Africa, troops would devastate areas with violence.
Britain's power started to fade by the end of the 1930s with the establishment of the Indian National Congress (1937) which gave people local power. A highlighting event was the revolt of the Royal Indian Navy in Bombay, also known as the "Bombay Mutiny." The mutiny spread to many ships and 20,000 sailors. It was a strike against conditions and lack of food.
We can see the devastating effects of colonials and the changes after independence. The masses were quick to support the rebellions. The beginning of self-independence for India was the start of a new era.
"No government lasts long on the basis of force alone. The British had to have 'traditional' authority figures in Indian society on whom they could rely for political support and who could bring to the new state the cloak of legitimacy. Where they could not find authority figures, they created them." (p. 278)
My reaction to this quote is that the colonizers were quite clever in maintaining power abroad. For as long as they can convince people that their loyalty rested in Britain, they could control whole nations. They placed people they could trust, and that the locals could trust to re-enforce power. In Africa, Europeans ruled indirectly through tribes. They thought: "Every African belonged to a tribe, like every European belonged to a nation." Therefore each tribe must be under a chief. They took advantage of this by supervising chiefs and making sure these 'patrimonial rulers" represented European administration.
No comments:
Post a Comment