Written by Anwesh Satapathy
Research Intern,
Jindal Centre for the Global South,
O.P. Jindal Global University, India
Much has been written about the social, historical, and economic effects of colonialism. Scholars have credibly argued that colonial subjugation has a prominent role to play in the degradation of stable economies of colonized societies. Capitalism came with the advent of the industrial revolution, which resulted in a devastating blow to colonized society while resulting in unprecedented growth on the imperial powers[1]. Colonialism was not a passing historical fate. It cannot be reduced to a mere isolated historical event. Over half of the contemporary world bore the brunt of it, while its effects continue to percolate. Colonialism was, in fact, premised on an ideology. It was justified and rationalized through elaborate arguments. It is this element that I seek to explore in this article. I argue that the ideology of colonialism continues to exist in subtle as well as explicit ways in postcolonial society. The fact that it’s an ideology can be glimpsed through recent works of history coming out of Britain, which argue that it was the British Empire, which created a global economically robust community[2].
The encounter between the colonizer and the native population is mediated and sustained through violence. In descriptive terms, the state is defined by its monopoly on violence and since the imperial powers control the state, they have the methods of violence at their hands. Given the inherent illegitimacy of the colonial state, violence is used indiscriminately against the natives to oppose all forms of opposition. Unlike divisions in a capitalist society, which is practiced implicitly through institutions, the divisions in a colonized society is stark and clear. The colonial power does not merely exploit, it dehumanizes the native population and attempts to deliberately destroy native culture. This is exemplified by the British education system in India. The Whig politician Thomas Babington Macaulay was behind the introduction of English institutional education in India. Macaulay argued that “a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia”. Indian languages were dismissed as being crude without any literary merit. Thus, Indians were to be educated in the superior language of English. The ancient texts of India were denounced as being full of “monstrous superstition”.
The purpose of colonial education was to form a class of interpreters. These interpreters would be Indians in blood and colour but English in morals, opinions, and tastes[3]. This seemed to be precisely what happened, as evidenced through the writings and letters of nationalist figures like Jawaharlal Nehru, MK Gandhi, and Subhash Bose, all of whom wrote and read proficiently in the language of the colonizer. Indian social reformers like Raja Rammohan Roy uncritically accepted the colonial association of polytheism with superstition and argued instead that Hinduism was originally monotheistic. Such simplistic cleavage was both a reaction to colonial stereotypes as well as an internalization of Victorian morality. The criminalization of homosexuality was a product of the institutionalization of Anglican morality. Nevertheless, the natives continue to profess opposition to same sex marriage based on Victorian morality. Pre-colonial India was not only tolerant of queer relations but actively celebrated it[4].
Contemporary debates on the uniform civil code in India are also reflective of the lingering effects of colonialism. Before the advent of the British, India had a diversity of laws and rules regarding marriage and adoption. These were flexible and not fixed in stone. Before 1937, Indian Muslims were largely governed by laws that were not very different from their Hindu counterparts. This was changed through growing demands from the clergy and the feudal lords for an orthodoxy suitable to their economic and patriarchal interests. Thus, the Shariat Act was brought into existence through persistent demands from the Muslim League, which at this point was in no manner the representative of Indian Muslims. The Shariat was, however, not in concordance to the Islamic orthodoxy. Au contraire, it recognized adoption, preserved the economic power in opposition to Islamic principles while creating a psychological division between the two communities. The British were happy to comply owing to their interest in dividing and standardizing India’s diverse communities[5][6]
Why does the colonized accept the ways of the colonizer? The philosopher Albert Memmi argues that the colonized has no choice but to accept the morals of the colonizer in a society profusely filled with colonial institutions[7]. The need to belong is only human. While the colonizer no longer exists in explicit forms in post-colonial societies, their institutions, laws, and schools continue to function. Thus, the colonized continues to believe implicitly in the inferiority of her culture and literature long after the colonizer has departed. The collective memory of native culture has been replaced by colonial norms.
Yet, as Frantz Fanon points out, this sentiment cannot last. The dehumanizing and degrading psychological effects of colonialism eventually give way to liberation. It is merely a stage, and the natives eventually realize that they’ve been indoctrinated, that they’re human beings after all. It is only at this point that a truly national identity must be constructed, and native culture reclaimed while denouncing colonialism[8]. This form of decolonization will not be closed to European or Western influences. Instead, it will take what’s valuable in the European mould while proclaiming and protecting the cultural rights of the natives.
Bibliography
- Tharoor, S. (2016). An era of darkness: The British Empire in India. Aleph.
- columbia.edu. (2019). Minute on Education (1835) by Thomas Babington Macaulay. Columbia.edu. http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/macaulay/txt_minute_education_1835.html
- Vanita, R., &Kidwai, S. (2008). Same-sex love in India: A literary history. Penguin Books.
- Memmi, A. (2005). The colonizer and the colonized: A destructive relationship. Citizens International.
- Fanon, F. (1990). The wretched of the Earth. Penguin.
- Anil, P. (2023). Another India: The making of the world’s largest Muslim minority, 1947-77. Hurst & Company.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author (s). They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Jindal Centre for the Global South or its members.
Global South Studies Series 