UNIT 17 IMPERIALISM

Structure
17.1 Introduction 17.2 Definitions of Imperialism
17.2.1 Empire Versus Imperialism 17.2.2 Imperialism Versus Colonialism

17.3 Modes of Imperialism 17.4 Theories of Imperialism

17.4.1 The Economic Explanations 17.4.2 Non-Economic Explanations

17.5 Stages of Imperialism

17.5.1 Mercantilism and Early Trading Empires 17.5.2 Industrial Capitalis m -----Imperialism of Free Trade 17.5.3 Finance Capitalism

17.6 The Empire on Which the Sun Never Set 17.7 Summary 17.8 Exercises

17.1

INTRODUCTION

This Unit attempts to explain imperialism both as a concept and historical phenomenon. Various scholars have attempted to explain imperialism from various perspectives but also differentiate it from terms like colonialism. The stress is also on the ways in which imperialism adopted different forms at different historical junctures. The Unit begins by looking at some of the definitions of imperialism. It will then go into the theories of imperialism and examine different explanations of imperialism that have been offered by scholars over the last century. The Unit will also focus on the stages of imperialism and see how these stages correspond with the rise and expansion of capitalism. It will finally take up Great Britain as a case study of the largest imperial power of the 19th and the 20th centuries.

17.2

DEFINITIONS OF IMPERIALISM

There is no one standard definition of imperialism. Let us look at some often used ones. Imperialism refers to the process of capitalist development which leads the capitalist countries to conquer and dominate pre-capitalist countries of the world. OR Imperialism is the system of political control exercised by the metropolis over the domestic and foreign policy and over the domestic politics of another polity, which we shall call the periphery (countries at the margins of the economic hierarchy). OR The term imperialism is used to designate the international practices and relations of the capitalist world during the distinct stage of mature capitalism that begins in the last quarter of the 19th century.

26

All these definitions, their differences notwithstanding, firmly establish imperialism as a modern phenomenon and distinctly different from pre-modern forms of conquests and political domination. In this context four important characteristic features of imperialism are: sharp increase in international flow of commodities, men and capital, interdependent set of relations between countries at different levels of industrial development, advanced and superior technology in imperialist countries, and competition between advanced capitalist countries

Imperialism

17.2.1 Empire Versus Imperialism

It is important to distinguish between empires and imperialism. There were many empires in history but empire in the era of capitalism is imperialism. What was new about imperialism in the modern era? What made it different from earlier expansions of empire? In earlier eras the motive was exaction of tribute. Under capitalism the economies and societies of the conquered or dominated areas were transformed, adapted and manipulated to serve the imperatives of capital accumulation in the imperialist countries placed at the centre of the economic hierarchy.

17.2.2 Imperialism Versus Colonialism

The distinction between imperialism and colonialism is equally important. The history of imperialism is different from the history of particular colonies. Imperialism is a specifically European phenomenon whereas colonialism is the system prevalent in the colonies. It can also be argued that since European imperial history had a basic unity therefore to study an empire in isolation would be pointless. When we study imperialism we examine the impact of empire on the metropolis, whereas colonialism refers to the impact on the colony. The advantages of the empire to the mother country ranged from the colonial wealth which financed the industrial revolution to the evolution of superior military technology, mechanisms of control such as the army and bureaucracy and disciplines such as anthropology.

17.3

MODES OF IMPERIALISM

Imperialism can be both formal and informal. Formal imperialism involves annexation and direct rule while informal empire means indirect rule by local elites who are independent legally but politically dependent on the metropolis. Similarly, there are three broad types of empires which have either existed in a linear chronology, one succeeding the other, or also co-existed with each other at a particular historical juncture. These types are: 1) 2) 3) trading empires which took the initiative in early conquests but eventually lost out in the era of industrial capitalism, such as Portugal and Spain industrial empires with full-fledged colonies, such as Britain and France industrial empires without, or with few, formal colonies, such as Germany
27

At the same time, it is important to remember different historical stages through which capitalist expansion took place leading to the formation of empires. The changing nature

Expansion of Europe

of imperialism was dependent upon the stages of capitalist development. Broadly speaking capitalism may be said to have gone through five stages, mentioned below: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) end of 15th to mid 17th Century rise of commercial capital and rapid growth of world commerce mid 17th to latter 18th Century commercial capital ripens into a dominant economic force late 18th Century to 1870s the era of industrial capital 1880 to World War I rise of monopoly capital, division of globe, etc. Post World War I socialism, decolonization, rise of multinational corporations

In this sense stages of imperialism coincide with stages of capitalism Stage of capitalism 1) 2) 3) Merchant capitalism Industrial capitalism Finance capitalism Imperial Powers Portugal and Spain Britain, France and Netherlands Britain, USA and Germany

The history of the European colonial empires falls into two overlapping cycles. The first began in the 15th Century and ended soon after 1800, the second in the late 18th Century lasting into the twentieth. During the first cycle America was important as a colonyin the second Africa and Asia.

17.4

THEORIES OF IMPERIALISM

The theories of imperialism can be grouped into two broad types, economic (J.A. Hobson, Hilferding, Rosa Luxembourg and Lenin) and political (Schumpeter, Fieldhouse, Gallagher and Robinson). They can also be distinguished as metrocentric (Schumpeter, Lenin, Hobson) and pericentric (Gallagher and Robinson, Fieldhouse). Let us look at these separately.

17.4.1 The Economic Explanations

The economic explanations offered by Hobson, Hilferding, Rosa Luxembourg and Lenin had a common feature a political agenda. Hobsons purpose was to alert the British public to the new plutocratic phenomenon that was hijacking British foreign policy to the expansionist agenda that was extracting a heavy price from the ordinary people merely to satisfy the financial capitalists who cared for nothing except maximizing returns on their investments. Hilferding was a German Social Democrat who was Finance Minister and paid with his life for being anti Nazi. Rosa Luxembourg, born in Poland, was a fiery revolutionary Social Democrat leader in Germany. Vladimir Lenin, the prominent Bolshevik leader and maker of the Revolution in Russia in 1917, wished to convince the Russian people that World War I was an imperialist war which they would do best to stay out of. In Imperialism (1902) Hobson explains imperialism as an outcome of the capitalist system. The key concept used is underconsumption. Industry looked for foreign markets as it cannot find domestic markets for its goods, wages being low. With major industrial powers competing for foreign markets there was a race for colonies which would serve as captive markets. Underconsumption also leads to oversaving as domestic investment does not make sound economic sense when there is little purchasing power.

28

Here again colonies serve as channels for investment. Thus Hobson concluded that ..the dominant directive motive behind imperialism was the demand for markets and for profitable investment by the exporting and financial classes within each imperialist regime. He dismissed other motives as secondary, be it power, pride and prestige or trade follows the flag or the mission of civilizing the natives. Rudolf Hilferding, in his work, Das Finanzkapital, (Finance Capital) published in 1910, demonstrated how big banks and financial institutions in fact control industrial houses in this last stage of capitalism, better known as finance capitalism. Monopoly capitalists looked to imperialist expansion as a way of ensuring secure supplies of raw materials, markets for industrial goods and avenues for investment. As each big European power was a monopoly capitalist, economic competition soon became political rivalry, which in turn escalated into war. Rosa Luxembourgs study titled Accumulation of Capital (1913) highlighted the unequal relationship between the imperial powers and the colonies. The European powers gained captive markets and secured profitable avenues for investment. In contrast, the colonies were merely suppliers of raw materials and foodstuffs. In Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916) Lenin argued that advanced capitalist countries invest in backward countries because the limits of profitable domestic investment have been reached. To invest at home would require development of the economy and better standard of living for workers, neither of which was in the interest of the capitalists. Lenins argument was that imperialist interests lay behind the rivalries between European powers that culminated in World War I. His intention was overtly political to expose the capitalist designs and convince the people of Russia that they should not participate in the War.

Imperialism

17.4.2 Non-economic explanations

Schumpeters Imperialism and the Social Classes (1931) broke away from the leftist paradigm which located imperialism and capitalism on the same grid. In his scheme, imperialism and capitalism were seen as clearly separate phenomena. Imperialism was atavistic, generated by pre-capitalist forces (pre-modern in essence). In contrast, capitalism was modern, innovative and productive and did not need control on a territory in order to prosper. Whereas the writers on the left saw imperialism as an economic system, for Schumpeter, Imperialism is the objectless disposition on the part of a state to unlimited forcible expansion. However, the problem with the usage of a conceptual attribute like disposition is that it can not be empirically tested and can, therefore, never be proved or disproved. Gallagher and Robinson (Africa and the Victorians) questioned the common interpretations of modern imperialism on two counts. They understood the distinction between pre 1870 and post 1870 imperialism to be invalid. Also, imperialism of free trade or informal imperialism was seen to be as important as formal imperialism. Political expansion was a function of commercial expansion - trade with informal control if possible; trade with rule when necessary. Gallagher and Robinsons explanation of imperialism was pericentric. In their view imperialism was a process driven by pressures from the peripheries - Asia, Africa and Latin Africa. The scramble for colonies was a preemptive move by European powers to occupy whatever territory they could in Asia and Africa so as to keep out rival nations. This view questioned the traditional Eurocentric explanation of the scramble for colonies in terms of the great conflicts of European diplomacy or the great thrusts of expansionary financial capitalism.

29

Expansion of Europe

Fieldhouse advanced a political explanation for imperialism. The new imperialism was the extension into the periphery of the political struggle in Europe. At the centre the balance was so nicely adjusted that no major change in the status or territory of any side was possible. Colonies became a means out of this impasse. For the British this impulse meant protecting the route to India through Egypt and the Suez Canal which necessitated control over the headwaters of the Nile and a predominant position in North Africa. For the French and Germans the impulse meant acquiring places in the sun to demonstrate national prestige. Fieldhouse concluded: In short, the modern empires lacked rationality and purpose: they were the chance products of complex historical forces operating over several centuries and more particularly during the period after 1815. Colonialism, according to AJP Taylor, became a move in the European game of balance of power. Doyle uses the term colonialization of the diplomatic system to describe the developments between 1879 and 1890. Bismarck acquired colonies in the early 1880s in the hope that a colonial quarrel with England would establish German credibility in France. France had to be compensated with colonies and overseas adventures in lieu of her loss of Alsace Lorraine. Competition for colonies led to a rift between England and Italy and Italy went over to the side of Germany. To sum up this section, a whole range of theories and explanations have been offered for imperialism and are now available with us. These can broadly be classified into economic and non-economic explanations. The economic explanation includes the factors pertaining to overproduction and underconsumption (Hobson), requirements of finance capitalism (Hilferding ), unequal exchange between the imperial powers and the colonies (Rosa Luxembourg), and the highest stage of capitalism (Lenin). The non-economic explanations have looked at imperialism as a pre-modern atavistic force (Schumpeter); or have offered a pericentric view concentrating on the developments in the colonies rather than the metropolis (Gallaghar and Robinson); or have seen it merely as an expression of political struggles within Europe (Fieldhouse).

17.5

STAGES OF IMPERALISM

The previous section was a discussion of the different ways in which imperialism has been understood and defined by scholars. In this section let us examine its development through various stages.

17.5.1 Mercantilism and Early Trading Empires

What enobled Europe to become the world leader? If we looked at the world in 1500 Europes dominant position could not be taken for granted. The Ottoman Empire, China under the Mings and India under the Mughals were at the same stage of development. They suffered from one major drawback, however, and that was their domination by a centralized authority which did not provide conditions conducive to intellectual growth. In contrast, the competition between different European powers encouraged the introduction of new military techniques. For example, the long range armed sailing ship helped the naval powers of the West to control the sea routes. This increased military power combined with economic progress to push Europe forward and ahead of other continents. The growth of trans - Atlantic trade was spectacular. It increased eightfold between 1510 and 1550 and threefold between 1550 and 1610. Trade was followed by the establishment of the empires and churches and administrative systems. The Spanish

30

and Portuguese clearly intended their empires in America to be permanent. The goods obtained from America were gold, silver, precious metals and spices as well as ordinary goods like oil, sugar, indigo, tobacco, rice, furs, timber and new plants like potato and maize. Shipbuilding industry developed around the major ports of London and Bristol in Britain, Antwerp in Belgium and Amsterdam in the Netherlands. The Dutch, French and English soon became keen rivals of the Spanish and Portuguese. This competition encouraged the progress of the science of navigation. Improved cartography, navigational tables, the telescope and the barometer made travel by sea safer. This strengthened Europes technological advantage further. The story of science and technology enabling European domination in trade with other areas has been told in the previous two Units of this Block. The discovery of America and of the route to the Indies via the Cape of Good Hope had great consequences for Europe. It liberated Europe from a confined geographic and mental cell. The medieval horizon was widened to include influences from Eastern civilizations and Western peoples. Discoveries, trade and conquests, which followed them, had practical consequences. Every colony or trading centre was a new economic stimulus. America was a market and American bullion increased the supply of money circulating in Europe and intensified existing economic and social developments. The volume of trade with America increased. For four centuries America satisfied the hunger for land among Europeans. Gold and silver stimulated exploration and conquest and attracted immigrants, who were followed close on their heels by missionaries. American colonies were set up by individuals; the state, patriotism and missionary impulse played little part. Before 1815 Spain and Portugal were the pre-eminent imperial powers. Their primacy lay not only in the fact that they were the first discoverers but that they worked out four of the five models for effective colonization which were typical of the first colonial empires. Both made huge profits from their colonies. Portugal had a huge empire in Asia and then in America and Brazil. Colonial revenues brought in the equivalent of 72,000 pound sterling in 1711. This was almost equal to metropolitan taxes. One special feature of the Portuguese empire was that she made no distinction between her colonies and the metropolis. No separate colonial department was set up till 1604. France, like Spain and Portugal, carried out expansion in the Americas in the regions of Canada and Latin America. This was undertaken by individual Frenchmen supported by the Crown with the aim of ensuring supplies of groceries and increasing naval power. The task of setting up the empire was carried out by the chartered companies. This worked to the advantage of the state as it was at a minimum cost. After 1660s the colonies became royal possessions and royal agents headed the government. French colonial government was as authoritarian as that of Spain. France was then an absolute monarchy and ruled colonies without giving them any constitutional rights. Local administration and law in the colonies were modeled on those prevailing in France. Her colonial empire suffered from too much state interference. France made no fiscal profits on her colonies, in sharp contrast to Portugal. This was despite the fact that more than two fifths French exports in 1788 were to colonial governments. By 1789 France lost most of her colonial possessions in America and India to Britain. The crucial weakness was her inferior naval power. Some of the Western states developed their colonies in the tropics , in India, Africa, Latin America and Australia. The Europeans did not settle in Africa, they were content with slaves, gold dust and ivory. The colonies were crucial to the British economy, they supplied raw materials and were markets for metropolitan products. The French minister,

Imperialism

31

Expansion of Europe

Choiseul, regretted that in the present state of Europe it is colonies, trade and in consequence sea power, which must determine the balance of power upon the continent. Of the five big European powers, France, Britain, Austria, Russia and Prussia, Britain soon emerged as the leader. She had many advantages the first was a developed banking and financial system. Her geographical location at the westward flank of Europe helped her to maintain a distance from the continent when she wished. The most important factor, which gave Britain an edge, was that it was the first country to undergo the Industrial Revolution. This enabled it to dominate Europe and to acquire colonies. In Bernard Porters words, she was the first frogspawn egg to grow legs, the first tadpole to change into a frog, the first frog to hop out of the pond. The first empires represented European ambition, determination and ingenuity in using limited resources rather than European predominance throughout the world. Christendom is also the proper perspective from which to view the religious drive behind the Spanish justification for empire.(Doyle:110) Doyle further sums up Spanish and British empires: Spain and Britain focused on trade in the east, on settlement and production in the west, and neither acquired colonies for immediate reasons of national security. Decline The old colonialism had its natural limits. Flow of precious metals declined. By the late 18th Century Spanish and Portuguese power declined and they lost their colonies. Dutch monopoly on shipping ended. Colonial rivalry between France and Britain ended in Britains preeminence. Britain was now the world leader in empire, finance and trade. As Eric Hobsbawm put it, Old colonialism did not grow over into new colonialism. It collapsed and was replaced by it. Let us sum up the discussion so far. Europes conquest of America, Africa and Asia from the sixteenth century was possible only because of her mastery of the seas. In this the countries on the Atlantic seaboard, Portugal, Spain, France, Britain and Holland, had an obvious advantage because of their geographical location. Europes domination was disastrous for other peoples: the indigenous populations in the Americas were wiped out and twelve million Africans were made slaves between 1500 and 1860. Europe benefited vastly in this era when merchant capital controlled the world economy. Institutions such as the modern state and bureaucracy and the scientific revolution in knowledge laid the foundations of the modern world.

17.5.2 Industrial capitalism Imperialism of Free Trade

Hobsbawm describes the Industrial Revolution in Britain as that unusual moment in world history when the worlds economy was built around Britain; when she was the only world power, the only imperialist, the only importer, exporter and foreign investor. The description of Britain as the workshop of the world was literally true in the middle of the nineteenth century when she produced most of its coal, iron and steel. The Industrial Revolution was followed by the single liberal world economy (in the 1860s possibly because of the monopoly of Britain) and the final penetration of the undeveloped world by capitalism. The early British industrial economy relied for its expansion on foreign trade. Overseas markets for products and overseas outlets for capital were crucial. The cotton industry exported eighty per cent of its output at the end of the nineteenth century. The iron and steel industry exported forty per cent of its output in the mid nineteenth century. In return Britain bought specialized local products such as cotton from the US, wool from Australia, wheat from Argentina, etc.

32

Britains trade also increasingly became greater with the empire. In cotton Latin America accounted for thirty five percent of British exports in 1840. After 1873 the East absorbed over sixty per cent of British cotton exports. Thus there were sound economic reasons for Britain opposing these areas being opened up to others. By 1815 Britain had already become the preeminent world power, combining naval mastery, financial credit, commercial enterprise and alliance diplomacy. The following decades of British economic hegemony were accompanied by large-scale improvements in transport and communications, by the increasingly rapid transfer of industrial technology from one region to another, and by an immense increase in manufacturing output, which in turn stimulated the opening of new areas of agricultural land and raw material sources. The age of mercantilism was over and with it tariff barriers stood dismantled. The new watchword was free trade and this brought international harmony rather than great power conflict. Europes military superiority continued. The improvements in the muzzle loading gun, the introduction of the breechloader, the Gatling guns, Maxims and light field artillery constituted a veritable firepower revolution, which the traditional societies could not withstand. The decisive new technology was the gun, the symbol of European superiority in the armament factory. As Hilaire Belloc said, Whatever happens, we have got the Maxim gun, and they have not. In the field of colonial empires, Britain brooked no rivals. The empire grew at an average annual rate of 100,000 square miles between 1815 and 1865. One group of colonies comprised those acquired for strategic and commercial reasons like Singapore, Aden, Falkland Islands, Hong Kong and Lagos. A second group was that of settler colonies, such as South Africa, Canada and Australia. With the spread of industrial capitalism the need grew for colonies as markets for manufactured goods especially textiles and suppliers of raw materials such as cotton and foodgrains. The colony emerged as a subordinate trading partner whose economic surplus was appropriated through trade based on unequal exchange. This international division of labour condemned the colony to producing goods of low value using backward techniques. Late industrializers and colonial powers By the 1860s the other countries like Germany and United States, were catching up with Britain in industrialization. In 1870 the figures for share of world industrial production were 13 percent for Germany and 23 per cent for the United States. The extent of the declining domination of Britain among the super powers can be understood by the table given below. Table Per Capita Levels of Industrialization Relative to Great Britain in 1900 = 100 1880 1 2 3 4 5 Great Britain United States France Germany Italy 87 38 28 25 12 1900 100 69 39 52 17 1913 115 126 59 85 26 1928 122 182 82 128 44 1938 157 167 73 144 61 Rank in 1938 2nd 1st 4th 3rd 5th

Imperialism

33

Expansion of Europe

In 1900 Britain was the unquestioned world leader. Her empire extended to twelve million square miles and a quarter of the worlds population. The race for colonies speeded up from the 1880s with the entry of Germany, Italy, US, Belgium and Japan into the race for colonies. These rivalries between the powers led to a race for new colonies as each power sought to make secure her markets, raw materials and investments. Backward regions were annexed in order to control their raw material supplies. Malaya gave rubber and tin and the Middle East gave oil. Empire was a cushion in a hard world. These imperialist rivalries which carved up the world into colonies, semi colonies and spheres of influence also divided Europe into blocs armed to the teeth, the logical corollary of which was World War I . World War I ended in the defeat of Germany and the Ottoman Empire and redivision of colonies among the imperial powers, who were henceforth called trustees. The Depression of 1929 brought a change in the attitude of imperial powers. Gone were the days of Free Trade; protectionism was the new catchword.

17.5.3 Finance Capitalism

Stages of capitalism and imperialism could overlap, as in the case of industrial capitalism and financial capitalism, where one did not replace the other, it was superimposed on it. The informal empire of trade and finance was added to the empire of industrial capital. Many major changes took place in the world economy after 1860. Industrialization spread to several countries of Europe, the US and Japan with the result that Britains industrial supremacy in the world came to an end. For Britain this was a setback. She exchanged the informal empire over most of the underdeveloped world for the formal empire of a quarter of it, plus the older satellite economies. The application of scientific knowledge to industries led to an intensification of industrialization. Modern chemical industries, the use of petroleum as fuel for the internal combustion engine and the use of electricity for industrial purposes developed during this period. Moreover, there was further unification of the world market because of revolution in the means of international transport. Capital accumulation on a large scale took place because of the development of trade and industry at home and extended exploitation of colonies and semicolonies. This capital was concentrated in a few hands. Trusts and cartels emerged and banking capital merged with industrial capital. Outlets had to be found for this capital abroad. Significant export of capital had been there even before the stage of predominance of finance capital. By 1850 Britains capital exports were 30 million pounds a year. In 1870-75 this was 75 million pounds. The income from this came to 50 million pounds, which was reinvested overseas. This financed the trade with the colonies, wherein huge quantities of raw materials were procured and equally vast quantities of industrial goods sent out. As Paul Kennedy puts it so evocatively, the world was the City of Londons oyster. The stranglehold of monopoly capital can be gauged from the statistic that by 1914 European nations controlled over 84.4 per cent of the world. Capital was concentrated in and channeled through first, the City of London and then New York, the centres of the international network of trade and finance. The metropolitan country also used empire for political and ideological ends. Jingoistic nationalism and glorification of empire acted to reduce social divisions in the metropolis. Bipan Chandra notes that the slogan the sun never sets on the British empire

34

generated pride among British workers on whose hovels the sun seldom shone in real life. Each country justified its empire in different ways for example, the civilizing mission of the French and the pan Asianism of Japan. Between 1870 and 1913 London was the financial and trading hub of the world. By 1913 Britain had 4000 million pounds worth abroad. Most international trade was routed through British ships at the turn of the twentieth century. After World War I Britain lost this position to the US. The US became the major dominant capitalist economy. She was now the worlds largest manufacturer, foreign investor, trader and banker and the US $ became the standard international currency. From the mid-twentieth century onwards, decolonization gathered pace, as did the rise of multinational companies, international donor agencies and the entire gamut of mechanisms of international economic influence. This process is generally known as neo-colonialism.

Imperialism

17.6 THE EMPIRE ON WHICH THE SUN NEVER SET

Let us take Britain and her empire, especially India, as a case study to assess the advantages accruing to the mother country from her imperial possessions. Bipan Chandra draws our attention to the simultaneity of birth of the Industrial Revolution and the British Empire in India, which, interestingly, was not merely coincidental. The conquest of Bengal in 1757 enabled the systematic plunder of India and the Industrial Revolution took off around 1750. The drain of wealth or the unilateral transfer of capital from India after 1765 amounted to two to three per cent of the British national income at a time when only about five per cent of the British national income was being invested. In the 19th Century India emerged as a major market for British manufactures and supplied foodgrains and raw materials. Opium from India was sold in China, enabling Britains triangular trade with China. Railways were a major area of investment of capital. Britains international balance of payments deficit was handled by the foreign exchange got from Indian exports. British shipping grew in leaps and bounds on the back of its control over Indias coastal and international trade. India played a crucial role in the development of British capitalism during this stage. British industries especially textiles were heavily dependent on exports. India absorbed 10 to 12 per cent of British exports and nearly 20 per cent of Britains textile exports during 1860-1880. After 1850 India was also a major importer of engine coaches, rail lines and other railway stores. Moreover, the Indian army played an important role in extending British colonialism in Asia and Africa. Throughout this stage the drain of wealth and capital to Britain continued. England was particularly keen on the Indian empire as it provided a market for cotton goods; it controlled the trade of the Far East with her export surplus (opium) with China. The Home Charges (Indias payments for receiving good administration from Britain) and the interest payments on the Indian Public Debt were important in financing Britains balance of payments deficit. India strengthened Britains position as an international financial centre. Indias trade surplus with the rest of the world and her trade deficit with England allowed England to square her international settlements on current account. Also Indias monetary reserves helped Britain. Hence in India even the free traders wanted formal control!

35

Expansion of Europe

The projection of India as the brightest jewel in the British crown played an important role in the ideology of imperialism. The British ruling classes were able to keep their political power intact even when it was being riven with class conflict. Thus the pride and glory underlying the slogan of the sun never sets on the British empire were used to keep workers contented on whose slum dwellings the sun seldom shone in real life. India also played a crucial role in one other, often ignored, aspect. India bore the entire cost of its own conquest. India paid for the railways, education, a modern legal system, development of irrigation and detailed penetration of administration into the countryside. Lastly once the struggle for the division of the world became intense after 1870 India was the chief gendarme of British imperialism. She provided both the material and the human resources for its expansion and maintenance. Afghanistan, Central Asia, Tibet, the Persian Gulf area, Eastern Africa, Egypt, Sudan, Burma, China and to some extent even South Africa were brought or kept within the British sphere of influence by virtue of Indian men and money. The British Indian army was the only large scale army contingent available to Britain. It is therefore not a surprise that the British empire in Asia and Africa collapsed once Britain lost control over the Indian army and finances.

17.7

SUMMARY

Hobsbawm has described the history of the world from the late fifteenth to the mid twentieth century as the rise and decline of its domination by European powers. Britain was the first unquestioned world power. Since 1870 this position was under challenge from other countries in Europe who were industrializing and gaining military and economic power. Even when this domination ended formally, the influence of Britain, and then the US, continued, be it in multinational banks and financial institutions, parliamentary democracy or association football. This Unit then is an exploration of the domination of these geo-political forces in different forms in modern times.

17.8
1) 2) 3)

EXERCISES

What are different theoretical explanations for imperialism? Discuss briefly. Describe different historical stages through which imperialism took different forms on a global scale. Why was India crucial as a colony in the expansion of British imperialism?

36

UNIT 18 COLONIALISM
Structure
18.1 Introduction 18.2 Approaches to Colonialism
18.2.1 What is Colonialism? 18.2.2 Definition 18.2.3 Basic Features of Colonialism

18.3 The Colonial State 18.4 Stages of Colonialism

18.4.1 First Stage: Monopoly Trade and Plunder 18.4.2 Second Stage: Era of Free Trade 18.4.3 Third Stage: Era of Finance Capital

18.5 Colonialism in Different Territories

18.5.1 Africa 18.5.2 Egypt 18.5.3 South-East Asia

18.6 India
18.6.1 First Stage 18.6.2 Second Stage 18.6.3 Third Stage

18.7 British Colonial State 18.8 Colonialism or Colonialisms? 18.9 Summary 18.10 Exercises

18.1

INTRODUCTION

If Imperialism is what happens in the metropolis, then colonialism is what happens in the colonies. The same system of capitalism that produced development in the Western world created underdevelopment in the colony. In this sense imperialism and colonialism are two sides of the same coin. In the previous Unit, you were familiarized with imperialism as a modern phenomenon directly related to capitalism. You also learnt how the process of conquest, expansion and domination brought wealth and prosperity to the economies of the European countries. This Unit is a discussion of what this process meant to the economy and society in the colonies. It will provide a definition of colonialism and prepare a typology of colonies (colonies of settlement and of exploitation, inland colonies and overseas colonies, colonies under direct rule and colonies controlled only indirectly). It will then go into a discussion of the stages of colonialism and see how these stages functioned in different colonies.
37

Expansion of Europe

South Africa, Australia, Canada were colonies of white settlers whereas India and Indonesia were colonies exploited economically and politically over centuries. There was a process of colonization which took place through inland expansion (as in Russia) while there were many cases of overseas colonization as in the case of China. In this Unit we shall be studying colonies of exploitation. Similarly colonization could happen both through direct and indirect rule. Direct rule meant a colonial state as in the case of India; indirect rule meant control over the politics, economy and society without taking on the onus for ruling the country as was the case in China. In this sense, colonialism could be both absolute and partial in terms of political control. Hence, colonialism and semi-colonialism were different in basics. In the case of a semi colony like China control was over the economy rather than over the polity. Also, no one imperial power had a monopoly of control as it was exploited by many powers unlike the case of India, where it was mainly Britain which retained absolute political control. Again, neo-colonialism is the continuation of colonialism by non-formal means. Economic policies were dictated and military might was harnessed by the imperial power. The US was the foremost neo-colonial power in the later phase.

18.2

APPROACHES TO COLONIALISM

There are mainly two approaches to the understanding of colonialism. The successful liberation movements of the 1960s and the Cuban and Algerian revolutions led to a plethora of writings on colonialism. Andre Gunder Franks major contribution was followed by those of C. Furtado, Theodore Dos Santosa, Paul Prebisch, Paul Baran, Samir Amin, Immanuel Wallerstein, Arghiri Emmanuel and F. Cardoso. According to the dependency school (Andre Gunder Frank, Samir Amin etc.) a colony would continue to be economically dependent even after achieving political freedom, as long as it remains a part of capitalism as the capitalist class was incapable of undertaking the task of development. Wallersteins world systems approach divided the capitalist world into the centre, periphery and semi-periphery, between which a relationship of unequal exchange prevailed. The core economies of the centre produced high value products and had strong states. The periphery was constrained by low technology and low wages, the state was weak as was the capitalist class and the economy was dominated by foreign capital. The countries on the semi-periphery, like India, were marked by greater control of the state in the national and international market. Economic nationalism was the hallmark of such states, which were able to negotiate a stronger position for themselves in the world system. Cultural aspects of colonialism were highlighted by Amilcar Cabral, Franz Fanon and Edward Said. Bipan Chandra analysed colonialism in terms of colonial structure, colonial modernization, stages of colonialism and the colonial state.

18.2.1 What is Colonialism?

Colonialism is as modern a historical phenomenon as industrial capitalism. It describes the distinct stage in the modern historical development of the colony that intervenes between the traditional economy and the modern capitalist economy. It is a well structured whole, a distinct social formation in which the basic control of the economy and society is in the hands of a foreign capitalist class. The form of the colonial structure varies with the changing conditions of the historical development of capitalism as a world wide system.
38

It is best to look upon Colonialism as a specific structure . What took place during colonialism was not merely the imposition of foreign political domination on a traditional economy, as argued by some scholars. Nor was it merely the outcome of a vast confidence trick that relied on the docility, cooperation or disunity of the colonized, buttressed by the racial arrogance of their better-armed white governors. The view that Empires were transnational organizations that were created to mobilize the resources of the world (Hopkins, 1999) is also incomplete; it focuses on the metropolis, not on the colony. Neither was a colony a transitional economy which, given time, would have eventually developed into a full blown capitalist economy. It is also incorrect that the colony suffered from arrested growth because of its pre-capitalist remnants. Many apologists, for example, Morris D. Morris, portrayed colonialism as an effort at modernization, economic development and transplantation of capitalism which could not succeed because of the restricting role of tradition in the colonies. Colonial economy was neither pre-capitalist nor capitalist, it was colonial, i.e., a hybrid creation. Colonialism was distorted capitalism. Integration with the world economy did not bring capitalism to the colony. The colony did not develop in the split image of the mother country it was its other, its opposite, non-developmental side. Colonialism did not develop social and productive forces, rather, it underdeveloped them, leading to contradictions and a movement forward to the next stage.

Colonialism

18.2.2 Definition
Colonialism is the internal disarticulation and external integration of the rural economy and the realization of the extended reproduction of capital not in the colony but in the imperialist metropolis. Colonialism is a social formation in which different modes of production coexist from feudalism to petty commodity production to agrarian, industrial and finance capitalism. Unlike capitalism, where the surplus is appropriated on the basis of the ownership of the means of production, under colonialism surplus is appropriated by virtue of control over state power. When one understands colonialism as a social formation rather than as a mode of production, we are able to see the primary contradiction as a societal one, rather than in class terms. Thus we have a national liberation struggle rather than a class struggle against the colonial power. The primary contradiction in society is the national one, not the class one; the struggle against the colonial power is political.

18.2.3 Basic Features of Colonialism

One basic feature of colonialism is that under it the colony is integrated into the world capitalist system in a subordinate position. Colonialism is characterized by unequal exchange. The exploitative international division of labour meant that the metropolis produced goods of high value with high technology and colonies produced goods of low value and productivity with low technology. The colony produced raw materials while the metropolis produced manufactured goods. The pattern of railway development in India in the second half of the 19th Century was in keeping with the interests of British industry. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the Indian nationalist leader, described this as decorating anothers wife. The colony was articulated with the world market but internally disarticulated. Its agricultural sector did not serve its industry but the metropolitan economy and the world market. The drain of wealth took place through unrequited exports and state expenditure on armed forces and civil services. Foreign political domination is the fourth feature of Colonialism. Therefore, unequal exchange, external integration and internal disarticulation, drain of wealth, and a foreign political domination may be understood as the four main features of colonialism.
39

Expansion of Europe

18.3

THE COLONIAL STATE

The colonial state is integral to the structuring and functioning of the colonial economy and society. It is the mechanism by which the metropolitan capitalist class controls and exploits the colony. The colonial state serves the long term interests of the capitalist class of the mother country as a whole, not of any of its parts. Under colonialism all the indigenous classes of the colony suffer domination. No class is a junior partner of colonialism. Thus even the uppermost classes in the colony could begin to oppose colonialism as it went against their interests. It is useful to remember that big landlords led the anti-colonial movements of Poland and Egypt. This is a major difference between colonies and semi-colonies, where there are compradors, native classes that are part of the ruling class. The role of the colonial state was greater than the capitalist one. The state itself was a major channel of surplus appropriation. The metropolitan ruling class used the colonial state to control colonial society. The colonial state guaranteed law and order and its own security from internal and external dangers. It suppressed indigenous economic forces hostile to colonial interests. The colonial state actively fostered the identities of caste and community so as to prevent national unity. The state was actively involved in reproducing conditions for appropriation of capital, including producing goods and services. Another important task is the transformation of the social, economic, cultural, political and legal framework of the colony so as to make it reproductive on an extended scale. There is an explicit and direct link between the colonial structure and the colonial state. Thus it is easy to politicize the struggle against colonialism. As the mechanism of colonial control lies on the surface, it is easy to expose the links with the industrial bourgeoisie of the home country. The state is visibly controlled from abroad and the isolation of the colonial people from policy and decision making is evident. The colonial state relied on the whole on domination and coercion rather than leadership and consent. However, it functioned to some extent as a bourgeois state with rule of law, property relations, bureaucracy and constitutional space within which colonial discontent was to be contained. We shall discuss this in detail with reference to India.

18.4

STAGES OF COLONIALISM

There were three distinct stages of colonialism. Some countries went through one or two stages only. India went through only the first and second stages, Egypt only through the third stage, and Indonesia the first and third stage. These stages lasted over two hundred years. The forms of subordination changed over time as did colonial policy, state and its institutions, culture, ideas and ideologies. However, this did not mean that stages existed in a pure form. The older forms of subordination continued into the later stages. The stages were the result of four factors:
40

the historical development of capitalism as a world system; the change in the society, economy and polity of the metropolis; the change in its position in the world economy and lastly; the colonys own historical development.

18.4.1 First Stage: Monopoly Trade and Plunder

The first stage had two basic objectives. In order to make trade more profitable indigenously manufactured goods were to be bought cheap. For this competitors were to be kept out, whether local or European. Territorial conquest kept local traders out of the lucrative trade while rival European companies were defeated in war. Thus the characteristic of the first stage was monopoly of trade. Secondly, the political conquest of the colony enabled plunder and seizure of surplus. For example, the drain of wealth from India to Britain during the first stage was considerable. It amounted to two to three per cent of the national income of Britain at that time. Colonialism was superimposed on the traditional systems of economy and polity. No basic changes were introduced in the first stage.

Colonialism

18.4.2 Second Stage: Era of Free Trade

The interest of the industrial bourgeoisie of the metropolis in the colony was in the markets available for manufactured goods. For this it was necessary to increase exports from the colony to pay for purchase of manufactured imports. The metropolitan bourgeoisie also wanted to develop the colony as a producer of raw materials to lessen dependence on non-empire sources. Increase of exports from the colony would also enable it to pay for the high salaries and profits of merchants. The industrial bourgeoisie opposed plunder as a form of appropriation of surplus on the ground that it would destroy the goose that laid the golden eggs. Trade was the mechanism by which the social surplus was to be appropriated in this stage. In this stage changes in the economy, polity, administration, social, cultural and ideological structure were initiated to enable exploitation in the new way. The slogan was development and modernization. The colony was to be integrated with the world capitalist economy and the mother country. Capitalists were allowed to develop plantations, trade, transport, mining and industries. The system of transport and communications was developed to facilitate the movement of massive quantities of raw materials to the ports for export. Liberal imperialism was the new political ideology. The rhetoric of the rulers was to train the people in self-government.

18.4.3 Third Stage: Era of Finance Capital

The third stage saw intense struggle for markets and sources of raw materials and food grains. Large scale accumulation of capital in the metropolis necessitated search for avenues for investment abroad. These interests were best served where the imperial powers had colonies. This led to more intensive control over the colony in order to protect the interests of the imperial power. In the sphere of ideology the mood was one of reaction. The need for intensive control increased. There was no more talk of self government; instead benevolent despotism was the new ideology according to which the colonial people were seen as children who would need guardians forever. A major contradiction in this stage was that the colony was not able to absorb metropolitan capital or increase its exports of raw materials because of overexploitation in the earlier stages. A strategy of limited modernization was implemented to take care of this problem but the logic of colonialism could not be subverted. Underdevelopment became a constraint on further exploitation of the colony. The third stage often did not take off. Colonialism had so wrecked the economies of some colonies that they could hardly absorb any capital investment. In many colonies the older forms of exploitation continued. In India, for example, the earlier two forms continued, even in the third stage.

41

Expansion of Europe

18.5

COLONIALISM IN DIFFERENT TERRITORIES

So far you have seen the general pattern of colonial expansion spread over three stages. In the next two sections we will take up specific case studies of colonies.

18.5.1 Africa
The conquest of Africa took place in the last decades of the nineteenth century. Till as late as 1880 only 20 per cent of Africa had come under European rule. With the spread of the Industrial Revolution to other countries of Europe rivalries increased as did the search for colonies. The emerging industrial powers looked for a place in the sun. A continent of over 28 million square km was partitioned and occupied by European powers by a combination of two strategies, treaties and conquest. In Africa in 1939, 1200 colonial administrators ruled 43 million Africans through local chiefs. Three eras of conquest The first phase, 1880-1919, was one of conquest and occupation. The colonial system was consolidated after 1910. The second phase, 1919-35, was that of the independence movements. The third stage was from 1935 onwards. Within forty five years the colonial system was uprooted from over 94 per cent of Africa. Colonial rule lasted for a hundred years on an average. British territories in Africa consisted of Nigeria, Gold Coast, Gambia, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanganyika, Nyasaland, Uganda, North and South Rhodesia and South Africa. Algeria, Morocco, Cameroon, French-Congo, Tunisia, and Madagascar were some of the main French colonies. Impact The impact of colonialism in Africa was tremendous. The self sufficient African economies were destroyed, transformed and subordinated by colonial domination. Class differentiation in African society occurred as a result of the impact of colonial domination. The links of African countries with each other and with other parts of the world were disrupted. European powers reduced the economies of Africa to colonial dependencies through the power of finance capital. The loans for the Suez Canal enmeshed Egypt in debt. There are different interpretations of the impact of colonial rule. The imperialist school of thought would have it that Africans welcomed colonial rule. Social Darwinism justifies colonialism by arguing that the domination over the weaker races was the inevitable result of the natural superiority of the European race. Both colonial rulers and latter day apologists have presented colonial rule as a blessing. It is said that modern infrastructure, health and education would not have reached the colony had it not been part of the colonial system. Other scholars, like D.K. Fieldhouse, have described the effects as some good, some bad. The primary motive behind colonialism was of course satisfying imperial interests. The positive effects of colonialism, if any, were byproducts; they were clearly not consciously intended. The negative impact was huge and in all spheres, with long lasting legacies. For example, ethnic conflicts which paralyze many parts of Africa today are rooted in the arbitrary superimposition of territorial boundaries on an essentially tribal society.

18.5.2 Egypt
42

Egypt was under the protection of both France and Britain. She became an agrarian and raw material appendage of the metropolitan countries. Two stages of colonialism were merged into one in Egypt.

Britain developed Egypt as a supplier of cotton for her textile industry. By 1914 cotton constituted 43 per cent of agricultural output. It accounted for 85 per cent of exports in 1913. Being a single crop economy was disastrous as Egypt became dependent on imports for her essential food supply. The control of foreigners over cotton was total, from owning or controlling the land it was grown on, the cotton processing and cotton cleaning industry and the steamships it was transported in. There was not a single mill in Egypt. Egypt was also a valuable field of investment of banking capital. Five per cent capital went into industry and construction, 12.36 into trade and transport and 79 per cent into public debt, mortgage and banks. Egypt was enmeshed in indebtedness as a result of exploitation by foreign powers. The First World War showed up the exploitation of Egypt fully. Her natural resources, manpower and economy were harnessed to the war effort. Crops were seized by the army. The British Treasury took over the gold reserves of the National Bank of Egypt. Egypt became a British protectorate in 1914.

Colonialism

18.5.3 South-East Asia

Colonialism in South-East Asia lasted five centuries, from the late fifteenth to the mid twentieth century. Even after the heyday of the spice trade, South-East Asia remained important as a supplier of basic raw materials like oil, rubber, metals, rice, coffee, tea and sugar. The impact of colonialism in this region was considerable, even on countries like Thailand, which did not formally become colonies. Traditional forms of government disappeared, trading patterns were disrupted and the rich cultural traditions of these regions were destroyed.

18.6

INDIA

India has generally been considered a classic colony. A study of colonialism in India can tell us a great deal about the functioning of colonialism in general. Let us see how the different stages of colonialism operated in India.

18.6.1 First Stage

In the first stage both the objectives the monopoly of trade and appropriation of government revenues were rapidly fulfilled with the conquest first of Bengal and parts of South India and then the rest of India. The East India Company now used its political power to acquire monopolistic control over Indian trade and handicrafts. Indian traders were ruined while weavers were forced to sell cheap. The companys monopoly ruined the weavers. In the next stage cheap manufactured goods finished them. The drain of wealth was admitted to by British officials. In the words of the Deputy Chairman of the Court of Directors, Our system acts very much like a sponge, drawing up all the good things from the banks of the Ganges and squeezing them down on the banks of the Thames. The colony did not undergo any fundamental changes in this stage. Changes were made only in military organization and technology and at the top level of revenue administration. Land revenue could be extracted from the villages without disturbing the existing systems. In the sphere of ideology too there was respect for traditional systems in contrast to the denunciation of traditional values in the second stage. The respect with which Sanskrit was held by British Indologists like William Jones was in sharp contrast to Macaulays later dismissal of traditional learning as not being enough to fill a bookshelf of a good Western library.

43

Expansion of Europe

18.6.2

Second Stage

The era of free trade saw India emerge as a market for manufactured goods and a supplier of raw materials and food grains. Import of Manchester cloth increased in value from 96 lakh sterling in 1860 to 27 crore sterling in 1900. Traditional weavers were ruined by this competition. Rather than industrialization, decline of industry or deindustrialization took place. In the middle Gangetic region, according to historian A.K. Bagchi, the weight of industry in the livelihood pattern of the people was reduced by half from 1809-13 to the census year 1901. Estimates by Sivasubramaniam indicate that in the last half century of British rule per capita income in India remained almost stagnant. Dadabhai Naoroji calculated per capita income at Rs.20 per annum. Railway expansion was undertaken and a modern post and telegraph system was set up. Administration was made more detailed and comprehensive so that imports could penetrate the villages and raw materials could be taken out easily. Capitalist commercial relations were to be enforced. The legal system was to be improved so as to ensure upholding the sanctity of contract. Modern education was introduced to produce babus to man the new administration. Westernized habits were expected to increase the demand for British goods. Transformation of the existing culture and social organization required that the existing culture be denounced. Orientalism, by depriving people of the power to study their own languages, was an appropriation of the processes by which people understand themselves. The new ideology was one of development. Underdevelopment was not the desired but the inevitable consequence of the inexorable working of colonialism of trade and of its inner contradictions.

18.6.3 Third Stage

The third stage is rightly known as the era of finance capital. A huge amount of capital was invested in railways, loans to the Government of India, trade and to a lesser extent in plantations, coal mining, jute mills, shipping and banking in India. In this stage, Britains position in the world was constantly challenged by the rivalry of new imperialist countries. The result was further consolidation of its control over India. Control had to be strengthened to contend with competition from rival imperialist powers. Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India, wrote: Other channels of investment, outside of India, are gradually being filled up, not merely by British capital, but by capital of all the wealthproducing countries of the world; and if this be so, then a time must soon come when the current of British capital, extruded from the banks between which it has long been content to meander, will want to pour over into fresh channels, and will, by the law of economic gravitation, find its way into India, to which it should be additionally attracted by the security of British institutions and British laws. Reactionary imperialist policies characterized the viceroyalties of Lytton and Curzon. All talk of self government ended and the aim of British rule was declared to be permanent trusteeship over the child people of India. Loosening of links
44

The major spurts in industrial investment took place precisely during those periods when Indias economic links with the world capitalist economy were temporarily

weakened or disrupted. In Indias case, foreign trade and the inflow of foreign capital were reduced or interrupted thrice during the 20th Century, i.e. during the First World War, the Great Depression (1929-34) and World War II. But as the links were not disrupted, merely loosened, what took place was only industrial growth, not industrial revolution.

Colonialism

18.7

BRITISH COLONIAL STATE

That the British wielded brute force to maintain their rule in India and to crush opposition is well known. Very often, the state did not actually repress; the very fact that it had the capacity to do so was enough to contain revolt. Hence, the British considered the maintenance of a large, disciplined, efficient and loyal army to be a prime necessity, for the armed forces remained, in the ultimate analysis, the final guarantor of British interests. But generally, for the continued existence of their rule and for the perpetuation of imperialist domination, they relied on a variety of ideological instruments. It is in this sense that the British colonial state in India was, in however limited a way, a hegemonic or semi-hegemonic state. Its semi-hegemonic foundations were buttressed by the ideology of pax Britannica, law and order, the British official as the mai-bap of the people, as well as by the institutions of the ideological, legal, judicial and administrative systems. The impression of the unshakable foundations of British rule, the aura of stolidity and general prestige of the Raj contributed towards the maintenance of imperial hegemony. The prestige of the Raj, by showing the futility of attempts to overthrow it, played as crucial a role in the maintenance of British rule as the armed might behind it. The prestige of the Raj was very largely embodied in its much vaunted steel frame, the Indian Civil Service (ICS), and, more specifically, in the district officer, who represented authority in the countryside: At the centre of the benevolent despotism that British rule in the subcontinent adopted stood the steel frame of the Indian Civil Service... and in particular the figure of the district officer himself, the physical embodiment of Government across the Indian countryside... Rudyard Kiplings A Song of the English (1893) went thus Keep ye the law Be swift in all obedience Clear the land of evil Drive the road and bridge the ford By the peace among Our peoples let men know we serve the Lord! A state structure of this kind, based on semi-hegemonic foundations, called for certain specific policies in the political sphere. A reliable social base for the state had to be secured on the one hand; on the other, strategies had to be devised to limit the social reach and effective clout of the anti-imperialist forces. Active cooperation of native allies in running the country was gained by a variety of techniques, ranging from the handing out of jobs, favours and positions of some authority to concessions to the legitimate political demands of the loyalist and liberal sections. As regards the snowballing of anti-British discontent, it was sought to be neutralized by confining it within the constitutional arenas created by the political reforms. Constitutional concessions were regularly made, though under pressure, to the demands raised by the anti-imperialist forces.

45

Expansion of Europe

18.8

COLONIALISM OR COLONIALISMS?

If we look at British and French colonial rule it is clear that they are informed by different perspectives though often the reality on the ground amounted to the same. Some scholars point to this fact of the same reality on the ground to argue that all colonialisms were the same. For example, historian D.A. Low disagrees with the view that there were different patterns of colonialism on the ground that British and French colonies achieved independence at the same time. In this section the existence of different patterns of colonialism is discussed. Wallerstein would have it that there was a basic paternalism which ran through the philosophies of all the colonial powers. But this basic paternalism expressed itself in very different forms, depending on the history and national character of the colonial powers. From the beginning there was a sparseness and economy about British colonial policy. The British used trading companies to acquire colonies, insisted that colonies be selfsustaining and varied the political structure in each of the colonies to suit local needs. This, then, is the classic contrast between Africas two colonial powers, Britain and France: Britain empirical, commercial, practising indirect rule, keeping Africans at a distance, verging on racism; France Cartesian in its logic, seeking glory, practicing direct administration, acting as apostle of fraternity and anti-racism. Anyone who travels in both British and French Africa will see the grain of truth in these generalizations. The flavor of life is different; the two colonial governments have produced two different cultures. And yet, anyone who travels there well knows the severe limitations of these generalizations. In practice the differences were not so clear. The French often supported chiefs where they were powerful rather than rule directly. As for empiricism versus Cartesian logic, this comparison is more the stuff of polemics than of analysis. To contrast motives of money and glory seems even more dubious. For the British were surely proud of their empire, and the French surely profited by theirs. As for racism and fraternity, it may be that French paternalism was based on the exclusive virtue but universal accessibility of French civilization and British paternalism on the equal virtue of all traditions but the unique accessibility of British culture. Nevertheless, in practice, there were parallel degrees of political, social and economic discrimination in two settler territories like Kenya and Algeria, and there were parallel ideologies among the settlers. There was also parallel absence of legal discrimination in non settler British and French West Africa, though until 1957 the exclusive white clubs of both areas barred Africans as members or as guests. There were differences also regarding the role of the civil service. In Britain civil servants were nonpartisan whereas in France junior civilians were political. But after independence this made little difference. No clear distinction can be made between French direct rule and English indirect rule which allowed traditional institutions to survive when we look closely at the actual working of administration. Fieldhouse has shown that after 1929 and especially after 1932 attitudes and practices came closer together.

18.9

SUMMARY

46

Colonialism is as modern a historical phenomenon as industrial capitalism. While the metropolis experiences growth under capitalism the colony undergoes underdevelopment. Colonialism is more than foreign political domination; it is a distinct

social formation in which control is in the hands of the metropolitan ruling class. In short, colonialism is what happened in the colony and imperialism is what happened in the metropolis.

Colonialism

18.10

EXERCISES

1) Define basic features of colonialism. How is it different from imperialism? 2) What are different approaches to the understanding of colonialism? 3) What were the different historical stages of colonialism? How did it impact the Indian economy? 4) Can one talk of different types of colonies rather than one single colonialsm?

47

UNIT 19
Structure

DECOLONIZATION

19.1 Introduction 19.2 Types of Decolonization 19.3 Approaches

19.3.1 The Nationalist Approach 19.3.2 International Context Approach 19.3.3 Domestic Constraints Approach

19.4 The Era of Decolonization 19.5 Decolonization or Decolonizations? France and Britain 19.6 Indian Independence: A Case Study of Decolonization 19.7 Summary 19.8 Exercises

19.1

INTRODUCTION

This Unit discusses that important phase of the 20th Century when the erstwhile empires gave way to the emergence of new nation-states or led to the independence of former colonies. This era is often called decolonization. This Unit will discuss the broad scope of the term with respect to various theoretical approaches, its historical manifestations and two case studies of France and Britain, the two erstwhile imperial powers whose distinct approach to decolonization led to different historical trajectories. Lastly, the case of Indian decolonization is discussed. Decolonization or struggle for independence? In the historiography of national liberation the terms represent two opposite poles of interpretation. The first one suggests a process of disentanglement by the imperial power, as it were, in the manner of a kite flyer pulling back the thread of the kite when the kite is mangled. The second interpretation highlights the proactive process wherein colonial power is whittled away, eroded by the action of mass nationalism. The term decolonization is used here in the second sense, as coterminous with the colonial peoples struggle for achievement of independence. The term decolonization is believed to have been coined in 1932 by an expatriate German scholar Moritz Julius Bonn for his section on Imperialism in the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. A recent study (Springhall, 2001) has defined decolonization as the surrender of external political sovereignty over colonized non European peoples plus the emergence of independent territories where once the West had ruled, or the process of transfer of power from empire to nation state.

19.2

TYPES OF DECOLONIZATION

48

There are broadly four types of decolonization: 1) self government for white settler colonies as it happened in Canada and Australia 2) formal end to empire followed by independent rule as in India 3) formal empire replaced by informal empire or neo-colonialism as in Latin America 4) mere change of imperial masters in Indo-China when the French reluctantly left, the US moved in.

In this Unit we shall focus on the second type, which was the most significant and the representative pattern of decolonization.

Decolonization

19.3

APPROACHES

The explanations of decolonization have been classified as follows: The nationalist approach International context approach Domestic constraints approach

19.3.1 The Nationalist Approach In the nationalist view indigenous resistance and anti imperialist struggle led to independence. According to D.A. Low, the primary factor behind the end of empire was anti-imperialist movements the metropolitan response only influenced the nature of this confrontation, not the outcome. According to the nationalist approach the resistance movements of the colonial peoples determined the pace of decolonization. Colonial rule became unviable once the groups which sustained it withdrew support, often under nationalist pressure or influence. The British imperialists presented the unravelling of empire as an orderly and rational process but the messy reality was much less consistent and unavoidable, as John Darwin has pointed out. In short, far from a planned withdrawal from empire, there was the irreversible erosion of position as imperial powers struggled to retain power by one means or another, conciliation or repression. For example, in India, from the 1930s onwards, there was a swing of the pendulum from repression to conciliation. This had demoralizing consequences for the officials who had to implement both poles of policy. The same set of colonial officials who put the nationalist leaders in jail during the civil disobedience movement in 1930-34 had to serve under them during the period of formation of provincial ministries of 1937-39. The same dilemma racked officialdom in 1942 and 1946 - officials were demoralized as they feared that the leaders they had given harsh punishment to in the War years, and particularly to contain the 1942 revolt, would soon be their political masters in the provinces in 1946. Whatever some of the metropolitan-centred accounts may suggest, the growth and development of a vigorous nationalism was almost invariably the principal propellant of sustained progress towards the ending of colonial rule.

19.3.2

International Context Approach

According to the approach highlighting the international context of decolonization, empires could not survive in the new world order after the Second World War. As John Darwin put it, in the Cold War era colonial empires appeared as quaint survivors of a prewar age, to be quickly dismantled lest they be knocked to pieces in the turbulent wake of the superpowers. The changed international climate was reflected in the Atlantic Charter issued by the Allies during the War which called for the independence of colonial peoples. The United Nations General Assembly went a step further in 1960 in its Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples. It sharply condemned colonial rule as a denial of fundamental human rights in contravention of the UN Charter.
49

Expansion of Europe

The myth of European invincibility was shattered by the Japanese takeover of South East Asia during World War II, especially the British desertion of Singapore in 1942. Yet decolonization was not the inevitable result of World War II though its pace quickened. This international approach attributes the end of empires to the opposition of the US and USSR to old style imperialism. The US and USSR had nothing to gain from the older imperial powers, such as Britain and France, retaining their colonies. They had everything to gain from the end of empire as this enabled these two emerging superpowers to establish their influence over the newly independent countries of Asia and Africa. For example, US neo colonialism replaced France in Indo-China, Japan in Korea and Britain in Pakistan, one of the two successor states of British India. The USSR treated Eastern Europe, Cuba and Mozambique, among others, as little more than colonies. Western Cold Warriors were quick to dub this as socialist imperialism, much to the chagrin of self respecting socialists, for whom the very word imperialism was anathema.

19.3.3 Domestic Constraints Approach

The metropolitan or domestic constraints approach focuses on how the colony became too big a burden on the mother country. From being the proverbial goose which laid golden eggs a time came when it was not worth expending money and men on it. British colonialism, it is argued by Holland, became dysfunctional to the operational necessities of the metropole. In this explanation the end of empire is seen as a political choice made under pressure of domestic constraints and calculations of national interest. The mother countrys will to rule slackened once empire became too much of a nuisance, financially, militarily and in international relations. Historians John Gallagher and other scholars in the imperialist tradition argued that British imperial interests in India were declining, that India no longer fulfilled its role in the maintenance of imperial interests in the fields of either defence or commerce or finance and that, in fact, over the years it had become a liability for the British. Gallagher and Anil Seal argued that during the Second World War Britain footed the bill for Indias defence requirements. Aditya Mukherjee has conclusively contradicted this view and demonstrated that British imperial control intensified considerably during the war and the economic exploitation of India increased manifold the colony, far from ceasing to pay, was subjected to a greater and most blatant appropriation of surplus through currency manipulations, forced loans, large military expenditures and numerous other unilateral transfers. B.R. Tomlinson is critical of the this theory which sees decolonization only as a technique by which formal empire became informal in the interests of maximizing advantages to Britain. He concedes that there was an Indian angle to the end of empire, apart from changes in the metropolitan and world economies, but the Indian factor in his view was not nationalist pressure, but discontent with the ever-increasing financial burdens imposed by the colonial government on its subjects. The end of the Second World War found Britain in a severe economic crisis and a war weary British populace wished to get rid of empire as quickly and painlessly as possible. This theme of getting rid of empire is suggested by the very title of R.J. Moores book on Attlee and India Escape from Empire . Another factor was the post war expansion of the welfare state. Decolonization gathered pace once social reform became a priority and empire began to be perceived as a drain on resources. Politicians who were in favour of withdrawing from empire became the flavour of the day. It was no accident that the British public elected the Labour Party to

50

office in 1945 despite Churchill, a Conservative Party prime minister, having just won the war for them. The new understanding was that the Labour Party was suitable for national reconstruction, which was the need of the hour. Another domestic constraint was that suppressing colonial revolts, be it in Palestine, Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus or Aden, was no longer viable. This was the argument given by Prime Minister Attlee against reassertion of authority in India in 1946: In the event of a breakdown of the administration or a general alignment of the political parties against us are we prepared to go back on our policy and seek to reestablish British rule as against the political parties and maintain it for 18 years? The answer must clearly be no because a) b) c) d) e) In view of our commitments all over the world we have not the military force to hold India against a widespread guerilla movement or to reconquer India. If we had, pub. [public] opinion in our Party would not stand for it. It is doubtful if we could keep the Indian troops loyal. It is doubtful if our own troops would be prepared to act. We should have world opinion agst. [against] us and be placed in an impossible position at UNO. We have not now the administrative machine to carry out such a policy either British or Indian.

Decolonization

(Attlees note, c. 13 November 1946, cited in Sucheta Mahajan, Independence and Partition, p.162) The argument, that the costs of coercion became too high, clearly has no basis. One can show that very high costs were indeed tolerated. Thus there are many problems with the Domestic Constraints Approach. One major problem, of course, is that it looks for the causes of decolonization, not in the colony but in the metropolis. A direct example of this approach is the assertion made by historian David Potter: an explanation for the end of colonialism is unlikely to be found within the boundaries of the subject country. Historians have so far been unable to account satisfactorily for political events like the end of colonialism because, quite simply, they have not been looking in the right place. This is overly eurocentric. This approach refuses to acknowledge the powerful political initiatives taken in the colonies and explains independence (in other words decolonization) merely as an internal political arrangement within the metropolitan countries.

19.4

THE ERA OF DECOLONIZATION

The twentieth century was the era of decolonization. At the end of the twentieth century the world was no longer eurocentric. The twentieth century had seen the decline and fall of Europe, which had been the centre of power, wealth and western civilization at the beginning of the century. In the first decade of the twentieth century the nationalists posed a challenge in Asia and Africa. They were encouraged by the ability of Japan, a small Asian country, to inflict a crushing defeat on Russia, a European power, in 1905. Some of the well known leaders of the national movements were Sun Yat Sen in China, Arabi Pasha in Egypt and Bal Gangadhar Tilak in India. These movements were led, in this stage, by middle class

51

Expansion of Europe

English educated elites whose demand for a say in the running of their countries was changing into a demand for independence. The First World War further fuelled nationalist discontent. The War effort had meant increased exploitation of colonies for raw materials, manpower and taxes and nationalists naturally questioned why the colonies should bear this burden. In 1919 when a new international order was emerging in Europe the national movements in the colonies underwent a transformation in a mass direction. In India this change was wrought by Gandhi; China had the May 4th Movement; in Turkey Kemal Ataturk rose to power; and in Indonesia the national movement reached a membership of 2.5 million. This phase also saw the deepening and spread of movements in Philippines, Burma and Ceylon. Differences emerged between the old imperial powers like Great Britain and the newer ones like the US and Japan, on whether the old order should continue at all, and if so in what form? This stance of the newer world powers encouraged nationalists greatly. The old imperial powers were undergoing a decline in their position. Britains position as the global power par excellence was challenged by other powers from the late nineteenth century onwards. By the beginning of the twentieth century Britain lost her commercial preeminence. But decline in imperial power did not mean collapse of empire as the interest of imperial powers in their colonies did not wane. In fact empire had to be maintained at any cost, including severe repression, such as the brutal gunning down of innocent men, women and children in Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar in India in 1919. In the years after the Russian Revolution the process of colonial emancipation and decolonization went much further. In the non western world countries either went through revolution or the prophylactic decolonization by empires doomed in an era of world revolution. Revolution, then, did change the world if not quite in the way Lenin expected. Anti-imperialist activity was fuelled because of the world wide Depression of 1929. Sharpening of conflict as in Egypt and India and victory of Republican ultras under De Valera in the Irish elections of 1932 were belated anti-colonial reactions to the economic breakdown. In the economic sphere, the Depression furthered the trend to set up local production, which had begun after the First World War when imperial powers made their colonies industrially self-sufficient. Japan had encouraged limited industrialization in Korea and Manchuria and Britain in India. Bipan Chandra has described the impact of the Depression as the loosening of links between the colony and the metropolis, which encouraged independent capitalist growth in the colony. World War II showed up Great Britain as a second fiddle to the US in the AngloAmerican alliance. After 1945 the US and Russia became the two superpowers. Where earlier London held this position, now the world was no longer its oyster, to use Paul Kennedys evocative phrase. As a US official put it, it is now our turn to bat in Asia. As the Russians were equally keen to have a global role, a bipolar world emerged. Britain had been one of the big three in the war. But for her, victory in the war did not bring with it consolidation of power. The war had overstrained the British economy vastly and it needed American help to keep going. The US propped up her economy with the Lend Lease offer. But it was some years before the British withdrew from India and later Palestine and even then this was presented as preserving more important areas of imperial interests elsewhere. Outwardly Britain remained a big power, second only to the US.

52

In the third world the Second World War had caused great upheavals, political and economic. Within years of the end of the War many colonies gained independence, but often after protracted disagreement, encouraged by the imperial power, on the contentious issue of distribution of power, leading to partition and civil war. Various areas of troublesome conflict in the 1970s and 80s, Middle East, Cyprus, South Africa, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, were legacies of British decolonization. In India the imperial power delayed in handing over power on the specious ground that it must await agreement between the communities on how power was to be transferred. Specious in retrospect because when they left, they left any which way. Gandhi appealed to them to leave India, to anarchy if need be. He understood that agreement could not be brokered by a partisan broker. Once the colonial power left, he believed, the two communities would, like siblings dividing ancestral property, agree or agree to disagree. At worst, civil war would result but even that fire would be purifying. Given that the much celebrated agreed solution left at least 200,000 dead, perhaps Gandhi could have been tried out.

Decolonization

19.5

DECOLONIZATION OR DECOLONIZATIONS? FRANCE AND BRITAIN

Was there decolonization or were there as many decolonizations as there are colonial powers or even colonies? As we have seen, though there is a wider pattern of decolonization it was generally a mid twentieth century phenomenon under the impact of the national liberation movements there are also significant differences between, for example, French and British decolonization. For example, if the British maintained strategic, political and cultural interests in its erstwhile colonies through the Commonwealth, cultural integration was the mode of association preferred by the French. The French had no mechanism like the British Commonwealth to ease the transition of colonies to independence. Assimilation remained the imperial ideal. The French Union was federal only in name and the National Assembly continued to be sovereign. If we look at British and French India, a difference that strikes one is the long and protracted negotiations for transfer of power in French India in contrast to the way the British quit India. Seven long years after the achievement of Indian independence from British colonial rule the de facto transfer of power in the French Indian enclaves took place in 1954. This was linked to the political developments in Indo-China, considered to be one of the more important areas under French imperial control. However, much water was to flow under the bridge and eight years lapsed before the French Indian enclaves achieved de jure independence from French colonial rule in 1962. This time around the association was with the political developments in Algeria, a colony crucial for France. The milestones of 1954 and 1962 were the culmination of a long and protracted struggle for independence waged by the nationalists in the French colonial enclaves in India. A study of British and French colonialism in a comparative perspective in the specific context of decolonization is extremely revealing. Whereas the liberation of India from British colonial rule set off a chain reaction of independence in other British colonies, such as Burma and Ceylon, France continued to cling to its colonial possessions. It had the second largest colonial empire in the world and was keen to keep Indo-China and Algeria and Morocco even if others saw this as beyond their means. It did not even give up its five colonial enclaves in India with grace, perhaps because of their strategic link with Indo-China. In this, there was a parallel with His Majestys Governments short-lived attempt to retain the Andaman and Nicobar Islands as a vital link on the Suez-Singapore route.

53

Expansion of Europe

France refused to see the writing on the wall in Indo-China. Following an armed revolt in 1930 and peasant revolts led by communists in 1930-31, the French executed nearly 700 nationalist and communist leaders. They made it plain, by the use of repression, that Vietnamese ambitions of independence would not be tolerated. By 1945 there were popular revolts against the French in many parts of Vietnam, which then came under communist control, with the help of the quite remarkable Vietnamese guerrilla army. The French were conclusively defeated in the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954. In contrast, the British were interested in preserving their empire in India but when a non violent mass agitation fashioned by Gandhi steadily eroded their power, they saw that they did not have the wherewithal to maintain rule and preferred a graceful withdrawal to a messy holding on. Indian independence in 1947 was followed by independence in Burma in 1948 and Ceylon in the same year. Malaya gained independence nine years later. In Africa the British were willing to grant independence except where there were large numbers of white settlers as in South Africa and Kenya. Ghana gained independence under Kwame Nkrumah in 1957. Togo, Cameroons, Somalia and Nigeria became independent in 1960. In 1964 all seven British East and Central African colonies, Somaliland, Tanganyika, Uganda, Zanzibar, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia became independent. Botswana and Swaziland followed in 1966. Britain was not willing to hand over power in Kenya because of white settlers there and hence got embroiled in suppressing a protracted and violent revolt, such as the Mau Mau. The French colonies of Morocco and Tunisia gained independence in 1956. In contrast, independence was completely ruled out for Algeria as it was seen as an integral part of France. This short sighted policy was to lead to a bloody war, as in Vietnam. In Africa local autonomy was granted in 1956 but the colonies were placed in a union, termed the French Community, strictly controlled by France. Eight colonies in French West Africa, four in French Equatorial Africa and Madagascar gained independence in 1960. Thus there were three different policies followed by the French in Africa. In the words of Immanuel Wallerstein, as a result of their special framework of thinking concerning the colonies, the British were the first to begin the process of decolonization. They accepted national independence as a legitimate objective. They were anxious to avoid a repetition of what happened in America in their other settler colonies, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In Africa local people were given representation in legislative bodies. Once India became part of the Commonwealth, which was earlier White, the road was clear for Africa. Thus, the pace of constitutional development in British non-settler Africa was rapid and marked by a minimum of violence and antagonism. In contrast to the British acceptance of national independence as a legitimate objective, the French did not believe in the legitimacy of nationalism for colonial subjects the French concept of constitutional advance was to draw colonies closer to France, not push them farther away. This policy was reconsidered only after the Second World War. French Africans were elected to legislative bodies in France. The British associated Africans with local bodies whereas the French associated Africans with French bodies. African political parties were extensions of metropolitan parties or attached themselves to French parties. At the end of World War II French colonies started on a radically different path of development from that of the British colonies. Yet fifteen years later they had arrived at the same point as the British viz., national independence. What had happened to make the French pattern conform to the British pattern?

54

There were two factors that influenced a change in the French pattern of constitutional development. The first was the events in Ghana, the second was the developments in North Africa and Indo-China. Tunisia and Morocco became restive, as did Togo and the Cameroons. After their defeat in Indo-China in 1954 the French took decisive steps towards independence of Algeria, lAfrique noire and Madagascar. The difference between the British and the French was that one long accepted the path to independence while the other did it late and with the greatest difficulty. But these were not the only differences. The British sought to maintain influence in their colonies after the end of empire by encouraging their ex-colonies to follow the Westminster model of parliamentary government with its multi party system. The French did not care what form of government was adopted, their concern was with cultural rather than political influence. The British and French differed in their approach to larger political federations. The French opposed federations in French West and Equatorial Africa as the nationalists were behind them whereas the British worked towards federations as they would be useful in the post-independence situation. However, as the overall trend was towards unitary structures within states, differences in British and French attitudes eventually made little difference. There were differences between the British and French perceptions of the role of the civil service. In Britain civil servants were nonpartisan whereas in France junior civilians were political. However, this made little difference after independence. Not all agree with the view of the particularity of the British style of transfer of power, that it was planned, phased and orderly. It is pointed out that in practice transfer of power in many British colonies was patchy, disorderly, reluctant and enforced. A middle view is that they were pushed along the path of self-government. In the words of Dennis Austin, it was a peculiar and distinctive feature of British colonial rule to have always contemplated its end: the colonial governments went (we might romantically say) consentingly to their fate, but they had also to be pushed in that direction and they were pushed primarily by local events within the colonial territories which obliged the Colonial Office and local colonial governments alike to introduce reforms at a pace which, in the post-war years, began to quicken beyond all earlier calculations. In sharp contrast, independence was dismissed as impossible at the French African Conference in Brazzaville in Algeria in 1944: The aims of the civilizing labours of France in the colonies exclude all possibilities of development outside of the French imperial system; the eventual formation even in the distant future of self-governments in the colonies must be dismissed [and the empire was to be conducted] in the Roman not the Anglo-Saxon sense. Yet, the outcome of these very different policies of the British and French was the same. Widespread economic and political discontent in Africa led to the uniform collapse of empire across British and French colonies. This seriously questions the view that French and British Africa were poles apart. Under pressure from a continent-wide wind of change, in the words of the British Prime Minister, Macmillan, colonial empires collapsed in Africa between 1957 and 1964 like the proverbial row of dominoes, in the words of D.A. Low. Also, it is very interesting that General de Gaulles explanation of decolonization is a general systemic one which does not distinguish between British and French patterns:

Decolonization

55

Expansion of Europe

The relative weakening of England and France, the defeat of Italy and the subordination of Holland and Belgium to the designs of the United States; the effect produced on the Asians and Africans by the battles fought on their soil for which the colonizers needed their support; the dissemination of doctrines which, whether liberal or socialist, equally demanded the emancipation of races and individuals; and the wave of envious longing aroused among these deprived masses by the spectacle of the modern economy as a result of all these factors the world was faced with an upheaval as profound, though in the opposite direction, as that which has unleashed the discoveries and conquests of the power of old Europe. (Memoirs of Hope)

19.6

INDIAN INDEPENDENCE: A CASE STUDY OF DECOLONIZATION

India selects itself as a case study. It was the classic colony. Its mass movement was the greatest the world has seen. Indian independence had an amazing demonstration effect. The achievement of independence in India triggered off a wave of similar developments across Africa and Asia. When did the realization dawn upon the imperial power that the end of the fabled empire, on which the sun never set, is near? At the end of the War, when the British authorities in India evaluated their position in the context of the post-1942 situation, it was clear to them that the hegemonic foundations of their rule were fast crumbling. Even erstwhile loyalists were deserting and the Indian Civil Service (ICS) was reaching a breaking point. The general consent of the people to British rule had diminished and the open, military repression of the 1942 movement had contributed greatly to this. Even liberal opinion in the country had shifted, slowly but steadily, away from the British and towards the nationalist forces. The Civil Service was deemed to be at breaking point by the end of 1943. The problem of declining recruitment, which had plagued the ICS ever since the end of the First World War, had reached alarming proportions by the Second World War. By 1939, its British and Indian members had achieved parity. Overall recruitment was first cut in order to maintain this balance and then stopped in 1943. By August 1945, the number of British officials was down to 522 and Indian officials up to 524. Besides, the men coming in were no longer Oxbridge graduates from upper class families, many of whose fathers and uncles were old India hands and who believed in the destiny of the British nation to govern the child people of India. The new officials were increasingly grammar school and polytechnic boys for whom serving the Raj was a career, not a mission. However, the main factor in the debilitation of the ICS was not manpower shortage but the slow, invidious decline of its prestige and authority. Here the erosion of authority had been taking place over the years, when the rising nationalist forces had been sought to be contained by a policy of conciliation mixed with repression. But the strategy of the national movement, of a multifaceted struggle combining nonviolent mass movements with working of constitutional reforms, proved to be more than a match for them. When non-violent movements were met with repression, the naked force behind the government stood exposed, offending the sensibility of the governments supporters; whereas if government did not clamp down on sedition, or effected a truce [as in 1931 when the Gandhi-Irwin Pact was signed] or conceded provincial autonomy under the Government of India Act, 1935, British government was seen to be too weak to wield control and its authority and prestige were undermined.
56

The impact of the nationalist movement on the bureaucracy was not only indirect, through weakening morale under pressure from mass movements and ministries. The permeation of nationalist sentiment among the Indian element of the services, especially the subordinate services and even the police, directly affected their loyalty and reliability. Even earlier, during the provincial ministries of 1937-39, the tendency of Indian officials to look up to the Congress was apparent, but, by 1945, the Indian services were assertively nationalist. For example, railway officials in east U.P. decorated their stations in honour of Nehru and Pant and in one instance detained a goods train for three hours to enable Nehru to make a speech and then travel by it. In the Central Provinces the clerical staff voted for the Congress at the elections and more interestingly, wanted this to be known. The British, of course, preferred to see their feelings as merely the tendency of the natives to worship the rising and not the setting sun. By 1945, nationalist feeling had reached the army, which was otherwise, too, in a state of flux. Politicized elements had entered the army, especially the technical services, under the new recruitment policy, which was liberalized because the carefully selected men of the martial races did not suffice. The soldiers who fought in Europe and South East Asia and liberated countries from fascist control, returned home with new ideas. When the issue of the Indian National Army (INA) prisoners came up, the army authorities discovered that army opinion was not clamouring for punishment, as initially expected, but predominantly in favour of leniency. The Commander-in-Chiefs opinion had changed by February 1946, when he stated that any Indian officer worth his salt is a nationalist. It was increasingly clear to the British that the old basis of British rule would not continue for long, and a new structure would have to be devised, if rule was to continue. Later, in mid-1946, many officials, including the Viceroy, were to argue that in the face of such an eventuality the whole nature of British rule could be transformed to one of strong, autocratic authority, replenished by new officials, which could then maintain British rule for 15-20 years. Even then, their argument was turned down, but in early 1946 this option was not even proposed. In late 1945, when the British saw the imminence of collapse, they sought to avert it by offering constitutional concessions. They could not take the risk of the concessions being rejected, for, if that happened, a mass movement would follow which they might not be able to contain. With the need being to avoid a contingency of negotiations breaking down, the concessions had to be of substance, which largely met the demand of the Congress. And so, faced with the Congress demand of Quit India and with the large majority of people affirming it, the Cabinet Mission went out from England in 1946 to negotiate the setting up of a national government and set into motion the machinery for transfer of power. It was not an empty gesture like the Cripps Mission in 1942; they intended to stay till they succeeded in securing some agreement. The reality was that they could not afford failure, for failure would lead to a humiliating surrender before a mass movement or would necessitate a basic change in the character of British rule from semi-hegemonic to repressive and autocratic. The first was obviously to be avoided at all costs; the second was also not likely to appeal either to the Labour Government that was in power, or to British and American public opinion, which was still conditioned by the pro-democratic and anti-Fascist euphoria of the War years. As a result the outcome was somewhat contradictory. Although the British expressed a political wish to transfer power to a United India, they actually ended up partitioning India into two countries. Though it was meant to be a smooth, peaceful transfer of power from British to Indian (and Pakistani) hands legitimized by an Act of British Parliament, a turned out to be a violent and brutal process leaving millions of people dead and homeless.

Decolonization

57

Expansion of Europe

19.7

SUMMARY

The second half of the twentieth century witnessed the collapse of colonialism. Between 1945 and 1965 over fifty decolonizations took place in Asia and Africa and a handful more ten years later. The 1970s freed another clutch, notably Portuguese GuineaBissau, Mozambique and Angola. Zimbabwe was freed as late as the 1980s. It is a paradox that the end of empire changed the world as much as the establishment of empire did. The end of Empire deprived Europe of status and grandeur. Europeans lost freedom of movement and economic activity given by empire. The foremost imperial power, Britain, became a second rate power. The third world comprising the countries which emerged from colonialism became a powerful force in world politics. In the words of historian Eric Hobsbawm, the huge colonial empires built up before and during the Age of Empire, were shaken and crumbled into dust. The entire history of modern imperialism, so firm and self confident when Queen Victoria of Great Britain died, had lasted no longer than a single lifetime.

19.8
1) 2) 3)

EXERCISES

What do we broadly understand by decolonization? What are the different theoretical models to understand it? Discuss the historical context within which decolonization of different countries took different paths? How would you categorize India in this context? What were the differences between France and England towards decolonization? How did it lead to different or similar historical results?

58

SUGGESTED READINGS FOR THIS BLOCK

Arnold, David, The Age of Discovery: 1400-1600, London, 1983. Black, Jeremy, Cambridge Illustrated Atlas of Warfare: Renaissance to Revolution, 1492-1792, Cambridge, 1996. Black, Jeremy, Cambridge Illustrated Atlas: Warfare Renaissance to Revolution, 1492-1792 Cambridge, 1996. Black, Jeremy, Europe and the World: 1650-1830, London, 2002. Chamberlain, M.E., Decolonisation, Oxford, 1985. Chandra, Bipan, et. al., Indias Struggle for Independence, New Delhi,1988. Chandra, Bipan, Nationalism and Colonialism in Modern India, Delhi, 1979. Cohen, B.J., The Question of Imperialism , New York, 1974. Crosby, Alfred W., Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900, Cambridge, 1986. Doyle, Michael W., Empires, London, 1986 Fieldhouse, D.K., Colonialism, 1870-1945, An Introduction, London, 1981. Fieldhouse, D.K., The Colonial Empires: a comparative survey from the eighteenth century, Macmillan, 1982, Second edition. Gallagher, John, The Decline, Revival and Fall of the British Empire , Cambridge, 1982. Geoffrey Parker (ed.), The Cambridge Illustrated History of Warfare: The Triumph of the West, Cambridge, 1995. Gifford, P. and Louis, W.R., The Transfer of Power in Africa: Decolonisation, 1940-60, London, 1982. Grimal, Henri, Decolonisation: the British, French, Dutch and Belgian Empires, London, 1978. Headrick, Daniel R., The Tools of Empire: Technology and European Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century, Oxford, 1981. Hobsbawm, Eric, The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914-1991, New Delhi, 1995. Hobson, J.A., Imperialism : A Study, London, 1938. Holland, R.F., European Decolonisation, 1918-1981, Basingstoke, 1985. Kennedy, Paul, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000, New York, 1987. Kurup, K.K.N., Indias Naval Traditions, New Delhi, 1997. Lenman, Bruce, Britains Colonial Wars: 1688-1783, London, 2001. Lenman, Bruce, Englands Colonial Wars, 1550-1688: Conflicts, Empire and National Identity, London, 2001. Low, D.A., Eclipse of Empire , Cambridge, 1991.

Decolonization

59

Expansion of Europe

Magdoff, Harry, Imperialism: From the Colonial Age to the Present , New York and London, 1978. Mahajan, Sucheta, Independence and Partition: Erosion of Colonial Power in India, New Delhi, 2000. Moore, R.J., Escape from Empire: The Attlee Government and the Indian Problem , Oxford, 1983. Mukherjee, Aditya, Imperialism, Nationalism and the Making of the Indian Capitalist Class, 1920-1947, New Delhi, 2002. Parker, Geoffrey, The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West, Cambridge, 1988. Phillips, C.H. and Wainwright, Mary, ed., The Partition of India: Policies and Perspectives, 1935-1947, London, 1970. Szymanski, Albert, The Logic of Imperialism , New York, 1981. Thornton, A.P., The Imperial Idea and its Enemies, London, 1959 Wallerstein, Immanuel, Africa: The Politics of Independence, An Interpretation of Modern African History, New York.

60