A small news item tucked somewhere in the middle pages of The Times of India had an interesting information. It read that recently a tribe in the Pacific island of Vanatu issued a personal apology to the descendants of Reverend John Williams, a British Missionary, who was killed and eaten by their ancestors 170 years ago. The missionary, much like the civilizing zeal of the times which the West had taken upon itself to mask the brutal imperial order it was establishing, was trying to convert pagans into Christianity.
Contrast it with what the former foreign minister of France Hubert Vedrine has to say in his recent book History Strikes Back: How States, Nations, and Conflicts are Shaping the 21st Century. Castigating the French for excessive self-criticism regarding their history Vedrine says, “Discussions of the past have started to become rather masochistic. People are constantly ‘rediscovering’ tragic episodes of French history as if they had somehow been hidden, which has generally not been the case. In this case the goal…seems to be to level accusations as part of some atonement process, to obtain apologies or reparations, or to create new legal obligations. What is the purpose of asking an apology for acts undertaken by others in the past? To what degree is one responsible for crimes committed by one’s ancestors? Is there such a thing, contrary to legal principles, as collective responsibility, and can this be transmitted over time?”
The less said the better, for the West has never sought official apology for colonialism from the colonized. Colonialism after all always rode on the back of Christian missionaries wanting to civilize the barbaric non-west. What is interesting however is the fact that the erstwhile colonized is ready to apologise even for a single act of brutality, while the erstwhile colonizer is not even ready to acknowledge the insanity of the rapine colonial order. For the questions that Vedrine raises about the culpability of the current generation for acts committed by their ancestors, the only reply is ‘ask the right question’. Apology for the past is required not because the current generation is responsible for whatever was done, but because the current order in which the West is developed and non-west is still developing is itself a result of what was done in the past. The current generation also enjoys the fruits of imperialism. The modernity in the West was acquired through primitivising the rest, and thus the benefits of modernity reaped by the current crop have to be acknowledged accordingly. The whole criminal architecture of colonialism is the founding logic of the legal principles of modern times. Thus, it is not a of owning up a crime, as Vedrine puts it, but expressing at least a minimal acknowledgement of the fact that the current order does not put everyone on the same footing. It is a question of acknowledging the in-built inequalities that colonialism has passed on to the current system.
Even if, all that doesn’t convince Vedrine, someone atleast tell him to re-read his own title more carefully. ‘History Strikes Back’ – perhaps would tell him more about the power of history and the rationale as well as morality of acknowledging it.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Imperialism of 'History' - Finding an Alternative?
'History' is fascinating, but the logic of history, some would say, makes it more amenable to imperialistic ambitions. For that matter, 'a chronological sequencing of events' which marks a clear distinction between past, present and future (in essence, an idea of progress) is one of the more celebrated after-effects of enlightenment. Hegel, Marx and many other prophets of the enlightenment era have used an abused history to museumize the past,justify the present and fix the future. And that is why, Nandy thinks that the project of 'alternative histories' is not as emancipating as it seems. For him, it is in the denial of history and celebration of many other alternate forms of telling the past, i.e. folk, myth, and so on, that the silent majority of the world find their ultimate calling.
These alternate forms of recounting the past do two things, which history suppresses. First, they provide us with an alternate idea of time. The past, present and future, thus, are not sequentially separated. The lines between the three are blurred, even some times fusing into one. That means the past is not always objectified, something that is there. It is always in the making. And thus, more closer to the present. Similarly, future is not always pre-fixed, not completely in the hands of past and present and thus the driver of both, 'Man' (Of course, not 'woman'). Future has its own latency, its own subjectivities, its own uncertainities and depends more on an active collaboration of 'nature' and 'human' rather than just the latter.
Secondly, these alternate forms of recounting past are moral/ethical and not amorally and dispassionately chronicled. The message upfront that these forms convey is explicitly moral. Their affect on present and future is not determinative but suggestive. The history though has a determinative role. History in fact follows a telos, whose every point seems to be pre-defined, not just the end. Of course, sometimes myths and folks also point to a telos, as in Armageddon, or circularity in lfe, as in Hindu mythology (rebirth, but it also has a telos in 'Moksha), but the end is just a 'pointer' which keeps one reminded of what 'one ought to do' but not necessarily what 'one would do'. These forms, in a sense, try to locate 'moral and reason' in an active connivance and not in passive divergence.
Monday, October 26, 2009
The hyphenated Colonizer-Colonized Relationship: A Coversation
Of late, Deep and I have taken to discussing various issues on my facebook wall, and we seem to making a good use of it. These debates personally have been both insightful and rigorous, for Deep is novel as well as articuilate with whatever he proposes. Just thought, updating these debates here would be one good thing for this blog.
Vineet -
Khushal Sir - That's what WE have been doing. Our journey from Sanskrit to Urdu and then to B' English and now THE American one...
Vineet - Absolutely...Though some of it may not be pure imitation but cultural miscegenation...Ibn Khadun, i think, forgot to mention 'violence'...The conquered always imitates the 'violence' of the conquerer..No wonder, in most postcolonial states dictators have mimicked their colonial masters in execution of violent acts....they treat their subjects jz as colonial masters did...!!!!!
Muzzafar - so that is the secret of nehru's energy!!
Deep - i have been wondering about this for quite some time now...one of the stratergy to organize a rebellion is to project the culture of the conqueoror in somewhat lesser stature than one's own culture..the idea is to build pride in the native and give him moral courage to resist oppression and if possible fight back.we can draw eamples of such strategies across the board- from gandhi to malcom x . imitation may be a dominant trait among certain native classes who benifits under the opression. eg- the clerical class in india who beniffited from the english education. often after a successful overthrow of the regime there is a radical de-imitation/reversal that takes place. the pol pot's rebellion is a chilling reminder!
in my opinion Ibn Khadun's words should not to be taken entirely in negativity. imitation may also mean progress.eg- developing scientific attitude, banishing superstitions and inhuman practices,etc. u rightly pointed out 'cultural miscegenation', which happens after two cultures have come in contact for a while. but cultural misgenation like biological miscegenation often gets shunned by both the cultures for being illegitimate. sufi saints and mulattos in brazil are often on the same boat!
the part about imitating violence is interesting. often whn there is a change in power/rulers the framework of power remains unchanged and the means of conducting violence passes on unchanged to the next administration. the struggle for police reforms in india demonstrates how rigid these structures can be.
Vineet - Muzzafar bhai..egjactly!!!!!!!!! Itty Abraham sketches out much better the secret of Nehru's 'Energy', but u were spot on to point it here.
Deep, Like always, ur observations are prudent. The point about 'strategy of the colonized', I think, is debated by most postcolonial theorists and most of them take the line that u have taken. Most of them too argue that their is both 'mimicry' and 'difference' in the behaviour of the colonized. Partha Chaterjee, in fact, makes a similar claim as u do - that the colonized mimics the material aspect of the colonizer, but in the spiritual/metaphysical content, the colonized seeks to project himself/herself not only independent of but also superior to the colonizer. The colonizer accepts the material superiority of the colonized and tries to challenge it through espousal of a spiritual superiority. Though, I am still debating whether this is a consciously chosen strategy or it is something that is rooted deep in the psychology of the colonized. I am not sure, but may be u would explain it better.
Second, another problem that we cn talk about here is that while we agree that the colonizer shows his/her spiritual superiority, where does he/she take inspiration from? In case of India, it is history that frames our moral/spiritual universe. So to tackle the Western Colonizer, the Indian Colonized could speak from the standpoint of civilizational heritage and loudly proclaim the superiority of Indian ethos to the West. What happens in case of Africa? Epistemic violence of the colonizer ensured that history was effaced from Africa. In fact, Africa was deemed to have no civilization, no history before the colonized came. The whole movement of 'negritude' that Malcom X, Leopold Senghor, Frantz Fanon associated themselves with had no historical connotations. They merely talked about the difference/ superiority of their skin (and thus their morals)...no history used here.So is there a universal template around which the colonized builds his/her discourse or their exists a 'plurality of discourse here. Also, We also need to ask deeper questions about what is it that informs 'moral superiority' - History, culture, skin, discourse, practice... I don't know.
Deep - Beautifully articulated vineet...coming to ur first point, the choice of strategy of the colonized-all strategies are rooted in psychology! jervis in another context makes it quite clear that the choices we make or rather the options we think that are available to us are conditioned by our biases. but the moot question is 'whether all the colonized share the same psychology??' we can argue to some extent that the exploitation of the colonies do share some symmetries but this cannot in itself be insightful enough on the colonizer-colonized relationship and the shaping of colonial memories. The creation of the psychology of the colonized will need some more contemplation! Haven’t read anything on it so far..U may take the conversation forward from this point.
The second question is of much interest to me. I believe that the colonized adapt a two-pronged approach in their strategy, one for the domestic population and the other for the international audience. The differences in their strategies only differ in the tactics used to invigorate their masses whereas there lays a symmetry in their international approach. For example- on one hand, the Indians used the spiritual/ civilization argument whereas negritude relied on using disclosures to expose the chains of slavery and the myth of racial inferiority propagated by the whites and internalized by the blacks.. But in the international arena both of them used the arguments of equality, liberty, sovereignty, etc. to justify and legitimize their struggle. Anti-colonial struggles as much an internal struggle as it is an external one. These struggles also demolished a widely prevalent system-colonialism/imperia
Vineet -
"Those who are conquered always want to imitate the conquerer in his main charecteristics - in his clothing, his crafts and in all his distinctive traits and customs." - Ibn Khadun
Khushal Sir - That's what WE have been doing. Our journey from Sanskrit to Urdu and then to B' English and now THE American one...
Vineet - Absolutely...Though some of it may not be pure imitation but cultural miscegenation...Ibn Khadun, i think, forgot to mention 'violence'...The conquered always imitates the 'violence' of the conquerer..No wonder, in most postcolonial states dictators have mimicked their colonial masters in execution of violent acts....they treat their subjects jz as colonial masters did...!!!!!
Muzzafar - so that is the secret of nehru's energy!!
Deep - i have been wondering about this for quite some time now...one of the stratergy to organize a rebellion is to project the culture of the conqueoror in somewhat lesser stature than one's own culture..the idea is to build pride in the native and give him moral courage to resist oppression and if possible fight back.we can draw eamples of such strategies across the board- from gandhi to malcom x . imitation may be a dominant trait among certain native classes who benifits under the opression. eg- the clerical class in india who beniffited from the english education. often after a successful overthrow of the regime there is a radical de-imitation/reversal that takes place. the pol pot's rebellion is a chilling reminder!
in my opinion Ibn Khadun's words should not to be taken entirely in negativity. imitation may also mean progress.eg- developing scientific attitude, banishing superstitions and inhuman practices,etc. u rightly pointed out 'cultural miscegenation', which happens after two cultures have come in contact for a while. but cultural misgenation like biological miscegenation often gets shunned by both the cultures for being illegitimate. sufi saints and mulattos in brazil are often on the same boat!
the part about imitating violence is interesting. often whn there is a change in power/rulers the framework of power remains unchanged and the means of conducting violence passes on unchanged to the next administration. the struggle for police reforms in india demonstrates how rigid these structures can be.
Vineet - Muzzafar bhai..egjactly!!!!!!!!! Itty Abraham sketches out much better the secret of Nehru's 'Energy', but u were spot on to point it here.
Deep, Like always, ur observations are prudent. The point about 'strategy of the colonized', I think, is debated by most postcolonial theorists and most of them take the line that u have taken. Most of them too argue that their is both 'mimicry' and 'difference' in the behaviour of the colonized. Partha Chaterjee, in fact, makes a similar claim as u do - that the colonized mimics the material aspect of the colonizer, but in the spiritual/metaphysical content, the colonized seeks to project himself/herself not only independent of but also superior to the colonizer. The colonizer accepts the material superiority of the colonized and tries to challenge it through espousal of a spiritual superiority. Though, I am still debating whether this is a consciously chosen strategy or it is something that is rooted deep in the psychology of the colonized. I am not sure, but may be u would explain it better.
Second, another problem that we cn talk about here is that while we agree that the colonizer shows his/her spiritual superiority, where does he/she take inspiration from? In case of India, it is history that frames our moral/spiritual universe. So to tackle the Western Colonizer, the Indian Colonized could speak from the standpoint of civilizational heritage and loudly proclaim the superiority of Indian ethos to the West. What happens in case of Africa? Epistemic violence of the colonizer ensured that history was effaced from Africa. In fact, Africa was deemed to have no civilization, no history before the colonized came. The whole movement of 'negritude' that Malcom X, Leopold Senghor, Frantz Fanon associated themselves with had no historical connotations. They merely talked about the difference/ superiority of their skin (and thus their morals)...no history used here.So is there a universal template around which the colonized builds his/her discourse or their exists a 'plurality of discourse here. Also, We also need to ask deeper questions about what is it that informs 'moral superiority' - History, culture, skin, discourse, practice... I don't know.
Deep - Beautifully articulated vineet...coming to ur first point, the choice of strategy of the colonized-all strategies are rooted in psychology! jervis in another context makes it quite clear that the choices we make or rather the options we think that are available to us are conditioned by our biases. but the moot question is 'whether all the colonized share the same psychology??' we can argue to some extent that the exploitation of the colonies do share some symmetries but this cannot in itself be insightful enough on the colonizer-colonized relationship and the shaping of colonial memories. The creation of the psychology of the colonized will need some more contemplation! Haven’t read anything on it so far..U may take the conversation forward from this point.
The second question is of much interest to me. I believe that the colonized adapt a two-pronged approach in their strategy, one for the domestic population and the other for the international audience. The differences in their strategies only differ in the tactics used to invigorate their masses whereas there lays a symmetry in their international approach. For example- on one hand, the Indians used the spiritual/ civilization argument whereas negritude relied on using disclosures to expose the chains of slavery and the myth of racial inferiority propagated by the whites and internalized by the blacks.. But in the international arena both of them used the arguments of equality, liberty, sovereignty, etc. to justify and legitimize their struggle. Anti-colonial struggles as much an internal struggle as it is an external one. These struggles also demolished a widely prevalent system-colonialism/imperia
Monday, October 12, 2009
King Leopold's Ghost
For a long time, I was longing to read 'King Leopold's Ghost' by Adam Hochschild and I laid my hands onto it a couple of days ago.
Back in the late nineteenth century, when Europe enjoyed its 'hundred years peace', its cost was being borne by colonies across the world. KLG is the story of one such place - Congo. King Leoplod II, the long bearded Monarch of neutralist Belgium, bought, not through money but deceit and treachery, a vast expanse of land in Africa - 66 times of the size of Belgium. For more than two decades (1890-1910), while Leopold was celebrated as the benign sovereign of Belgium in Europe, his rapacity cost about 10 million lives in Congo. The poor Congolese were subjected to a reign of terror that could be compared to Hitler's savagery in Auschwitz, even more. Symbolically, 'severed hands' could be identified with Leopold's rule, just as 'severed fingers' around Anghulimaal's neck in Indian mythology. In Leopold's Congo, his forces were ordered to cut the hands of the people they have killed to account for the number of bullets fired. Often, the no of hands were more than the no of bullets fired, for cuting hands became a hobby as well as signifier of power for the soldiers who often belonged to the emasciated lower middle class in Europe.
'Congo's plunder' is a story that is rarely found in the chronicles of the history, for history is written by and for the conquerer. KLG also brings out how modernity, progress, development in Europe came at the cost of murder, rape, savagery elsewhere. European civility is full of silences of its barbarity. A mustread!!
Back in the late nineteenth century, when Europe enjoyed its 'hundred years peace', its cost was being borne by colonies across the world. KLG is the story of one such place - Congo. King Leoplod II, the long bearded Monarch of neutralist Belgium, bought, not through money but deceit and treachery, a vast expanse of land in Africa - 66 times of the size of Belgium. For more than two decades (1890-1910), while Leopold was celebrated as the benign sovereign of Belgium in Europe, his rapacity cost about 10 million lives in Congo. The poor Congolese were subjected to a reign of terror that could be compared to Hitler's savagery in Auschwitz, even more. Symbolically, 'severed hands' could be identified with Leopold's rule, just as 'severed fingers' around Anghulimaal's neck in Indian mythology. In Leopold's Congo, his forces were ordered to cut the hands of the people they have killed to account for the number of bullets fired. Often, the no of hands were more than the no of bullets fired, for cuting hands became a hobby as well as signifier of power for the soldiers who often belonged to the emasciated lower middle class in Europe.
'Congo's plunder' is a story that is rarely found in the chronicles of the history, for history is written by and for the conquerer. KLG also brings out how modernity, progress, development in Europe came at the cost of murder, rape, savagery elsewhere. European civility is full of silences of its barbarity. A mustread!!
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Contesting Dichotomies
I had started a community with the same name 'Contesting Dichotomies' on FB a few months ago. Though, the initial reaction looked promising, like most other things, it died a quick death. The effort here is to resurrect the spirit of the Contesting Dichotomies.
The idea behind the community was reflected in the introductory remarks - "Most of the world, for us, exists in binaries. Sovereignty or anarchy, Man or Women, Domestic or international, legal or Illegal, Science or Metaphysics, Subjugation or emancipation, War or Peace, Global or Local, Soldier or Civilian, State or Non-State...and so on. The truth, as they say, always lies in between. While we have conditioned ourselves to think in terms of these appellations, the world around exists mostly in the blurred lines or the liminal spaces. The discourse that hinges on these terms, therefore, is always predisposed to take us away from reality."
Hope to contribute more to it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
this may look somewhat like the 'boomerang effect' we read abt in the advanced paper in our 1st M.Phil semester.
*p.s.
it may be little unfair to say that negritude totally rejected history because they did talk about Africa being the 'cardle of human civilization' and raised embarassing questions in the Church about Jesus being coloured rather than white wid blue eyes..
Vineet - You are right Deep in pointing out that the colonizer-colonised relationship is not same everywhere. In fact, Asian and African experiences ( If i can, for simplicity, homogenize these sub-categories for a while) of colonialism were quite different. In case of Asia, as i wrote earlier, there were clear imprints of older civilization which could not be completely effaced by the colonizer. A 'non-civilized east' was difficult to justify. Therefore, the tendency here was not to 'humanise' but to 'masculinise'. The Eastern civilizations were declared feminine, underdeveloped, passive and stagnant. There was a conscious effort at highlighting and 'inferior-ising' the feminine aspects of these civilizations. The template, in case of Africa, however, seems different. As i said earlier, the epistemic violence ensured that Africa was deprived of any civilizational imprints. More so, the colour of the skin provided the bodily manifestation of African difference. And this difference was articulated as difference of human-beast. African was not feminised, but 'beastized'. Even today, 'negro' in colonial terms represents bestiality. Think of the sexual symbolism attached with a 'negro', it smacks of 'bestiality'.
So I think, all colonized can not have the same responses to colonialism because their experiences have been markedly different.
Your second point about internal-external strategies of the colonized is very valid. But I think both of us are also generalising to some extent the strategies of the colonized. I fact, one can find very different set of responses from the colonized. While, one way is a recourse to national jingoism that declares self as superior, the second is to mimic the colonizer and try to outsmart him in his own parameters. The first is visible in the writings of nationalists and rightists like Bankim Chandra and Savarkar. Japan would be a perfect example of the second tendency. However, both responses involve mimicing the colonizer.Remember, the colonized learns the vocabulary of nationalism from the colonizer only. There is another approach which could be gleaned from the writings of Gandhi and Tagore in Indian case. While they of course highlighted the spiritual richness of the native culture, there approach to the colonizer was one of assimilation and not relativization. There approaches, ideas and methods were domestically inspired rather than external imported. I admit a better articulation was warranted here, but I guess it was just a rudimentary thought.