Iraq:
Indian History In Reverse?
By Niranjan Ramakrishnan
12 May, 2007
Countercurrents.org
Today marks the 150th anniversary
of the first Indian war of Independence, also known as the Sepoy Mutiny.
Breaking out in Meerut on
May 10, 1857, the uprising soon spread all across northern and central
India. The English in Hindustan, early ex-pats in a blithe existence,
enjoying luxuries they could scarcely have imagined at home, were rousted
from their tranquil lives and suddenly found themselves on unfamiliar
terrain (in every sense), quarries in a bizarre fox hunt. The future
Empire teetered for a moment. By the time it was all over a couple of
years later, both Indians and British had perpetrated unimaginable horrors,
and both were left scratching their heads, the former at how they had
ended up losing their country, the latter at the absent-minded folly
of leaving a huge country like India in the charge of a private company.
Queen Victoria moved to establish Britain's administrative rule in place
of the Company's.
Everyone woke up to the fact that it was a corporation that had been
ruling India all these years! Its name was The East India Company, a
player tangled up in America's history too. The American Revolution
was fought partly against the Company's monopoly -- it was the Company's
tea that was dumped into Boston Harbor. However, its connection to America
long predates the Boston Tea Party -- few people know that the Mayflower
belonged to the East India Company.
Unlike the American Revolution, the 1857 rising failed to oust the English.
There would be no Yorktown in India. In fact, after surrendering to
Washington, Cornwallis went on to serve two terms as Governor General
of India!
But back to the Mutiny. It is relevant to ask if the Pax Britannica
established over India following 1857 did not allow for the growth of
a native middle class, and generally paving the way for Modern India.
In fact, a book by a well-known Indian executive and civil servant is
called, "Punjabi Century -- 1857 to 1947" (occasioning some
unkind chuckles in India about the numerical abilities of those from
the land of the five rivers). The book extols the steadying hand of
a series of dedicated post-mutiny English administrators allowing Punjabis,
after centuries under Oriental despotism and caprice, to flourish as
never before. To a lesser or greater degree, the same was true of many
other parts of India. Indeed, I was just reading that Hitler, meeting
with the Indian nationalist Subhas Chandra Bose in Berlin in May 1942,
declined Bose's offer of an armed insurrection against Britain, telling
him that what India needed was 50 more years of British rule on its
road to modernity and freedom. The notion of the white man's burden
was one shared by Churchill and Hitler alike -- and by George W. Bush
and Tony Blair -- or even Marx.
Could not one draw a parallel between today's chaos in Iraq with the
human tragedy and barbarism on all sides, and the slaughter during the
Mutiny? Is it not fair to ask if Bush and Blair's impulses, of offering
to bring order and democracy to a backward and lawless region, do not
have some merit? Such a comparison is superficial, overly facile, and
dead wrong. If anything, Iraq is India in reverse.
The East India Company came to India to trade, having been granted rights
to do so by the English Crown. This was in the 1600's. Over the next
150 years, under a succession of rapacious if capable personalities
such as Robert Clive, the Company increased its foothold, going from
a few 'factories' along the coastline to raising and maintaining armies,
arbitrating in internecine quarrels amongst native rulers, to building
the first Indian cities (Calcutta was founded by Job Charnock and Madras,
by Francis Day and Andrew Cogan) to becoming in 1757, after defeating
the Nawab of Bengal at Plassey, the dominant political and military
force in India, a replacement for Mughal Empire which had entered its
rump period some fifty years earlier. It was still another 100 years
to the Mutiny, and 90 more to Independence.
Whereas in India, what began as commerce morphed, first into political
intervention and then eventually (almost reluctantly) into the British
Raj, America's Iraq Project was from the start given an overtly political
agenda, albeit the exact story (dislodging Saddam, dismantling WMD's,
bringing democracy...) varied with to the mood du jour. In India, what
started as unabashed profiteering (both Robert Clive and Warren Hastings
were impeached by Parliament for corruption) was brought under control
by establishing an Indian State, a civil service and an army. By contrast,
in our day an existing Iraqi state was dismantled, its armed forces
disbanded, the rule of law bade farewell on Day One of American Rule,
when the American forces stood on the sidelines and watched the ransacking
of the National Museum, and a Defense Secretary untroubled by it all
remarked that "stuff happens". The architects of this chaos,
instead of being impeached or dismissed, were reelected and given medals
of honor. In hard commercial terms, India was a profit center for the
British. Iraq has put the United States 500 billion dollars deeper in
debt. The one common thread is the unabashed private profiteering, which
continues across the times. Plus ça change...
In India, conscientious British administrators (with eminent Indian
leaders) brought an end to the practice of sati, the live burning of
widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. In Iraq, a womanhood
that was perhaps the freest in the Arab world (a perverse fact, Saddam's
biological weapons project was said to be headed by a woman) has been
pushed back into the home, forced into wearing scarves and veils.
Lenin wrote that imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism. An
Indian writer identified the difference between colonialism and imperialism.
A colony is where you get cheap raw materials and sell goods to, whereas
imperialism is a matter of making a cultural impress. Britain's colonialism
bled India white. Her imperialism gave India the notions of a free press,
democracy, elections, parliament, habeas corpus... Bled, then, but whitened
too, so to speak? As for America, in 1857 she produced much of what
she consumed. Today's America is a classic colony, home to raw materials,
consumer of everything from abroad.
But the key difference is, of course, that 2007 is not 1857. In 1857,
the western nation state was in the ascendant, today it is withering
away. In 1857, the British Crown was dismissing the East India Company
and taking over its reigns. (In fact, the Crown had to permit the Company
to trade in India. Today companies can move entire operations abroad
without even informing the government!) In 2007, the American Government
is giving over not only parts of Iraq but even parts of the United States
(New Orleans, if Greg Palast is to be believed) to an East India Company
of our own times -- Blackwater (a curious coincidence: Kala Pani, or
black water, was the name given to the oceans in medieval India, to
discourage people from traveling abroad).
In those times Lord Bentick
had no qualms about abolishing sati, an established custom in an alien
land. Today's state countenances talk of separate courts for different
communities. The Empire is striking back, and fittingly for a broadband
age, in double quick time, across both history and geography. It is
apt that as he announced his retirement today Tony Blair used the word
'Blowback'.
In the end, whatever roles the Bushes, Blairs or Blackwaters might have
played, it is we the people that determine their freedom and sovereignty,
by their own actions. No one understood this complicity better than
Gandhi, and there is no better way to remind ourselves on this or any
other anniversary of British rule:
"The English have not
taken India; we have given it to them...They had not the slightest intention
(when they first came) to establish a kingdom. Who assisted the (East
India) Company's officers? Who was tempted at the sight of their silver?
Who bought their goods? History testifies that we did all this. In order
to become rich all at once we welcomed the Company's officers with open
arms. If I am in the habit of drinking bhang and a seller thereof sells
it to me, am I to blame him or myself? By blaming the seller, shall
I be able to avoid the habit? And, if a particular retailer is driven
away, will not another take his place?
...That corporation (East
India Company) was versed alike in commerce and war. It was unhampered
by questions of morality. Its object was to increase its commerce and
to make money. It accepted our assistance, and increased the number
of its warehouses. To protect the latter it employed an army which was
utilized by us also. Is it not then useless to blame the English for
what we did at the time?"
(Hind Swaraj, 1909)
Niranjan Ramakrishnan
is a writer living on the West Coast. He can be reached at [email protected].
References:
1. The
Irony of Imperium by Niranjan Ramakrishnan
2. Who's
changing Whom? by Niranjan Ramakrishnan
3. The
Partition of America by Niranjan Ramakrishnan
4. Conscience
Takes a Holiday by Niranjan Ramakrishnan
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.
Click
here to comment
on this article