9/25/03

By Wakeley Paul.

"I CANNOT THINK OF ANY PLACE THAT BRITAIN LEFT LEFT  WORSE -LESS HEALTHY-
LESS PROSPEROUS- LESS EDUCATED- THAN WHEN SHE FOUND IT"   JOHN DERBYSHIRE, NATIONAL REVIEW

"OUR MASTERS THEN,  WERE STILL AT LEAST OUR COUNTRYMEN"
LORD BYRON, FROM THE MOUTH OF A GREEK PATRIOT


These represent opposite sentiments and opposing attitudes toward imperialism. Colonials are loathe to recognize the unquestioned advances made under imperial rule.  "They did it to benefit themselves" they cry. Who else would they seek to benefit? The imperialists didn't come with the intent of improving the colonies. The motives of the Imperialists were the same basic motives that govern all international action, namely national self interest.  The results were incidental but important

Does the motive really matter? Good motives can produce disastrous results
and visa versa. The Sinhalese believed that they were well motivated to
advance Sinhala Buddhism, but the results have been unquestionably
disastrous.

Former colonial subjects rarely acknowledge the advances made under
imperial rule without questioning the imperialist's motives. The roads, the
railways, the organized plantations were built for their profit they cry. Of
course they were, but the.motives are irrelevant It is the results , whether
good or harmful that matter.

. Once the British empire got into its stride, there were humanitarians
with nobler aspirations and visions who stepped in. There were the
evangelists, the educators, the civil servants, doctors, lawyers and
engineers who broadened our views and perspectives and helped us to reach
new horizons. Some, among the  converted and unconverted,  viewed each other
as different end beams off the same common source of light, while others
regarded religious conversion as an imperialist conspiracy to assuage their
colonial subjects.and mollify them.The advances in the fields of education
in science, law, democracy, and western philosophy are only grudgingly
acknowledged as something that would have emerged in the course of time,
anyway. The horrors the subject people were heir to when locally ruled are
shoved under the mattress with the sentiment, well "at least they were us".
Were they? Those rulers were a race apart from their people. Representative
government was an alien concept,  which is why it was not really strange for
the average colonial subject to accept their new foreign conquerors without
undue upheaval. The endless civil wars among tribal entities, races and even
among themselves were tamed by British intervention, even if their actions
were motivated by commercialism.and the need to maintain order.
Sentimentality glorifies the national past while ignoring portions of its
gory past.

Wars and struggles for Independence from British rule, for example, did
not erupt spontaneously overnight. The colonials accepted their rulers. The
leaders of the colonies became little Englishmen before they became ardent
nationalists  Gandhi, Nehru, the Bandaranaikes and Senanayakes were all
products of parents who were anglophiles. They were all the products of
British education before their spirits were aroused to demand  Independence.  English education and English concepts of justice was the incense that motivated them to become nationalists. . The English language had become such a symbol of advancement, that I remember vividly, one journalist saying contemptuously " They cannot even speak English properly.! A fluent command of the English language,  actually became the false criterion for determining literacy.  That's how deeply we were influenced by British thinking, a fact not to be ignored.

Imperialism carried with it a mixture of salutary goals such as the abolition of slavery commingled  with the dastardly reparations demanded from the Chinese for the seizure of opium in Canton. These good and evil phenomena were all part of the imperial heritage. It was no different to other historical phenomena. It had its wings and its swings and was  like the phantom in town. sometimes it was here, sometimes there and sometimes it was no where to be found, but its impact was ever present.

Imperialism is a curious phenomenon of history, which had its opponents as much among the rulers as amongst the ruled.  Dr Johnson and Adam Smith in England were anti imperialists  In the 19th century, the Manchester liberals opposed imperialist adventures on the grounds that it hindered free trade. Former colonials are now opposing free trade which is being fostered by the World Bank the I M F and the W T O.. Prime Minister Disraeli proclaimed the virtues of imperialism as being in Britain's interest, while his rival Gladstone, ranted and  raved over the inhumanity and injustice inflicted on peoples in distant colonies. They despised each others views with such civility, over this and other subjects, that when Disraeli was asked to define the difference between 'tragedy and disaster' he said "If Mr Gladstone fell in the Thames fully clothed and was unable to swim, that would be a tragedy, but if someone rescued him, that would be a disaster"

Colonialism was not a  phenomenon that emerged overnight as a conscious
policy of Britain. As J R Seely,  the famous historian famously remarked "It happened in a fit of absence of mind" Sometimes the flag followed trade, sometimes trade followed the flag, but the flag ended up , just about everywhere.

Americans who ostensibly disavow colonialism as contrary to their historical tradition, had the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, Samoa and the Panama Canal Zone listed as U S possessions as late as 1924. The Americans were quick to disavow this, claiming that they were mere temporary protectorates under their tutelage, not colonies. " We did not have Royal Durbars to impress on the ruled that we were their rulers  "they protested. "We were there to help them, not rule them" they insisted  "We were ready to move out the moment we were done with what had to be done" was their plea.  Does not this same refrain recur over Afghanistan & Iran ? How temporary is the control of these outposts ?. Hawaii became a state of the Union, P R has become a virtual satellite. President Bush and his cabinet keep reiterating that the war on terrorism over which Afghanistan and Iran were fought and won, will be long and protracted. So the claim that they will leave when their mission is accomplished seems meaningless. The question is "When is when and is when; and is when for ever "?

Is there a new philosophy since 9/11 that since terrorism lurks everywhere, everywhere is fair game for American intervention. Does this spread to those nations that pose a danger to this country because of uncontrolled native or not so native diseases, which if unchecked now, can have universal impact later. Such interventions are not without precedent. The Panamanian dictator was overthrown for endangering the US by the growth and export of drugs,  Mossadeq was overthrown for nationalizing and jeopardizing the flow of oil to the west. The liberal left justifies some of these interventions on humanitarian grounds; the conservatives on the grounds of national interest. On whatever ground, intervention is necessary whether it be for the human good or the national interest. International agencies like the United Nations are welcomed by liberals to broaden the importance of the humanitarian trumpet call to action, but considered by conservatives as dangerous to the national interest. It is like transferring the powers of the Congress to the General Assembly"  they argue,  "and that is a reckless abandonment of power to an organization that does not represent the national interest". "It is a meaningless surrender of power to the powerless, which America can ill afford" they insist. They carry this further with some justification and say, " The powerless should emulate  us, not the other way around. We have hardly any desire or need to be ruled by them" They may well have a point or two or three.

Sri Lanka, like many former Brutish colonies, is heir to a new form of colonization, and imperialism from within. The Sinhalese pretend that we are fellow countrymen in order to rule us. In the words of D.S.Senanayake, on the verge of our being granted independence from Britain, "Do you want to be governed from London, or do you want as Ceylonese, to help govern Ceylon" That appeal is now hollow. The  underlying truth is that 'They are they, And we are we, And the time has come, For us to part" Those who the British claimed to unite are falling apart and demanding separation.  These are the new emerging ethnic trends in the former loosely merged colonies. While the west becomes inter racial we emerge in an opposite direction as part of our present history.

The bottom line is that imperialists are unloved, whatever they may say or do. Americans who always want to be liked, find this hard to believe. They genuinely, if naively, believe, that their interventions are necessary to save mankind from one disaster or another. The British and other former imperialists had no such illusions. They intended to impress their colonials that they were a superior breed who had a right by force to control their inferiors; and to do so for every ones good. It didn't matter that they were motivated by self interest and were disliked for it. That were not there to be liked. They were there to rule... They had no qualms about turning their colonies into mini Englands while retaining some of the native pageantry.  But it was "Rule Brittania, Brittania rules the waves" even if they had to wave the rules to do so. The colonials were there to be ruled, not loved...