Iraq 2004 is an Echo of India 1857

[Guest guest]

INTERESTING ARTICLE

 

 

Two Imperialisms: Iraq 2004 is an Echo of India 1857

AMARESH MISRA

 

[ MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2004 12:00:00 AM ]

 

Iraq has now an Iraqi head of state; still prospects of real change

after the June 30 'transfer of power' remain grim. At another place

and another time, there was a similar 'change':

 

 

The East India Company handed over power to the British Crown on

November 1, 1858 following the bloody war that began a year earlier.

Promises were made to respect Indian culture and include Indians in

administration and governance. The colonial game, however, continued

for 89 more years.

 

Indian history encapsulates the basic behavioural and attitudinal

pattern of western imperial domination. American atrocities both

before and after the capture of Baghdad recall the mass loot and

killings indulged by the British after the capture of Delhi, Lucknow

and Kanpur in 1857.

 

Each White regiment was officially allowed a day of mayhem,

called 'bijan' in which even the articles to be looted and the type

of killings to be done were specified.

 

One day fixed for shooting all 'native' men between 15 and 55 and

looting jewels and antiques, the next for maiming women and children

and looting cash and utensils, and, yes, the third for stuffing pork

and beef into the mouths of captured Muslim and Hindu sepoys.

 

The British justified colonialism in the name of progress and rule

of law. The Americans are doing it in the name of freedom and

democracy.

 

The British accused native Indian rulers of tyranny, misrule (read

lack of western-style rule of law), of harbouring Pindaris and anti-

British brigands (read terrorists in the present context) and of

hiding lethal weapons (read weapons of mass destruction). Not

surprisingly, the British, like the American, assumed the reigns of

power to bring order.

 

Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan can be seen as Avadh, Nizam and

Punjab while Syria, Iraq and Iran as Mysore and Marathas. The

British isolated Mysore and Marathas assuring Avadh all the while of

protection and profit.

 

Punjab under Ranjit Singh was too hot to handle so it was left

alone. Later, Punjab and Avadh were annexed, the British waiting for

more than half a century for the right conditions to mature.

 

The Americans, too, waited years to brutalise Iraq before attacking

what was essentially their former ally. They will wait if need be

for many more years before taking on Saudi Arabia or Egypt.

 

Nineteenth-century British officers enrolled contractors, merchants

and lumpen elements and made them greet British forces as liberators

in MP, Bihar and Haryana. Similarly, in Iraq, groups of opposition

and hoodlums were paid to create a mock anti-Saddam rising protected

by American arms.

 

A general breakdown of law and order, presided carefully over by

American observers, was allowed to take place. This was then filmed

and shown to the world as an uprising of the Iraqi people.

 

The American talk of establishing free enterprise in the Arab world

resembles the British fraud of 'ridding India of depraved, Oriental

economic practices' and promoting free trade. It is well known that

till 1750, countries like India and China had more sophisticated

centres of industrial manufacture and enjoyed a favourable balance

of trade.

 

The British did not integrate a backward India into an advanced

global capitalism. They supplanted by force an Asia-centric world

economy by a Europe-centric one, killing Asian capitalism and

modernity in the process.

 

American intellectuals are now talking of social engineering in

Iraq. Categories of 'Shias', 'Sunnis' and 'Kurds' are being used in

a mutually exclusive sense to negate the notion of an Iraqi

identity.

 

The British did the same in India. Since the 1780s under the garb of

research and analysis they tried reinventing and redefining Indian

history/identity as one where Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, the various

castes fought against one another.

 

In 1855, the British resident in Avadh created the Ramjanambhoomi

dispute; the divide and rule intention was of course paramount but

there was also an experiential vision of western history: religious

identities, it seemed, could never constitute a composite culture.

 

Figures like Wajid Ali Shah were condemned because they defied the

western idea of modernity and progress. Dressed like a Hindu Jogi,

Wajid Ali played Holi, made fun of Victorian puritan values and

extolled the earthy, materialist bawdiness of the Avadhi pea-santry

in Kathak and Rahas. In British eyes, this reflected decadence and

depravity.

 

Then came 1857; the British were further perplexed: How could

orthodox Hindu sepoys hoist Bahadur Shah Zafar, a Mughal, to power?

How could Hindus and Muslims unite under the common banner of deen

(faith)? How could Pathan and Arab horsemen die for Laxmi Bai, a

Hindu queen?

 

The British crushed the memory of 1857 because even that was

subversive......

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/755636.cms