Britain’s historical amnesia

Much of the local elite in former colonies got their riches and honours by providing services to the Empire


Syed Mohammad Ali April 14, 2017
The writer is a development anthropologist currently based in Fairfax, Virginia, and teaches at Georgetown and George Washington universities

After last year’s Brexit referendum, Britain is now set to exit the European Union. The implications of this move are still unfolding in terms of its impact on regional and economic integration. There was, however, another driving force motivating the ‘Leave Europe’ campaign, which also merits more attention. Much of the support for Brexit was sought based on nationalist appeals of taking the country back, and returning it to its former glories, by reestablishing closer ties with the Commonwealth (former colonies). Aspirations surrounding the slogan ‘taking Britain back’, accompanied by the disturbing surge in xenophobia, would perhaps not have been possible without the selective historical amnesia concerning the atrocities of British colonialism.

It was less than a century ago when the British Empire exerted its might over a fifth of the world’s population and a quarter of the world’s total land. Advocates of Brexit have been repeatedly insinuating that that Britain could regain its former glory by charting an independent course of action. Supporters of Brexit are, of course, not the only ones who have glorified the former British empire. Colonial apologists have included Winston Churchill himself. Although David Cameron opposed Brexit, and he handed over the reins of power to Theresa May after he lost the Brexit referendum, he too had earlier asserted the British colonial empire was something to be proud of. During a trip to India, Cameron had asserted that it would be wrong to “reach back into history” and apologise for the wrongs of British colonialism.

It is no surprise that such glorifications of colonialism have also pervaded British public opinion. A YouGov found 44pc respondents were proud of Britain’s history of colonialism, while only 21pc regretted that it happened. These views are understandable since the British education system also does not focus much on colonial history.

However, across much of the developing world which was under Britain’s sway, the brutalities of colonialism are less easily forgotten. Its ‘divide and rule policies’ and entrenched exploitation have wreaked havoc across many other parts of the world.

A new book, Inglorious Empire, provides a bold and incisive reassessment of colonialism. It is written by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, who has served as the UN undersecretary general for several years. Earlier in 2015, Tharoor had argued for reparations from Britain to its former colonies. In this new book, Tharoor has also highlighted how British imperialism tried to justify itself as enlightened despotism for the benefit of the governed. However, every supposed imperial ‘gift’ (from the railways to legislative and governance norms) was in fact meant to primarily serve Britain’s interests.

Historians like Irfan Habib have also pointed how Britain’s Industrial Revolution was founded on India’s deindustrialisation, including the destruction of its textile industry. Economic historians such as Imran Ali have further demonstrated how the military’s involvement in agriculture in Pakistan also owes its origin to the British practice of allocating cultivable land for military use as a reward to encourage military service under the British Raj.

While blaming colonialism for all that ails the developing world today is hardly productive, the historical amnesia about what colonial rule entailed is equally harmful. Improving relations and engaging in trade are good things, but the benefits of such trade must not accrue in the hands of the few. Much of the local elite in former colonies got their riches and honours by providing services to the Empire and remaining complicit in colonial rule. Unfair trade rules only recast similar exploitation and must be avoided by the now independent states, and by former colonisers, such as Britain.

An acknowledgement of its own colonial legacy would help increase an appreciation of the inflow of migrants in Britain’s midst, and enable Britons to become more sensitive to the plight of the disadvantaged elsewhere.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 14th, 2017.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

COMMENTS (4)

Solomon2 | 7 years ago | Reply "..However, every supposed imperial ‘gift’ (from the railways to legislative and governance norms) was in fact meant to primarily serve Britain’s interests." Professor, the interstate highways you use to quickly drive around the Washington, D.C. area are the product of the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956; that is, they were "meant to primarily serve" military purposes. But how often do you see even a single military vehicle on the road? Just as America's superhighways, "primarily" built for military purposes, are of greatest benefit to the ordinary U.S. citizen, so it can be argued that the technology, infrastructure, and governing institutions of India, though built "primarily to serve Britain's interests" may in fact have conferred the greatest benefits upon Britain's Indian subjects, rather than the British colonialists themselves.
AK | 7 years ago | Reply @Dr. Peroozi: Sir, By this logic, it is OK for the pot to call the kettle black? The classic book "Heart of Darkness" exposed colonialism as a crime against humanity. Please do not glorify it selectively.
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ