Colonial Experts, Developmental and Environmental Doctrines, and the Legacies of Late British Colonialism (original) (raw)
Related papers
Book Review. The great agrarian conquest: the colonial reshaping of a rural world
South Asian History and Culture, 2021
Scholarship on the rural world in the Indian subcontinent has focused mainly on five aspects: agrarian economy, peasant labour, caste and gender features, rural ecology and rural development programmes. This book, however, populates the narrative with the interrelations of the peasant, the pastoralist as well as the nomad. Its new political-economic emphasis shows the limits and antinomies of modernist development. Paternalist power and custom Bhattacharya argues that colonial governance from 1830s to 40s onwards in the Punjab (Northwest India) functioned as a paternalist power through empathetic moderation and protection. It occasionally mitigated the burden of land revenue and protected peasants from the loss of lands to non-agriculturalists. This argument is partly in league with a similar viewpoint formulated by David Ludden, 1 albeit rejecting any reference to the prevalence of imperial hegemony and the emergence of imperial agrarian citizenship. Contra Ludden, 2 the book offers a 'why' for imperial paternalism. This also goes against an enunciation of colonial state-power as a 'state of domination' 3 or 'dominance without hegemony'. 4 Bhattacharya suggests that imperial paternalism was wedded to both romantic and utilitarian ideologies in the colonial setup and operated as a political economic imperative. It was equally an instrument to effect the legitimization of agrarian expansion at the expense of nomadic and pastoralist land-use. It aimed to placate the peasants deserting lands under the burden of revenue demand and mitigate the plight of peoples faced with the famines. The large numbers of Punjabi peasants in the imperial army meant that agrarian disturbance could fuse with mutinous activity. This palpable fear in the aftermath of the 1857 revolt was another factor undergirding imperial paternalism, as Bhattacharya notes. Effectively, Bhattacharya's attention to the discursive and ideological self-presentation of the colonial government as paternalist diverges from the politicoeconomic causes identified by Washbrook 5 and Ali 6 to explain the socioeconomic conservatism of the colonial state. However, the study stops short of elaborating on an issue: Whether it was imperial paternalism or was the rising prices of agricultural produce during the 1860s-1920 that was responsible for a fall in the real value of land tax, that is, the amount of agricultural produce paid by peasants as land tax? Delineating the limits of imperial paternalism, Bhattacharya notes that any questioning of its authority could not be tolerated (pp. 440-41); the peasants' confrontation with the colonial state over the rates of canal-water and land tax since 1906-7 was an instance. Further, empathetic moderation and protection for the male landowners brought about dispossession and subordination to the pastoralist and the nomad, who traditionally occupied the arid scrublands. Also excluded were women, lower castes, other non-agrarian castes as well as the Butimar (those who cleared and improved the lands on an invitation of the village headman). Colonial governance exemplified despotism in these cases. In view of these, what remains unsettled in this book is the relationship between the dual images of the state-'state of domination' versus paternalism. Colonial paternalism stood for conservation, recording, translating and legalizing of living custom as embodied in practices. Local native power also influenced the very invocation and codification of custom. Bhattacharya argues that colonial rule came up with a hybridized but uniform custom, as opposed to precolonial heterogeneity. At the cost of other social groups, new
Colonial Interventions and Tribal Society: Land Settlements and the Expansion of Cultivation
International Journal of Creative Research and Thoughts , 2021
Although marked by diversities, the impact generated by colonialism on the world of the tribals was increasingly felt by the second half of the nineteenth century in a significant manner. The colonial regime started the process of recording land rights in tribal areas, often giving an individual farmer the right of cultivation. In most cases the effort was to make a direct relationship between the farmer and the state. This impacted tribal societies in three ways. First, in many tribal societies, especially those practicing jhum, there was no individual ownership of land. Land was owned by clans as in the case of khuntkatti system of Chotanagpur or village councils in the Garo and Khasi hills of North East. Since jhum was banned under forest laws, the right to land for jhum cultivators was not recognised. Secondly, though the rights of the tribal peasants were recognised, the increasing burden of taxes lad their increasing indebtedness. Finally, the British policy also tried to expand plough cultivation in areas where jhum was being done earlier.
Samuël Coghe - Syllabus for Seminar Colonialism and Agriculture in Africa
2019
This seminar explores the impact of colonialism on agriculture and food production in Africa. Starting with the introduction of new staple foods such as manioc and maize from the Americas in the 16th century, it focuses on the colonial era between the 1870s and 1970s. We will analyse how, oscillating between the imperatives of cash crop production and food security, colonial rule tried to change the modes of agricultural production (labour forms, land ownership, gender roles, etc.), thus engendering new divisions and conflicts. We will pay particular attention to the role of (agricultural, veterinary, nutritional, soil, etc.) science in these transformation efforts and their effects on the environment. We will foreground African agency and the uneven results of these transformation processes. While, in some areas, colonial rule led to the production and export of global agricultural commodities, in others, local practices and consumption patterns persisted virtually unaltered throughout most of the colonial era.
Lineages of Despotism and Development: British Colonialism and State Power
This book explores the developmental legacies of British colonialism. Through a nested-research design that combines comparative-historical methods and statistics, it offers evidence that different forms of colonialism institutionalized states with different capacities to promote development. Relative to indirect rule, direct rule promoted states that were bureaucratic, infrastructurally powerful, and inclusive and all three proved vital to broad-based development. The book includes in-depth case studies of Botswana, Guyana, Mauritius, and Sierra Leone.
Colonialism attacks local livelihoods. Critically discuss the different ways in which this process can operate. Colonialism is defined as: " The policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically " : (Oxford dictionary). Typically across history, richer European countries in the Northern hemisphere have colonised poorer countries in the southern hemisphere in South America. For example, every country in Africa has been colonised at some point in history (which explains the artificial borders and names of countries). During, the course of this essay, I shall use various sources that I have used from my research in order to establish how colonialism has attacked livelihoods in the past and how this has caused disruption to livelihoods in ex-colonised countries in the present. Aswell as these social constraints after Britain colonised India were placed on the local livelihoods of Indian people which prevent much social mobility in the region inequality caused by Britain allowed the Caste (class) system of India to be cemented into society… " Indian society underwent many changes after the British came to India. In the 19th century, certain social practices like female infanticide, child marriage, sati, polygamy and a rigid caste system became more prevalent…. Women were discriminated against …and were the disadvantaged section of the society… Education was limited to … upper caste (men) " (IMPACT OF BRITISH RULE ON INDIA: ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL (1757-1857) This is a sign of a very backward unmodern society and is ironic compared to modern British values (and interestingly it seems to me that 'empire guilt' is the foundation of the general tolerant attitudes in modern British society). An atmosphere of neo-colonialism has seen major UK companies outsource jobs to India, in order to save money and maximize profits, essentially by exploiting poor Indians. One may claim that this would improve Indian prospects. However " the average salary for a worker in a call centre is around £12,500 per year, whereas in India this is just £1,200 " so this is a case of clear exploitation. (Nexbridge, X). Although the British are now very much irrelevant in the wider picture of international relations, their influence may have entrenched these inequalities into modern Indian society. Crucially, the caste system is still very much prevalent (much like the class system of England) India. Indeed: " More than 60 years after gaining Independence, India is still very much afflicted by the cancer of the caste system " (Navsargan, 2009). It consists in order of the Brahman, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Shudras and the Dalit (untouchables). This effectively means that large sections of society are looked down upon; particularly the untouchables are unable to be promoted up the social ladder as it is virtually impossible to break into the caste above oneself once you are born into it given the difference in opportunities such as secondary and university education aswell as healthcare.. This ensures that poverty eradication is harder in India and the British effect of disadvantaging poorer and more unfortunate people only cemented the caste system further. This has led to a huge amount of livelihoods being attacked, given that India has well over a billion people in population and " Dalits make up 16.2% of the total Indian population, but their control over resources of the country is marginal— less than 5% " (Navsargan, 2009). Especially as shamefully, " Less than 10% of Dalit households can afford safe drinking water " (Navsargan, 2009) and it is virtually impossible to break into the above caste.