CHAPTERS FROM HISTORY: Re-assessing British rule in South Asia
By Mubarak Ali
IN historiography, past is assessed and re-assessed from time to time. This is done with the help of newly discovered manuscripts, state or private papers, letters and contemporary memoirs or on the basis of new methods and ideas that provide space for new interpretation. That is how history gets new blood and remains interesting.
The same has been applied to the British rule in India, that was analyzed before the Independence, by historians and politicians who experienced it, directly and expressed their views about it.
In the first instance, their focus was on the economic exploitation of India, as pointed out by Dadabhai Noroji (1901). This point was further explained by R.C. Dutt, that as a result of plunder, India was deprived of its resources and became an economically backward country.
In the second phase, research was focused on the demand of political rights and share in the administration, from the colonial government by the emerging middle class, that was well equipped by the modern education. The new political situation paved the way for organization of political parties. Thus, economic and political consciousness played an important role to make the Indians active to struggle against the foreign rule. However, the political consciousness, that on one side, attempted to unite all communities under the banner of nationalism, also on the other hand, it divided the Hindus and Muslims on the question of nationalism.
The Indian nationalists traced their roots to the ancient past which antogonized the Muslims, who found no place and attraction in the Vedic period or in the slogan of ‘Ram Raj’. Muslims, therefore rejected it and turned towards the classical Islamic past, in search of their roots and asserted their own concept of nationalism, based not on geographical territories or sharing the historical past, but on religion and history of Islam. As a result of conflict between two concepts of nationalism, the Indian Muslims concentrated their energies to fight against the domination of the Hindus, rather than to struggle against the British.
Louis D. Hayes in The Struggle for Legitimacy in Pakistan (1986) writes: “The demand for Pakistan was not based upon grievances of the past, but upon those of future. It ultimately led them for Two Nation Theory and a separate homeland.”
After partition and having a separate and independent country, when we analyze our ‘freedom struggle’, we find disillusionment and disappointment among people, because their expectations were not fulfilled. This is evident in the titles of those books which are written on partitions by historians, politicians, activists, and bureaucrats, such as Shattered Dreams, Betrayal, Disillusionment, or Failed State.
At this juncture, when half a century has passed after Independence and the country and its leaders have achieved nothing to satisfy people, those who experienced the British rule become nostalgic and remember those old days when there was law and order, justice and efficiency of the bureaucracy. There was peace and prosperity for common people who had a sense of security. Memories of the old days and the blessings of the British rule completely ignore their economic exploitation and political domination. People do not find any change in their lives, in spite of transformation of their status from ‘subject’ to ‘citizen’. They cannot exercise their fundamental rights in spite of constitutional guarantees.
The change in historical perception occurs because our successive governments and leaders have failed to deliver. They are responsible to make society backward and poor. As our backwardness accelerates, we remember the time of the British government, when common people faced no such problems as they are facing today. As our bureaucrats and officials become corrupt and inefficient, we remember more and more the English sahibs who worked honestly and efficiently for the welfare of common people. Therefore, as our present becomes bleak and dark, we look to the colonial period for solace and comfort and remember the golden days of foreign rule, which was benevolent and enlightened. This is how we look to the past with the eyes of present.
Keeping in view this perspective of history, there arises a question that if the majority of our society is unanimous, that the British rule was just and honest, then why did they struggled against it? The end results proved that our independence is a ‘myth’ and our victory is nothing but an illusion. In this case, we have to re-judge all those heroes and freedom fighters who fought against a ‘just’ government, for the establishment of worst and corrupt system. These analyses must change the status of our national heroes and transform them as enemies of people who led them to disaster. With this perspective, all our sacrifices for liberty and independence become worthless. The question is, that, if we accept this version of history, then, there is no need to celebrate the ‘Day of Independence’ and award our ‘freedom fighters’ for their sacrifices. It also becomes unnecessary to call this period as ‘Movement for Freedom’.
