THE world has never remained free from imperialism. It has emerged from time to time in different forms and shapes. Sometimes, its slogan was ‘mission for civilization’ and sometimes its justification was to establish an enlightened rule and liberate people from tyranny and oppression.
With this moral force, it defended itself against the criticism and charges made against it. Such was the impact of the noble mission of imperialism that even up to the beginning of the 21st century, the liberals and socialists of Europe regarded it an essential tool to civilize and modernize Asian and African countries. The situation turned after the First and Second World War when, in most of the colonized countries, freedom movements began, based on indigenous nationalism. The leaders of these movements exposed the abuses of imperialism, such as political domination, robbing of natural resources, distortion of cultural values and economical and social backwardness.
The resistance put imperial powers in defence. Imperial historians and politicians came forward with the argument that in actuality, occupation and extension of territories was not the motive of their rule. On the contrary, the real mission was to improve the material condition of the colonized countries. In some cases, their argument was that the colonized countries invited them to come and liberate them either from their enemies or tyrant ruler. However, when nationalist movements became strong, the imperial intellectuals attacked them and denigrated them. Their main target was ‘Asian and African nationalism’ which was used by these movements as an affective instrument to fight imperialism.
The argument was that as nationalism was the product of the progressive and advanced European society, the colonized countries, as backward and tribalized, could not produce pure and progressive nationalism. Therefore, they called it a frustrated, polluted, distorted and tribal form that had no match with European nationalism. The main purpose of this criticism was that as nationalism was a product of enlightened societies, it could not be successful in backward countries.
Frank Fueredi in his book The New Ideology of Imperialism: Renewing the Moral Imperative traces different phases of European imperialism and that how European intellectuals ridiculed the anti-colonial movements. For example, W.J. Crocker, in his book, Self-Government for the Colonies, campers Indian nationalism with Nazism. “In Mahatma Gandhi’s Land of Ahimsa and Satyagraha, I found myself back in pre-war Nazi Germany. There were the same massed processions, the same screaming press from which objectivity and decency alike been abolished, the same murder-inciting speeches, the mobs, the flags, the quasi-military parades, the special salutes, the uniforms, the oaths and the Heils (Jai Hind).”
Some argued that anti-colonial sentiments were a product of their psychological condition. The conflict between modernity and traditions distorted the personality of a native and after depriving him of his spiritual values, reduced him as a ‘marginal man’. This disintegration of his personality turned him anti-colonial. Through political involvement, he wanted to retrieve his lost personality. Arguing it, their main motive was to prove that anti-colonial movements were not against occupation and exploitation, but an expression of the sickness of mind.
After independence, when the Asian and African countries took advantage of the rivalry of the West and Russia, the old colonial masters did not like this. Harold Macmillan, the British Prime Minister, once remarked: “It puts tremendous blackmailing weapon into the hands of quite unimportant countries in the Afro-Asian camp who, if it were not the tremendous rivalry between Russia and the Free World, would not be able to sell their favours so dear.”
After the fall of Russia, the Third-World countries again became vulnerable and open for western and American intervention. To control their resources and rule over them, it is once again argued that the newly independent countries have failed to solve their problems by themselves. They are either ruled by military dictators or corrupt politicians who have no capacity to improve the conditions of the common people. Keeping in view their performance, G.R. Elton, a British historian, remarked that the dissolution of the British Empire was a colossal error. Another British historian, John Charmley, writes: “Look at Uganda under the British and look at it now.”
Armed with these arguments, the new imperial powers have moral justification to reoccupy and rule over Third-World countries. On the other hand, the Third-World countries are defenceless as there is no rival power to support and protect them. This has made new imperialism energetic and forceful. Now, it has new slogans for its expansion, such as terrorist states, weapon states, rogue states and fundamentalists and criminals in those states which are not liked by the West. There is a moral justification for intervention, occupation and to rule over them till they are civilized and democratized. One of the columnists of the Daily Telegraph suggested: “An ugly, evil spirit is abroad in the Third World and it cannot be condoned; only crushed as Carthage was crushed by the Romans.”
However, the role of imperialism in the past as well as in the present raises a number of questions. Are the nations of the Third World immature and need to be ruled by some western power for progress and modernization? Why have the newly independent countries failed to solve their social, political and economic problems, and always look to the advanced and developed countries for help and assistance? If the nations of the Third-World countries are not capable, isn’t the solution to surrender their sovereignty and recognize patronage of western imperialism?
These are the questions that are required to be investigated by Third-World intellectuals!
