Imperialism and the Writing of History

anti writes "So along with power distribution, I would submit that accountability of power is also important "

When power is more equitably distributed and represents the people, accountability is quite automatic. Imposed accountabiity is always lacking and leads to corruption and skewed power

Re: # 9

Masadi:

Thank you for your comment. I don't claim to have the final answer or perfect solution, but in my view, the necessity for the UN is that there has to be a larger authority to which all states are accountable. The same standards should apply to all.

Sure, the emergence of other powerful states may curtail the power of one state. But what guarantee is there that from an international or rights perspective, this arrangement will result in a more just world?
All states act in their self-interest, whether the US, India, China, Egypt, Russia, Pakistan. China and Russia are powerful states, and even if they do not have the same power as the US, they have hegemonic aspirations.

So along with power distribution, I would submit that accountability of power is also important.

Regards
Rohit Chopra

Re: # 8

Zeemax:

Thank you for your kind words. I run a blog by the name of antihistory (http://antihistory.blogspot.com), hence the moniker. Yes, history is instructive here, though of course circumstances and conditions are different too. A comparative historical analysis would be an interesting exercise.

Regards
Rohit Chopra

antihistory writes "The only viable solution seems to be to enhance the legitimacy of the UN, but the UN itself is comprised of nation-states, hence the difficulty. The topic deserves an article by itself."

First, "other states" do not do what the US does, show me One state that has over 700 military bases around the globe and has embarked on foreign war after foreign war (even though nobody attacked it) post WW2. The UN is no solution when the military might of one country alone is more weighty than the rest of the world. Don't try to compare the power state with the rest of the nation states or your disingenuity comes out crystal clear. The solution is not the UN but power distribution that now rests with a tiny elite and not even with the people of the power state. Don't rationalize US barbarism by saying everyone does it, books have been written trying to legitimize it, your new article will do no serivce to it....

Good article and interesting nick as well :) Why antihistory?

HisExcellency has a point re the Mir Jaffars and Mir Sadiqs, but was that the case with the ORIGINAL idea which started much earlier with the Dutch East India Company?

According to good old wiki:

"The Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie or VOC in old-spelling Dutch, literally "United East Indian Company") was established in 1602, when the States-General of the Netherlands granted it a 21-year monopoly to carry out colonial activities in Asia. It was the first multinational corporation in the world and the first company to issue stock."

The forms may change, but the substance remains the same till this very day.

Re: # 5

His Excellency

Thank you for your very insightful comments. Bollywood and some nationalist historians are certainly guilty of the revisionist simplifications that you mention.

Was the East India Company merely an entity looking to trade? That is a contentious issue in Indian historiography. At least one historian, Sudipta Sen, in a fine work Empire of Free Trade, has suggested that the EIC was, from its very inception, a fiscal-military state (or state-in-the-making).

As some thinkers have observed, colonialism may have been a consequence of our weakness, not a cause of it. But does that weakness justify the violence of colonialism. I am not so sure.

Regards
Rohit Chopra

Ejaz:

Thanks for your mail. I agree with your analysis. A friend of mine, a journalist, made the observation that since the US is an economy-obssessed society, popular support for the war will depend on the returns. I did not know about the same dynamic with regard to Bosnia; thanks for the suggestion, and I will revisit the issue in light of the point.

Regards
Rohit Chopra

Rohit,

It is Indian historians and Bollywood that is guilty of historical revisionism. They portray tEast India Company as a bunch of thieves and murderers. And paint all Indians as patriots who were victims of intrigue & betrayal.

In reality, East India Company (EIC) only concerned itself with commerce and profit-making (which is what every business entity is supposed to do). It receiving trading permits from the Mughals. Since the rulers couldn't provide security for EIC employees, facilities and trade routes, the EIC was allowed to maintain a private security force.

Most Indian rajas, sultans and nawabs were tyrants who either usurped power through bloodshed or kept it by suppressing their populations. As they grew older or weaker, they faced challengers from within their courts as well as rival nawabs. At various junctures in this power struggle, rivals sought the help of East India Company.

The EIC was dragged into power struggles and internal politics by power hungry nawabs and aspiring viziers.

Why did India produce so many Mir Jaffars and Mir Sadiqs?
What circumstances induced these powerful men to betray their nawabs? Labeling them as evil is convenient but does not address the underlying flaws in the pre-colonial system.

Rohit:

Interesting analysis. I think it was Mark Twain who said that a gambler's wife does not protest her husband's gambling addiction, rather she detests the fact that he loses more than he wins.

The same holds true of our (American) attitude towards war. We don't mind the fact that we wage war in distant parts of the world and do terrible things, what appalls us is when we lose men, material and money.

Since our current president is somewhat of a lightning rod, let me make a point about President Clinton. Clinton's job approval ratings held up gairly well through the whole Monica Lewinsky affair, the Starr investigations, even the impeachment by the congress. What really started to hurt his approval ratings was when the war in Bosnia became an extended aerial and ground campaign and it started looking like we were going to be nation-building there for quite a while.

Ejaz

To the memory of the British Empire in India,
Which conferred subjecthood upon us,
But withheld citizenship.
To which yet every one of us threw out the challenge:
"Civis Britannicus sum"
Because all that was good and living within us
Was made, shaped and quickened
By the same British rule.

VRV

Thanks for your kind words. This is a very good point you raise about the implications of domestic US legislation for the world. On a regional basis, if not a global one, other states also behave in similar fashion. The only viable solution seems to be to enhance the legitimacy of the UN, but the UN itself is comprised of nation-states, hence the difficulty. The topic deserves an article by itself.

I look forward to hearing more of your views

Regards
Rohit Chopra

A very good article.

Sad but true! The US is the ONLY country in the world that legislates abt territories that are outside of US. It became the extended UN, defacto & dejure.


When an American votes for his Congressman or Prez, they are empowering these leaders to legislate on behalf of the ppl - the unforutnate ppl of Iraq or anybody elsewhere. They do what they like and what's beneficial to them.