Abstract
This is an unusual book, written by one of the prominent historians of modern India. Instead of treading in the conventional domain of history, Bhattacharya delves into some of the critical conceptual issues which usually escape the historians’ attention. The book is about the colonial state that evolved during the British rule in India. The author’s primary concern is to understand the nature of the state which without being terribly coercive managed to run a huge empire in the Indian subcontinent. For Ranajit Guha, the British colonial state in India represented ‘domination without hegemony’ which does not exactly capture the complexities of circumstances in which it became invincible, the author feels. One therefore needs to concentrate on a whole range of complex interplay of factors in which the colonial state did not appear to be a dominant player. This is an interesting thesis seeking to comprehend the success that the British Indian state had in creating a hegemonic rule without necessarily being brutally oppressive. The argument is persuasive though not unique because the hard-core liberals like Henry S. Maine and those who held the fundamental values of the Enlightenment Philosophy as sacrosanct always argued in pursuance of this position which was tuned to the orientalists’ vision of civilising the globe by the European powers.
How did the colonial state hegemonise its existence in India? The author seeks to find an answer at two levels: At the quotidian level, the idea of what he calls ‘deference entitlements’ (p. 51) appears to have placed the colonial state in good stead. Given the deference which is inherent in Indian culture, it was conveniently ‘appropriated and suitably used and valorized by the British rulers in India’ (p. 51). Quoting the Maharaja of Scindia, the author substantiates the point that despite not being ‘popular’, the British authorities generated obeisance from the Indian subjects also by their confident body language which they, as a buoyant collectivity, gradually acquired. At the macro level, the deference entitlements seem to have been consolidated by a sustained endeavour towards delegitimising the authority of the past rulers. The erstwhile sovereigns were shown to have been inept and useless which automatically created a space for their British counterpart. This was also an ideological battle to create and also consolidate a mindset supportive of the colonial state as perhaps the only saviour under the circumstances. What it led to was a process which, by way of conceptualising the British rule as inevitable, also enabled the colonial authority to emerge as a sovereign ruler in a context when the opposition seemed to have considerably lost its steam. The effort, however, did not go unchallenged. According to Bhattacharya, one of the prominent defiance of colonial sovereignty was the 1857 uprising which was, as the author rightly points out, ‘an act of political choice, a rejection of the British Indian government’s claim to sovereignty, made by common people as well as the traditional political elite, who till then, had conquerors and their successors for their rulers’ (p. 79). There was also a powerful intellectual challenge which Rammohun Roy had articulated while being critical of the British rule for being deviant of those politico-ideological values which were generally associated with the British paramountcy. Nonetheless, the colonial state was hardly restrained and threats to its hegemony dissipated due largely to what the author prefers to call the ‘domination effect’ which manifested in ‘the subordination of the indigenous merchant and moneylending capital [and]…the reinforcement of the dominance of British private capital in the Indian economy by the government’s action’ (p. 109). For colonialism to strike roots, these were obvious instruments. What distinguishes the British colonialism from its European counterparts was its concern to consolidate public opinion in its favour by creating avenues of representation for the ruled in the decision-making. As Bhattacharya has shown, by adopting appropriate legislations, the colonial state helped build a strong group of supporters who always remained integral to governance. The process had begun with the promulgation of the 1892 Council Act which partially accommodated the interests of those classes which mattered most in the perception of the rulers. Various legislations followed and increasingly large number of Indians were given opportunities to represent their interests before the rulers. Besides these endeavours, the colonial state seems to have been receptive to the voice, articulated by pressure groups and lobbies. Here too, the colonial state was favourably disposed towards the British interests groups which was obvious given the fact that ‘domination was’, as the author rightly argues, ‘the ultimate basis of colonial state, not the voluntary acceptance of its legitimacy by its subjects’ (p. 134). Nonetheless, it is fair to argue that the colonial state developed its organic roots in India by employing the twin mechanisms of domination and also the efforts towards legitimising colonialism because of its civilising effects on India.
By being prejudiced to ‘the native interests’, the colonial state created a space for the growth and consolidation of a countervailing hegemony in the form of the anti-British nationalist agitation which was multifaceted in various movements till the withdrawal of colonial rule, as the available literature confirms. In this endeavour, the Gandhi-led non-violent movements were as critical as those led by the radical and communist groups, which helped mobilise peasants and workers along class axis. These were also countervailing efforts to challenge the dominant nationalist discourse that never allowed the divisive class objectives to prevail over united anti-colonial struggle. The nationalist scene thus gradually became far more complicated and requires to be understood accordingly. What is fundamental here is to underline the fact that India’s nationalist movement was neither monochromatic nor unidirectional since it manifested in multiple forms. This aspect needs to be taken into account to conceptualise how the colonial state had responded to quell, counter or accommodate the nationalist aspirations that the anti-colonial forces had represented.
For Bhattacharya, the colonial state was a theatre of contestations between the nationalist forces and their bête noire, the British rule. This is an analytical narrative of how the colonial state consolidated colonial interests in the face of nationalist opposition which will enable us to comprehend the processes which made it happen the way it had. There are, however, certain hiccups one is likely to experience since the author has not always completed the story the way it had unfolded. For instance, while seeking to conceptualise the colonial efforts towards establishing dominance without hegemony and legitimacy of its rule through representation, the author appears to have substantiated his views on the basis of what the British rulers did in this regard primarily in the nineteenth century. As is evident in the available literature, with the assumption of power by the British parliament following the 1858 Queen’s Proclamation, the colonial state had undergone dramatic metamorphosis which was manifested in its response to the nationalist issues. Although this break in the narrative has not affected the main argument, it has nonetheless given a handle to find weaknesses in an otherwise rich text. On the whole, the text is useful and is part of the trends in historiography which prefer to understand the processes of history as an ongoing design in which contrasting ideological perspectives are constantly being articulated. Not only has The Colonial State provided a persuasive discussion of how the colonial state managed itself almost over two centuries it has also helped us to capture the complex historiography of the British rule in India by organising facts around conceptual categories. The effort is certainly praiseworthy though there is a danger that in the maze of theories, the historical narratives may lose their salience which will be disastrous since history is not merely about interpretation but also about facts. It is a difficult path and Bhattacharya has, in his very unique and lucid style of writing, shown how one needs to pursue such an endeavour to grasp history by reference to concepts which are useful to organise disparate materials around persuasive conceptual categories.