India is still a colonised country. The British rulers of India did physically leave the country in 1947, after 200 years of direct rule, but while leaving they made a 'transfer of power' to that class of Indians who they felt were most like them; who in fact were `Indian' only ethnically, having otherwise acquired deep and abiding aspiration for all things Western. By giving over power to this class the British were in fact ensuring that the structures they had created and put into place in this country at every level during their rule, would continue try function as before (arid thus serve British/Western interests) without requiring the physical presence of the British on Indian soil (which in any case was by then becoming a difficult and expensive proposition). In other words, Britain was ensuring that for all practical purposes, India would remain a colonised country.
Colonisation, in the most fundamental sense, implies the exploitation of a vast resource base (human, natural etc.) for the gratification of the desires of a relatively small number of people. "This grossly unequal use of resources can of courses usually be ?brought about only by the `deployment of a great deal of oppressive power, physical, social, cultural, psychic. The colonisers themselves need not necessarily be of different ethnic stock (though it does perhaps make things 'a bit easier to exploit others, if they look a little `different'). Thus colonisation may be internal as well as external. Long before Europe set out to colonise the rest of the world, it's own societies were run by a system of internal colonialism. In ancient Greece, for instance,' only a small section of the population were citizens, while the others were slaves or persons of a?lesser degree, and comprised a human resource base that was exploited to ensure the well?being of the citizens. Such Hellenic precedents found expression in the organisation of European societies till fairly recent times. In Britain for instance, only a small section of this population writ till recently classified as `gentry' while the others were deemed to belong to the `lower orders'; and this not just socially but legally.
As a., principle of social
?organisation colonialism seems to have been established in India during tire
rule of the British. Which is to say, that though there may have been before
that tune, rulers who were oppressive and exploitative, or in some areas even
whole groups of people who were oppressive and exploitative, these were isolated
instances (and certainly did riot find social sanction) and colonialism as an
organising principle on a wider scale was alien to Indian society.
Colonization of a people is usually a somewhat subtler process than plain outright
murder. Murder is of course resorted
to, on a large scale when people are seen, as obstacles in the exploitation
of other resources, as was the case in America; on a relatively smaller scale
murder, and somewhat lesser physical humiliations, might be resorted , to to
'discipline' ,a people, or to cull the colonised society of its more vociferous
resisters, as was probably done in India. But milking a society dry slowly might
in some cases be far more profitable than annihilating it outright., In such
instances, murder or other forms of physical oppression alone are insufficient.
They can be used to, bring a people in subjugation,, but to keep the people
in subjugation a more, potent weapon is required. What is required is that they
be mentally, psychically defeated and brought into submission. Their minds need.
to be colonised.
In addition to the physical, material realm which humans inhabit, they also inhabit a symbolic, psychic realm. Their rituals, symbolism, mythology, folklore, customs,, norms, are all manifestations and. expressions of this other, realm. Anti though the symbolic realm might be less 'substantial' than the material realm,. it his, not , the t less 'real' for being so. Indeed it is in a sense, even more real because in the long run it works more powerfully than, the material realm to motivate action. One particular archetypal manifestation of this psychic realm is title `self image' that individuals and cultures come to possess. In a healthy, vibrant social unit, this self image is a positive one. In fact, it is often positive to they extent of being a highly hyperbolical cane; it ascribes to the social unit, or to individuals who comprise it, special, often heroic qualities. The possession of this positive self image over an extended period of, tine has a remarkable effect on: the social unit, because it leads it to aspire towards, to strive for, and often to gain, special qualities. It enables the social, unit to become a focus of excellence, in one thing or another. At the very least, a positive self image ensures, so, as not to be itself rendered untrue, the presence of a fair degree of prosperity arid the absence of anything like great penury.
So the most effective way of colonising a people's mind is to attack their positive self image and replace it with a negative one. Of course the actual ways in which this is done are subtle, and many. They involve giving, to the people a history which tells them that they have always been a poor, weak and. colonised people. (or where the past prosperity. and well?being: of the people may be such that it cannot be blatantly denied, the history places it in an antiquity too remote to be accessed).. They involve giving to the people 'authorised' cultural texts (usually selected from their own literature!) which tell them how to organise their society. They involve giving to the people a new set of beliefs, and labelling their old ones `superstition'. Anyway, whatever be, the particularities of the process, its .end: result is the replacement of the positive self?image by one so negative that, . as the African writer Ngugi wa Thiong'O points out. in his book Decolonising the .Mind, the people come to bate even their own names. This negative self image is so debilitating that it effectively 'disarms' the people and. renders them harmless to (and indeed in awe of) the colonisers.
That India has been so colonised and; its mind made is slave of the western world is only too painfully evident. It is evident, for instance, in the way our society is organised at present consisting of an `organised sector' of about three or four crore people who do have at least a minimal amount of. basic amenities (anti. also including a much smaller number who are somewhat better off, occasionally even wealthy) ;and are able t?ca exercise? the rights of citizens, while, the rest of the population 1ives in, great penury and hardship, ready ? to be used in any ,manner whatsoever to ensure the well?being of the citizens. Many of us do of course have the intuitive belief that the most chronic of our present ills can be safely laid at the door of, our mental subservience to the West. And it is an index of this servitude that many of the countrymen we have honoured and revered greatly in recent times have been people who themselves have believed us to be somehow lacking, and incapable of uplift, without outside help Swami Vivekanand for instance felt that in India "no appreciation of merit can yet be found, no financial strength and what is most lamentable of all, not a bit of practicality" and that "our well?being is impossible, without men and money coming from the Weft." And given that the vast majority of our population lives ire villages, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's remark with regard to villages is telling:" I do not understand why a village should necessarily embody truth and non?violence. A village, normally speaking, is backward intellectually and culturally and no progress can be made from a backward environment. Narrow?minded A people are much more likely to be untruthful and violent."
But the cognizance of the degree to which we have been mentally enslaved is itself the first step towards liberating our minds, and thence our civilisation, from its present predicament. This cognizance, if it is to have any motive force at all, has to be both deep and wide. For this, we might have to study in detail the history of our civilisation in the past 200 or 250 years, and trace the genesis and development of our present negative self image. But before than we might even have to make a ruthlessly honest survey of the past fifty years, since we gained Independence, to substantiate/discredit any vague notions we may have about how much: we have 'developed' in the different fields of our endeavour. Such a study of the past is necessary if we hope to salvage the future from the present.
It should, be, clear by
now that our historical studies have to have another and more important end
in view, and that is the
replacement of the debilitating and disarming versions of our history that were
fed to us when the process of colonising our minds was begun, with our real
history which will doubtlessly, once again engender in us the spirit of pride
and bravery that we have in recent times been deprived of. History works powerfully
on the psyche, as do myth and folklore, because it is the ostensible truth about
us.
Our study of history should lead us to ask fundamental questions. Why are we caught in a ruts. Why have we in recent times been unable to make larger, meaningful changes at a civilisational level, having had to content ourselves with small ineffectual ones? Is there some very, fundamental civilisational difference, some 'originary abyss' that led to cur subjugation in the: past, but, that can now be used advantageously to turn the tide in our favour? What caused, and how recently, the huge disparities of income in our society, or the widespread functional illiteracy that today prevents us from managing our: affairs, using the indigenous techniques and institutions that served us well for millennia past?
Changes, on a widespread
social scale, do not simply happen. They follow the setting of certain precedents,
also on a?wider, social scale. And the setting of a precedent is followed by
a period of time when the precedent, which ,might originally have psychically
been outside the realm of accepted social practice, comes to be perceived as
acceptable, and still later perhaps even as necessary. So, many things that
we today accept unflinchingly as normal or even natural might in 'the not too
remote past have been socially, morally, cognitively unacceptable in our civilization.
We need to identify instance of such changes in
norms and to attempt to find, taut just when the precedents were set which led
to, these changes. We need to identify and isolate the processes that led to
the change in norms and priorities. Who initiated these changes, and why? To
what extent have these changes been debilitating to our civilisation, and. to
what extent; if at?all, have they been beneficial? I For instance, it might
not have been morally and socially acceptable in our society that large masses
of people go hungry, or that there be extraordinary differences of income, or
that society be hierarchically organised, or that natural resources be `owned'
by anyone. And while change itself might always have been perceived in our society
as inevitable, constant, necessary the acceptability of this change being in
a negative direction might also be a relatively recent thing,
The important thing to remember, of course, is that, if the change from traditionally existing, social norms to present?day, norms was achieved by the setting of certain precedents, followed by a, gestation period during which these precedents gained a place in the, public memory and imagination, then it is possible that a move towards the re?establishment of positive social; norms would involve a similar setting of powerful precedents, on a social scale. In such a case, we would have to determine what these precedents should be, how they should be set on a wide, social scale and what practical programme of activities, their setting would devolve to, Those positive precedents do exist historically, but are no longer part of public is memory or imagination, which is why new precedents have to be set. It As possible of course that instead of setting new precedents, it might be easier and more effective to revive in. public memory and imagination the older historical precedents which have been forgotten in the intervening course of history. In a sense what Gandhiji tried to do was to set civilisational precedents akin?to, the older ones that had faded from public memory. So, when he said that he merely gave voice to what the people of India had long felt but , had been unable to articulate, he was making a statement of fact rather than just: being modest.
Historical study of. our
recent past might also be beneficial in another way; history, because of the
larger panoramic view that it adopts, might also help us to question events,
both past and present, at a more fundamental level ? at the level of social
organisation principles, or of polity. In the absence of this larger and more
fundamental, view, there is a possibility of a (departmentalisation of concerns'
even among those who manifest a certain disquiet about the present state of
things and seek to
bring about changes. Such departmentalisation of concerns is undesirable because
it divides and fritters away energies instead of finding the: right fulcrum
for: change. In fact it might even hell, to perpetuate the existing system,
when well?meaning; persons or collectives, because of their limited `departmentalised'
concerns, come to be used by the very system they seek to charge as 'safety
valves', to permit the letting?off of a little steam when social pressure gets
too much, but otherwise keeping the status quo intact by preventing a larger
conflagration that might lead to systemic changes.
Ultimately, our larger problem might simply be of disbelief in our civilisational abilities to do anything worthwhile. In that case, the only way to rid ourselves of this disbelief might be by a collective "reawakening of memory" of our past civilisational abilities. But faith in one's own abilities is not merely in the abstract; it implies a willingness to be patient with oneself, to, prize self?sufficiency above expediency, and a willingness to relearn by doing things one's own way, rather than, rushing off to seek outside help at every juncture. It might also involve the: taking of 'national vratas', as was ;initiated by Gandhiji, in his time, to break the, hold of the present structure. Finally, it might also involve,? however seemingly unfair or' distasteful such an exercise might be, an analysis (ana?lysis, literally taking: apart, breaking down) of the Western civilisation, whose shadow has so blighted our civilisation, to?a degree that foregrounds: its ugliness anal deeply oppressive?., nature, and finally exorcises it from our souls,, letting us be. free, and. healthy again. : .
13th?June 1997. Tenzin Rigzin
Sevagram