Imperialism

Himadri Lahiri

Original: Rabindranath Tagore

[Translator’s note: Rabindranath Tagore’s essay “Imperialism,” a critique of British colonial desire and imperialist aggression, was first published in Bharati (Vaisakh, 1312/1905) and subsequently republished in Raja Proja (1908). Between 1893 and 1908, Tagore authored a good number of political essays which were more or less in sync with the nationalist discourses of the time. “Kanthorodh” (“On Being Throttled,” 1305/1898), for example, records a strong protest against the Sedition Bill of 1898. His disenchantment with nationalism, especially its militant manifestation, started to become evident around 1908. His essays in Nationalism (1917) indicate this sense of disenchantment with both nationalism and Western imperialism. A clear idea of his evolving political vision emerges from our reading of his essays written over several decades. One main plank of his arguments rests on his concern for human beings and he is distressed to see the principles of humanitarianism being violated. His humanitarian concern is very much evident in the essay “Imperialism” the English translation of which is given below]

Britain is drugged by imperialism. Scores of people there have been engaged in the contemplation of establishing the pre-eminence of the English empire by incorporating all its dominions and colonies. Viswamitra took the initiative of creating a new world, the Bible speaks of a certain king who, in defiance of Heaven, tried to build a column, and there is a rumour that the ten-headed Dashanan himself too harboured a similar plan.

It is evident that in different times, many people across the globe hatched such magnificent plans. These motives, however, do not sustain; but prior to their dissolution, they succeed in causing malevolent consequences in the world.

In an inauspicious lecture delivered recently, Lord Curzon has given hints of how the wave of this craving visible in his country has also caused a storm in his mind. I have observed that some newspapers in our country often promote this issue. They say, well, let India be granted the right to be absorbed into the British Empire.

However, rights cannot be acquired solely through the use of words. It is difficult for a weak person to retrieve his own rights, even if everything is sanctified in a legally binding contract. For this reason, we do not find comfort when we discover that our masters are afflicted with imperialist ideology.

Readers may ask, why should you be so disturbed? If an individual in a position of authority intends to cause harm to you, he can do so easily, regardless of whether he recites the rhetoric of imperialism or not.

No, it cannot be done easily! Despite everything, it is difficult to completely abandon the religion of compassion. One has the sense of shame too. Nevertheless, individuals who are motivated by a potent ideology may find it more feasible to engage in acts of cruelty and injustice.

Some individuals experience distress when inflicting pain on animals. But if this act of inflicting pain is called ‘hunting,’ they will take pride in expanding, with pleasure, the list of innocent birds, killed and wounded. Surely, the person who breaks a bird’s wings without rhyme or reason is crueller than a hunter, but the bird cannot derive solace from it. For the community of vulnerable birds, the team of hunters poses a greater threat than habitually cruel individuals.

There is no doubt that individuals fixated on imperialism can be unflinchingly ruthless to the autonomy and rights of the weak. Evidence of this phenomenon can be traced to all corners of the world. Everyone knows how much pressure Russia is exerting to swallow Finland-Poland imperceptibly into its own huge bulk. Russia could not have gone thus far if it was not convinced that imperialism, an all-embracing entity, necessitates a forcible abolition of the inherent inequalities among the countries under its control. Russia considers this interest to be that of Poland-Finland too.

In a similar vein, Lord Curzon too is also asserting: forget your national interest and make the interest of the empire your own.

If this word is put into the ears of a strong nation, there is no reason for it to be afraid; because it will not be swayed by mere rhetoric. In reality, its interests are to be fully satisfied. This means, if it is to be drawn into one’s own group, one’s own interest has also to be sacrificed to a great extent. Otherwise, it cannot be won over. Hence you have to generously pour honey there, it won’t do if you don’t spend much oil as well.

The colonies of England are good examples of this phenomenon. The English have been chanting mantras to their ears: “yadidaṃ hṛdayaṃ mama tadastu hṛdayaṃ tava.” (“यदिदं हृदयं मम तदस्‍तु हृदयं तव” which, when translated, means: “This heart of mine shall be thine”). But they cannot be convinced only through the mantra – they are preoccupied with counting the dowry money.

Unfortunate as we are, we need no mantras, let alone the dowry money.

In our context, we need to acknowledge that this perception of difference is necessary for the sake of nationalism; conversely, this idea is not advantageous for imperialism. Hence, it is incumbent on it to uproot all the causes that produce the sense of difference.

But in order to achieve this goal it is absolutely desirable [for the imperialists] not to allow the solidification of the growing sense of cohesion that is developing among the different segments of the country. If the country remains fragmented into tiny pieces, it becomes easier to annex it. Being able to unify a vast country such as India is really a matter of pride. Deliberately keeping it in fragments is a matter of shame for an arrogant nation such as the English.

The mantra of imperialism, however, removes this feeling of shame. When it is the ultimate desire of India to get merged into the British Empire, then crushing her into atoms certainly amounts to ‘humanity.’

According to the civilisational norms of the English, it would be considered disgraceful to hinder any region of India from developing its strength of independence. But if you chant the mantra of imperialism, actions that would otherwise be deemed shameful for humanity may be perceived as acts of utmost pride in state policies.

It is superfluous to explain how unethical and cruel it is to disarm the countless individuals of a vast nation, stripping them of their rights, and rendering them defenceless in order to consolidate a secure and absolute authority over them. One must employ a grand motto to safeguard one’s own honour from the disgrace of injustice.

Cecil Rhodes was an imperialism-obsessed person. Everybody knows how eager members of his team were to wipe out the independence of the Boers in South Africa for this reason.From the respectable characters of English history, you will find numerous examples of how an act, normally deemed as a lie, thievery, forgery, murder and robbery in the personal vocabulary, is transformed into a commendable deed by purifying it through the mere addition of the suffix ‘-ism.’

For this reason, we cannot remain composed when we get the slightest hint of imperialism from the mouths of our leaders. If our soul is crushed beneath the wheels of such a huge chariot and we attempt to justify it by offering the excuse of religion, nobody will pay heed to it. It is because human beings do not listen to the pleas of religion where major concerns are involved lest they impede their objectives.

The Greek historian Thucydides gave us a specimen of the kind of exchange of arguments that transpired between the Athenians and the Melians in ancient Greece when the dominant Athenians were preparing to invade the island of the vulnerable Melians with unjust cruelty. I have provided an excerpt from that exchange. From this, readers will realise how ancient the concept of imperialism was in Europe and how cruel the politics latent in European civilisation was.

Athenians. But you and we should say what we really think, and aim only at what is possible, for
we both alike know that into the discussion of human affairs the question of justice only enters
where the pressure of necessity is equal, and that the powerful exact what they can and the weak
grant what they must….And we will now endeavour to show that we have come in the interests of our
empire and that in what we are about to say we are only seeking the preservation of your city.
For we want to make you ours with the least trouble to ourselves and it is for the interest of us
both that you should not be destroyed.

Melians. It may be your interest to be our masters, but how can it be ours to be your slaves?

Athenians. To you the gain will be that by submission you will avert the worst; and we shall be
all the richer for your preservation.