Home » Politics & Society » International Trade » Blame It on the Empire?

Blame It on the Empire?

© Carey Goodman

It has long been the favorite target of left-wing ideologues; it came in many varieties and depended on which country was the master of the moment, but is the system of imperialism really to blame for all the ills of the less developed states of the world?

During much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries most of the world was ruled by the imperial authority of Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain, The Netherlands, or Britain. These imperial holdings were ruled in very different ways: Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain, and the Netherlands took a very direct view of the governance of their colonies; Britain preferred a rather indirect role in maintaining its empire. Their empire was based on the premise that free trade and capitalism promote the innate abilities of some people to rise above others socially and the vague ideal that "all men are created equal" holds true only in respect of preserving the sanctity of life, liberty, and property.

Perhaps nowhere is the legacy of the end of the Age of Empire as visible as in the province of Kashmir. Although some of the problems in Kashmir are a consequence of the mad dash to grant India independence, most of the problems are simply blamed on the imperial system which has been gone from the region for more than a half century.

The year is 1857. It is the height of the Great Game, and the Scramble for Africa soon will intensify. Although Britain has administrative control of most of the Indian Subcontinent, rebellions are frequent, and on the battlefield, rumors are rampant. One rumor widely circulated to Islamic soldiers in the Imperial Army is that the bullets they use are greased in pig's fat. Eating pork or anything soaked in a pork by-product is firmly against the Islamic religion, so the Islamic soldiers decide they will disobey their orders to attack instead of biting the supposedly pig's fat-greased bullets. The exact source of this rumor has never been identified, but the British army - which until then was accustomed to victories from its Islamic soldiers - soon has a serious mutiny to settle. The General Staff issue a directive that no bullets have been or will be greased in pig's fat. The controversy vanishes. Or does it?

Now fast-forward to 1947. It is seventy-one years since Benjamin Disraeli crowned Queen Victoria as Empress of India and twelve years since the London "round table" conferences commenced to determine the process by which India would gain independence. Ironically, most of the Indian "round table" conference participants were members of high-ranking castes and held degrees from prestigeous British universities. After all the laborious talk is finished and India attains its goal of independence, the proverbial jewel in the crown of the British Empire some way or other very quickly slides back down the mine shaft from which it had been so carefully extracted. Civil war begins almost immediately after the independence ceremonies end. Most of the fighting occurs between Hindu and Islamic groups in the province of Kashmir. The region formerly administrated as West India declares independence from the new state of India and renames itself Pakistan. In delineating its borders, Pakistan claims the province of Kashmir - alledgedly to protect the Islamic population there. India accepts the Pakistani declaration, but it refutes the claim to Kashmir - alledgedly to protect the Hindu population there.