[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

NEWS - Start of millennium marks en



Subject: NEWS - Start of millennium marks end of colonialism in Asia

Start of millennium marks end of colonialism in Asia
By SUMIT GANGULY
© Earth Times News Service 


As the world approaches the end of the millennium, it is
altogether fitting and proper that one of the last vestiges
of European colonialism in Asia also came to a close. On
December 19, the Portuguese formally handed over Macao to
authorities from the People's Republic of China. Few other
colonial remnants will now remain in Asia and the Pacific. As
the departure of the Portuguese proceeds apace it is worth
taking stock of the sources, impact and ultimate demise of the
European colonial enterprise in Asia.

 Most students with an even passing knowledge of European
imperial expansion would know that it was Vasco da Gama's
 discovery of the sea route to India in 1498 that opened up
new vistas for European trade, and eventually, imperialism.
Europeans had been initially drawn to Asia through the lure of
trade and the fascination for the exploration of worlds
unknown.

Trade eventually gave way to the quest for political power
and economic dominance. This process, obviously, did not
take place overnight.

Instead it transpired over four centuries as virtually every
significant European country sought to establish a
bridgehead in Asia. The British, the French, the Dutch and
the Portuguese proved to be the most successful in their
imperial ventures. The British came dominate all of South Asia
along with Burma (Myanmar) and Malaysia. The French
came to control Indochina, the Dutch exercised power over
 the Indonesian archipelago and the Portuguese carved out
enclaves in India and China.

The Europeans justified colonial rule on various grounds.
Most frequently they contended that they were on a civilizing
 mission. In doing this they invoked notions of inherent racial
superiority over their subject indigenous populations. Other
apologists for colonialism argued that the European presence
in Asia was designed to bring better and more enlightened
governance and save the benighted populations from the
 yoke of "Oriental despotism". Of course, these contentions
were merely self-serving rationalizations at best and
loathsome and reprehensible ideas at worst. It would take the
better part of a century, and then some, for anti colonial
nationalists across Asia to refute these arguments and
challenge the basis of colonial rule.

 They met their greatest success after the end of World War
 Two. The two great wars had effectively punctured the turgid
 myth of European moral and cultural superiority. Nations that
 had precipitated the killing fields of Verdun, and the gas
 chambers of Auschwitz ,could hardly claim any particular
 moral superiority over other cultures. On a more material
 plane, the Europeans also lacked the physical stamina to
stem the tides of opposition to their presence on the Asian
land mass. The waves of anti-colonial nationalism were
sweeping across Asia and would brook little resistance.

  Reluctantly, fitfully, but surely the European powers started to
leave their colonial possessions.

 What are their legacies in Asia? A handful are neutral. A few
are positive. However, the vast majority are tragic and
 pernicious. One important legacy of European rule was the
universalization of the concept of Westphjalian sovereignty.
This conception of sovereignty holds that a given state is the
supreme arbiter of all matters within its territorial domain.

   Today, more than ever, Asian states jealously guard this view
of sovereignty just as the vast majority of the states of the
European Union prepare to loosen jurisdictions and dispense
with travel and employment restrictions.

 Did European colonialism have any beneficial impact on its
subject populations in Asia? The benefits, frankly were
incidental. Contrary to nationalist European scholarship, the
European colonizers did little to bequeath better forms of
governance in Asia. More to the point, contrary to colonial
conceit, they did nothing to promote liberal democracy in
Asia. The only working democracy in Asia, with the exception
of Japan, remains India.

  Any competent student of Indian history would be loath to
 attribute the continuing success of Indian democracy to the
 British colonial heritage.

 Instead they would emphasize the singular role of the Indian
nationalist movement in appropriating certain liberal ideas
and then rooting them in the Indian soil.

What about the more corrosive legacies of colonialism?
European colonizers cannot be held solely responsible for the
 various forms of racial and ethnic enmity that wracks so many
  parts of Asia. However, they do bear some responsibility.
 European notions of racial classifications, best expressed in
the use of the census, led to the sharpening of existing
 cleavages in polyethnic societies. Sadly, long after the
departure of the European colonizers, these pseudo-racial
 classifications continue to animate political discourse and
 policy choices from Islamabad to Djakarta with many points in
between. These constructions of ethnic identity, have
 become, to quote William Blake, "mind-forged manacles", on
the populations of various parts of Asia. This tragic legacy will
 not be easily overcome.

                       It would be remiss, however, to suggest that
Asians do not
                       bear any responsibility for their current
financial, political and
                       social problems.

                       Nor should the colonial legacies detract from
their
                       achievements in various areas. As a new era
begins, it may
                       be useful for the various states of Asia and
their leaders to
                       take stock of their achievements and failures in
the
                       post-colonial era. Only then can they meet the
challenges of
                       constructing a peaceful, democratic and
prosperous future for
                       Asia in the century ahead.

                       Sumit Ganguly is a visiting fellow at the Center
for
                       International Security and Cooperation, Stanford
University.