There are very few practices that have had the widespread effects we see today on global development than the scourge of colonialism. Since its advent in the 15th Century, the imposition of colonialism has, “altered history forever” (Settles 1996, p. 2). The effects of colonialism have been both far-reaching and insidiously devastating: notably a loss of culture, language, and land; widespread economic and social inequality; and the outright genocide of native peoples. However, it would be incorrect to frame these consequences as past injustices of a long-gone system of oppression. Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson calculated that around one-third of the modern world’s inequality can be attributed to the colonial era (Acemoglu and Robinson 2012): these enduring ramifications have continued to the modern-day, and have significantly shaped the welfare, governance, and development of contemporary post-colonial nations. So too would it be imprudent to assume that the practice of colonialism was a ‘one size fits all’ policy - this paper will therefore examine some of the manifestations of colonialism: Direct Rule and Indirect Rule. As different types of colonial rule led to differing consequences and ramifications, this paper will analyze these consequences by focusing on two different case studies to correspond with each type of colonial rule: the British Raj and the Northern Nigeria Protectorate.
Perhaps the most classically recognized form of colonialism is that of Direct Rule. Pioneered by the theory of Indian-Ugandan scholar Mahmood Mamdani, Direct Rule involves the centralized administration of a colonial power over the colonized state. Mamdani designates Direct Rule as a system of colonial governance in which “urban civil powers,” (predominantly white, Christian Europeans) maintained power and authority over the autochthonous native populations (Mamdani 1996). American academic Michael W. Doyle argues that under Direct Rule, local peoples had little-to-no political or legal representation: indigenous rulers were only found in the lowest levels of administration and governance, if at all (Doyle 1986). This policy was enacted in order to allow European colonizers to maintain leadership over all facets of administration while keeping traditional local leaders in positions of subordination and subservience. By removing the power of the indigenous chiefs and elites, European colonizers were able to alienate the native population from their traditional leaders. Doyle posits that this process then allowed for the imposition and implementation of European laws and customs in place of, “traditional power structures” (Doyle 1986). In Michael Crowder’s 1964 article Indirect Rule – French and British Style, he recounts the philosophies of French administrator Joost van Vollenhoven, governor of French West Africa: “[the chief’s] functions were reduced to that of a mouthpiece for orders emanating from the outside… the chiefs have no power of their own of any kind” (Crowder 1964). In the historical context of Direct Rule, governance was managed by overseas foreign powers who sought to impose their rule over subjugated states for a multitude of benefits, including massive wealth and financial gain, the spread of Christianity, and the consolidation of power (Hoffman 2015). The appeal of this “centralized despotism” allowed for the unmediated consolidation of power and exploitation of land, resources, and peoples (Mamdani 1996), involving the “comprehensive sway of market institutions, the appropriation of land, destruction of communal autonomy, plus defeat and dispersal of tribal populations” (Mamdani 1996). To examine how the enduring effects of Direct Rule Colonialism lead to fundamentally different post-colonial states in comparison to other forms of rule, we may look at the British Raj as a case study to understand the devastating ramifications of colonial Direct Rule. Direct Rule in India was not actively implemented during the entirety of British colonial rule: it effectively began following the Indian rebellion in 1857 in which the rule of India was passed from the British East India Company to the British Crown (Tharoor 2017). From then on, the subcontinent was marred by the extensive consequences of Direct Rule. Infamously, the British practice of the extraction of resources and destruction of local industry served to have brutal consequences that endure to this day. Most notable among these practices was the destruction of the Indian textile industry. To fund the British industrial revolution and safeguard the British textile industry in Lancashire, a practice of the deliberate de-industrialization of Indian cotton and textile manufacturing was implemented (Beckert 2015). During this time, India experienced, “…the world’s most rapid and cataclysmic deindustrialization ever” (Beckert 2015, p. 171). This ‘De-industrialisation Thesis’ can be understood as one of the establishing and most significant factors contributing to the mass economic inequality that India experienced and continues to experience today. The decimation of the Indian textile industry was all the more prominent under the Direct Rule of the British Crown; the unmediated oversight and governance of the British allowed for a tighter means of economic control, further exacerbating the lasting economic inequality (Iyer 2010). The destruction of Indian manufacturing and production capacity ensured that the state’s economy remained agrarian; handicraft manufacturing in India became unable to compete with the industrialized production of textiles in North West England. India’s agrarian-based economy, therefore, became bound to and reliant on the global market of textile production, specifically in Britain (Clingingsmith and Williamson 2005). Barred from industrialization, India’s economy became unable to enter what we generally consider as ‘modernity’ today (Tharoor 2017). This, therefore, mirrors Mamdani’s theory of the colonialist appeal of Direct Rule because it facilitated the ease of the economic exploitation of resources and the manufacturing industry (Mamdani 1996). These practices of the exploitation of resources have proved especially devastating in the economic success of India and other states that were victims of Direct Rule. The extraction of raw, natural resources continues to dominate the economies of post-colonial states, lending to a “dependency complex” (Iyer 2010, p. 693) in which victims of Colonial Direct Rule rely on the extraction of raw materials and natural resources to survive (Patrick 2012). In the case of the British Raj, Direct Rule saw the shift of traditional land use patterns, from subsistence to “cash crops” of British commodities and luxuries, such as cotton, saltpeter, indigo, jute, and opium (Tharoor 2017, p. 26). These exploitative policies can perhaps be understood best by applying Immanuel Wallerstein’s Core-Periphery Theory. This theory suggests that the creation of the Developing World was due to the nexus of ‘Core States’, which featured strong capitalist and diverse economies as well as powerful militaries and their ability to exploit ‘Periphery States’, which featured homogenous economies and weak militaries for the supply of cheap labor and raw materials (Wallerstein 1974). In the case of Britain’s Direct Rule of India, the autochthonous Indian manufacturing and production centers were forced to sell their raw goods at low prices, while simultaneously rendering them reliant on the British Empire for capital. Again, these practices have led to fundamentally different post-colonial states in comparison to states of Indirect Rule or even Settler Colonialism: In the case of India, at the beginning of the British colonization of the subcontinent, the Indian economy totaled almost a quarter of the world’s economy, which was larger than all of Europe combined. By the time the British left India in 1947, it had fallen to just 3 percent (Tharoor 2015). These abusive policies have been so insidiously devastating within India, that their consequences are evidently seen to this day. Lakshmi Iyer, an Indian-American academic, argues that regions within India that were historically governed through Direct Rule garner significantly fewer political and social goods in comparison to those which were governed by indirect rule (Iyer 2010). Unlike Indian ‘Princely States’ which were governed through Indirect Rule, Indian states administered under Direct Rule received markedly less access to public goods: “Turning to the availability of health and education infrastructure, [data] indicates a statistically significant negative impact of direct British rule on the availability of schools, health centers, and roads…” (Iyer 2010, p. 703) Iyer further argues that historically Directly Ruled Indian states have, “nearly 40% higher poverty rates and 33% higher infant mortality rates… compared to native state areas.” (Iyer 2010, p. 22). This clearly demonstrates the enduring and devastating consequences of the imposition of Direct Rule on a native population, leading to a fundamentally disadvantaged contemporary post-colonial state.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
While Direct Rule may be the most classically understood form of colonial rule, Indirect Rule was overwhelmingly more widespread throughout the history of European colonialism (Gerring et al. 2011). While the ramifications and enduring consequences of Direct Rule may have been comparatively worse than that of Indirect Rule, it would foolhardy to assume that Indirect administration and governance did not also have devastating long-term effects on colonial and post-colonial states. Mamdani argues that both Direct and Indirect rule were “the two sides to the same coin” (Mamdani 1996). He defines Indirect Rule as “decentralized despotism”, whereby the restructuring and institutionalization of power by European colonizers was imposed upon the native political and jurisprudential rule (‘S’ 2014). Unlike Direct Rule, under Indirect Rule, internal administration was given to the native elites. Doyle designates Indirect Rule as a system of authority in which “pre-established local elites and native institutions” are integrated into the administration of the ruling colonial power (Doyle 1986). This arrangement afforded local elites with significant power and prestige; although it would be false to state that full administration was given to the autochthonous rulers. In most cases, national, and foreign policy and defense were given to the colonial rulers to take charge of, while only internal administrative affairs were relegated to the local rulers (Iyer 2010). Despite giving the power of the local elite within the administrative system, Mamdani argues that Indirect Rule was just as, if not more disruptive to local authority than the colonial governance of Direct Rule: “In spite of its claims of being a more benign form of rule, on that tended to reproduce ‘native custom’ in a permissive fashion, indirect rule was the more hegemonic assertion of colonial power. Unlike direct rule, it aimed at changing the preferences of the mass of the colonized, not just a narrow elite” (Mamdani 1996, p. 862). Comparable to the practice of Direct Rule, Indirect Rule altered the power and perception of the local elite to further alienate them from their indigenous subjects, further discrediting them and their authority (Lawrence 2016, p. 6). Some of the lasting legacies of Indirect Rule in contemporary post-colonial states have been those of the social “cleavages” that were formed during colonial rule: inherent in Indirect Rule were the extreme divisions that were created as a result of indigenous alienation and estrangement from their local leaders. Both Mamdani and Iyer suggest that this schism allowed for the creation of serious cultural, social, and ethnic rifts which facilitated the continuation of inter- and intra-communal strife and hostility in contemporary, post-colonial states (Iyer 2010; Mamdani 1996): such was the case in Colonial Nigeria. The Northern Nigerian Protectorate, under the rule of Lord Frederick Lugard, existed as a dependency of the British Empire until 1914, in which it unified with the Southern Nigerian Protectorate to form the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria. While both states employed Indirect Rule, the Northern Nigerian Protectorate is notable for its pioneering use of Warrant Chiefs (Afigbo 1974). Marred by conflict and the violent conquering of native empires, The Northern Nigerian Protectorate consolidated its power in 1907 with the British administration being pioneered by Lord Lugard. From the onset, the British colonizers struggled to gain revenue from taxing the native population: taxation was strongly challenged by emirates and wealthy merchants, who had considerable power and influence among the native population. As a result, the British overseers struggled with a large deficit, leading to understaffing personnel and a lack of resources. Because of these factors, Lugard instituted indirect authority over the local population (Newbury 2004); it was cheaper and more convenient for the British rulers to relegate specific tasks to local leaders. The inclusion of emirs and indigenous chiefs into the administration created a solution to the “native problem” (Mamdani 1996). The creation of a ‘native authority’ facilitated the ease of colonial rule; allowing for increased revenue from the tax, the extraction of natural resources (Newbury 2004), and the exploitation of local peoples. As clearly seen in the colonial rule of Nigeria, Mamdani argues that within decentralized despotism, the “native authority” are the actors that subjugate local peoples (Mamdani 1996). This argument highlights the enduring nature of Indirect Rule in the creation of fundamentally different post-colonial states in comparison to those of Direct Rule: Understanding Native Authority as the oppressive regime (as opposed to the Imperial Authority featured in Direct Rule) frames political and social unrest in the present day. Mamdani argues that a specter of Indirect Rule is enforced in modern post-colonial states as a “bifurcated” dual legal system, “in which power is divided at both the national and local levels” (Mamdani 1996; ‘S’ 2014). This, however, is not to shirk European colonizers of their blame or roles in the exploitation of colonized subjects. In reality, Mamdani argues that the native authority enforced its authority on unwritten rules from the colonial powers: “Rather than following the rule of law, local chiefs enjoyed …executive and administrative power in addition to legal arbitrariness” (Mamdani 1996). Colonial actions performed under Indirect Rule have led to severe ramifications for indigenous peoples in the name of exploitative European supremacy. This idea, however, was not as overt as suggested. While notions of a ‘civilizing mission’ and European expectations of assimilation were not as prevalent in decentralized despotism as they were under Direct Rule, it would be wrong to suggest that British colonialism in Nigeria existed for benevolent reasons, despite the rhetoric suggested by colonialists and their sympathizers. Lord Lugard infamously justified his practice of indirect rule in his book, The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa: “Liberty and Self-Development can be best secured to the native population by leaving them free to manage their own affairs through their own rulers… under the guidance of the British staff, and subject to the laws and policy of the administration.” (Lugard 1922). Lawrence posits that this claim for the preservation of indigenous culture is a deliberately constructed falsehood, noting a “gap between colonial rhetoric and actual colonial governance” (Lawrence 2016, p. 1) Instead, colonial rule was one of economic and social exploitation: While indirect colonialism exploited colonized people and natural resources for their own economic benefit, it notably sought to seize control over local economies: “Improving the production methods or strengthening the economy was not important.” (Settles 1996, p. 8) In the case of Nigeria, the development of plantations for palm oil was challenged by the British, even though the process itself was wasteful and generated poor-quality oil. Because it made the colonizing power large revenue, there was little regard for the future livelihood of local African manufacturing, thus highlighting the significant long-term effects of indirect rule in the creation of fundamentally different post-colonial states. Similarly, this difference between colonial rhetoric and colonial practice can be further understood by examining some of the preliminary factors that enabled (or prohibited) colonial powers from additional exploitation. In states where there was a high mortality rate for colonizers due to disease and bad climatic conditions, colonial powers established largely extractive administrations of decentralized governance, in which poor economic growth and the further exploitation of indigenous peoples was rife. On the other hand, states which were easier for colonizers to settle often featured fewer extractive policies whereby natural resources and peoples were not exploited to the same extent (Johnson et al. 2001). Thus, the external factors behind the initial imposition of the direct or indirect rule have, “determined the economic growth of today’s post-colonial nations by setting institutions on very different paths” (Johnson et al. 2001).
By analyzing two of the most prominent and insidious forms of colonial rule, we may begin to understand how contemporary post-colonial states are able to operate on a national and global stage. Riddled with an institutional legacy, fundamental differences between states must be understood from the historical implementation of centralized or decentralized despotism.
Stuck on your essay?
