The colonial armies
24/04/2007
Mir Mohammad Ali Talpur
The British occupation and rule in the Subcontinent would have been well nigh impossible if certain ethnic groups had not collaborated and helped them in subjugating the people. The success of the British in extending their Empire to every nook of the world was due to their masterly use of locals who were willing to serve them loyally as fighters and as accessories to their rule.
It was with their excellent implementation of this strategy that they conquered the subcontinent at a lesser cost than that suffered by the unsuccessful USA in Iraq today. They fostered and patronised certain local ethnic groups and used them against other ethnic groups. It was the flawless execution of this strategy that helped them rule the world. As a quid pro quo they ensured that their helpers would become their successors.
The best recruits for the colonial armies were those who morally, psychologically and physically agreed to throw in their lot with the colonisers and had the least probability of identifying themselves with the aspirations of those targeted for domination.
They ably used the Ghurkhas, Sikhs, Punjabis, Bengalis, etc, against the people and to subjugate and rule this region. Without this support they would not have survived a day because even during the uprisings of 1857, these elements remained absolutely loyal to the British and unhesitatingly fought against their fellow countrymen.
These mercenary armies and array of trusty civil servants transcended the religious, racial and regional barriers and were used with devastating effectiveness against all dissenting elements. They carried out instructions as a routine exercise which was not to be questioned on any grounds, religious, moral, political or ethnic. It was on the success of this transformation that all other successes depended. These elements were the prototype of armies that followed in the post-colonial period.
For these people the loss of their cultural and historical heritage meant nothing. They in fact came to despise and deride their own culture and history and convinced others to accept the blessings of colonialism. These people were the essential accessory and integral part of the process of colonisation because they provided the physical force to break down resistance and also the much needed moral justification for occupation.
They invariably became obsessed with their newly acquired superiority and did not hesitate to implement the sordid agenda of the colonisers by force. Such elements tended to be remorselessly harsh and severe towards their own people. They had no compunction in carrying out operations against the people of their own colour and creed.
The extent to which these elements came to identify themselves with the colonisers becomes apparent from this story. An Indian woman who had converted to the faith of the colonisers was upset at the opposition to British rule and said, ?I wonder why these people hate us and oppose us.? For her it had conveniently boiled down to ?them? and ?us?. This was the attitude of a non-entity vis-à-vis the natives. Now imagine the attitude of those who wielded authority and had secured a stake in the survival of colonisation.
Any state or power that successfully brings about this kind of transformation in people can hope for prolonged domination in a region; any region that can provide such willing recruits to the colonisers deserves to remain in the shackles of colonisation.
The very composition of these armies presupposed contradiction and conflict between them and those they were supposed to civilise. What would have a Bengali or a Punjabi soldier of Charles Napier?s army understood of Sindh or its people in 1843 or of Balochistan in 1893? This holds true in today?s circumstances and for those other federal states where different ethnic groups make up the federation.
This phenomenon is not limited to these climes alone. The Yugoslav state used the Serbs to dominate the federation, which included Croats and Bosnians. The differences there were always more ethnic than religious. Religion is never paramount for mercenary armies as they willingly act against their co-religionists as well, as can be seen from the Subcontinental experience. This ethnicity of armies has been advantageously used by groups, countries and powers to subdue and suppress people.
Colonisation does not automatically die out with the departure of the colonisers. Not only does it leave behind its indelible impact, it also ensures its continuity by empowering people who have supported it and are clones of the colonisers to a large extent. Colonisation simply mutates to another form suited to the changed conditions. For the people once colonised, it is colonialism in perpetuity. Colonisation stunts the natural development of a people.
This happened in the Subcontinent but it is not the only example. In the Central Asian Republics after the break-up of the Soviet Union, the same nomenclature has continued to be in power and the same oppressive state apparatus continues. Sadly, even when the physical shackles are removed, the psychological chains remain.
There has always been a grievance of the federating units in Pakistan against the dominance of, let?s not mince words, Punjab. This distribution of power within the federation was determined long before the Subcontinent was divided. Those groups willing to serve the colonial masters ensured a certain future for themselves and a continuing role in the successor states.
It is not an aberration that this country has had a predominating and disproportional influence of Punjab in its affairs since partition. It is the natural consequence of the fact that at the time of partition the population of Punjab, which was about 25 percent of the total, had a strength of 77 percent in the Army.
This overwhelmingly disproportionate ratio in the most powerful and organised institution ensured its domination over other federating units. Time and again when the resistance to this anomaly intensified, the Army directly intervened to ensure that the status quo was maintained. We are living with the consequences of British policies and the willingness of the Punjab?s elite to serve them loyally.
A lot that has transpired has been due to this sheer imbalance of power. Among other reasons accountable for the eventual separation of East Pakistan, one of the major reasons was that it could have no say in matters due to its negligible representation in the armed forces. Its fate was sealed by the very fact that this 60 percent of the population even till 1971 accounted for only 1½ percent of the armed forces.
Nowhere has the legacy of colonialism has been praiseworthy, but it seems its most devastating effects have been reserved for us. Military rule with its rueful consequences has been the people?s fate here. Bangladesh had its chance but they blew it. The military rule bug has once again bitten them and this time around the Army seems determined to make itself the saviour. The supposed saviours always sink and unfortunately they take the people along to abysmal depths.
It should never be forgotten that nowhere has the military ever been able to put things in order. The 76 generals and 600 brigadiers and colonels on regular civilian jobs and a horde of them in ad-hoc positions have only succeeded in making matters worse. The BD army too seems set to sully the political Augean stables there further, in a manner similar to what has been accomplished here.
The affairs of state and that of the military as well are too vital and fundamental to be left in the hands of the military alone anywhere in the world; here it is even more essential that these tasks be taken care of by civilian governments. Little wonder that Sheikh Saadi said:
Na Dahad Hooshmand Roshan Rai
Ba Faromaya Kar Hai Khateer
Booriya Baaf Agar Che Bafinda Aast
Na Barandish Ba Kargah e Hareer
(The wise entrust not a simpleton
With tasks of consequential nature
The mat-weaver is a weaver too, but
Never entrusted to weave silken vesture.)
The writer has been associated with the Baloch national struggle |
