Patterns of Anti-Colonial Struggles


a) Patterns of anti-colonial struggles

Anti-colonial movements are theatres of nationalism and discourses of nationality. The presence of a colonial regime assists within the formulation and articulation of a discourse regarding an imagined collective community because it provides the indigenous population with an ‘other’ to juxtapose itself against. With national self-consciousness awakened, anti-colonialism is born because the colonised people become cognisant of their political and economic exploitation by a celebration considered exterior to their collective community. This was the precise trajectory of the 20th century anti-colonial movements within the colonised southern Mediterranean, specifically in Egypt.

Throughout the 20th century, the colonised peoples of the Nile Valley began to imagine themselves as a consolidated collective and attempted to forge for themselves a sovereign state within specific territorial boundaries. However, the anti-colonial struggle within the land of the Nile wasn't a singular endeavour, but rather a protracted process which evolved over time to recreate the national ideology fuelling the movement and correspondingly the way during which the sovereign Egypt would relate to the Arab world.

The Egyptian anti-colonial movement against British are often observed in two distinct stages, both of which utilised unique historically-based national identities, disseminated them through popular culture and produced states which might accompany the Arab world in divergent manners. The anti-colonial movement of the primary half the century had a distinctively Egyptian national ideology shaped by the pharaonic Egyptian past, producing a nominally independent nation-state indifferent to the larger Arab region. In juxtaposition, the post-WWII anti-colonial movement employed Arabic nationalism to define Egyptian identity, generating an independent state deeply involved within the affairs of the post-colonial Arab world.

1919 anti-colonial movement

If British had hoped that by stationing their troops in Egypt in response to the Orabi Revolt of 1882 they might effectively control the native Egyptian population and cripple the emergence of any nationalist movement, then the policy by all measures backfired. before the revolt, British had occupied the executive and political offices of Egypt, essentially pulling the strings from behind the scenes, but the presence of their soldiers on the streets of Cairo and Alexandria was a daily physical reminder that Egyptians were nation subjugated by a far off entity.

Moreover, the conversion of the Nile Valley into a British military base forced the native inhabitants into the sphere of European military conflict, an edge from which Egyptians could only stand to lose. because the Ottomans enlisted to fight on the side of the Central Powers in 1914, British immediately declared Egypt a protectorate and therefore the horrors of war ensued on the Nile Valley. As forced conscription, requisitions, wartime inflation and law restrictions diminished the standard of lifetime of all Egyptians, the indigenous population became assertive in their demand for independence.

mps 004, mps 004 assignment

Although the Egyptians wished for no part within the war, they nevertheless supported the war effort of the Allies with the understanding that Egypt would be recognised as an independent state following the war, a promise Britain was making to several of its colonised subjects.

In the year 1917 alone, the budget of the Egyptian protectorate included three million pounds sterling for the Allied war effort and 1,000,000 and 2 hundred thousand Egyptian men to protect the transportation networks of the Allies. Egyptian assistance had been crucial within the campaign against the Ottomans within the Hejaz, the Senussi in Sudan and within the defence of the Suez Canal . With the conclusion of the war, British couldn't deny the contribution of the Egyptians to the Allied victory, but refused to satisfy its obligations of providing the Egyptians with an independent state.

Egypt’s relations with the Arab world 1922-1933

Born out of pharaonic nationalism, the Egyptian state, which gained nominal independence in 1922, would naturally be barren of any affinity for its Arab neighbours. The Egyptian anti-colonial movement was rigorously using the Wilsonian Moment and therefore the principle of national self-determination to climb out of its own colonised abyss, but it had been not particularly curious about assisting the similar ambitions of its neighbours.

Egyptian national discourse disconnected the state from the Arab world and dismantled the solidarity between Egyptians and colonised Arabs, enabling Egypt to reject any involve anti-colonial support from peoples once considered a part of an equivalent civilisation.
Libyans were amongst the primary Arab peoples to suffer from this Egyptian attitude. within the early 1920s, Libyan political activists who had been resisting Italian colonialism had made Egypt an area of political refuge and a base from which to strategise against colonial rule. However, following an invitation from the Italian authorities in January 1924 that Egypt to not provide a secure haven for the individuals resisting imperialism, the nominally independent Egyptian government declared that the Libyan political refugees had to go away .

Egypt had sided with an imperialist European power over their Arab siblings, who were involved within the same anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggle because the Egyptians.

This siding with a colonial power over its Arab victims wasn't limited only to the Italians and Libya, but extended to the case of the French and Syria. Throughout the Syrian revolt of the mid-1920s, Egyptian newspapers had been continuously relaying the events and Egyptian poets had offered their pens in support of the rebellion, but beyond meagre humanitarian financial assistance, the Egyptian authorities refused to politically aid the Syrians in realising independence. Rejecting the request for diplomatic support, Prime Minister Zaghloul affirmed that Egypt could offer nothing to the Syrians, claiming that “if you add a zero to a zero the result are going to be zero.”

b) Gandhian perspective of the modern State

In Gandhi’s assessment, the state (Western type) was the symbol of violence in concentrated form. so as to make sure allegiance from the citizens the state (which means its authority) applies coercion or violent measures mercilessly.

Once he said “the individual features a soul but the state may be a soulless machine, the stale can never be weaned faraway from violence to which it owes its existence”. In other words, Gandhi treated both state and violence or coercion synonymous. He further says that there's a state but not violence or coercion in any form can't be imagined.

He gathered experience in South Africa that more and more power to the state meant more and more violence or greater amount of coercion. within the name of the upkeep of law and order the South Africa’s white government acquired enormous power and this led to the ruthless administration, exploitation and curtailment of individuals’ liberty.

He once said that a political organisation supported violence would never receive his approval. Rather, he's always scared of such an organisation. What he felt about the Western state system is sort of explicit during a comment which he made, “I think of a rise within the power of the state with greatest fear, because although while apparently doing good by minimising exploi­tation, it does the best harm to mankind by destroying individuality which is at the basis of progress”.

From the above analysis it's absolutely clear that Gandhi rejected the state of Western model on the bottom that it represented violence or coercion. Now the question is why did he oppose violence so much? the fashionable state, consistent with Gandhi, was close to destroy individuality—that individual freedom and spontaneous urge to figure .

Secondly, the individualism is that the root explanation for progress. Gandhi believed that nothing might be done by applying coercion. Again, the individual can't be forced to try to to any work against his will or spontaneous desire. to place it in other words, consistent with Gandhi the progress of the society are often achieved through the functions which the individuals perform willingly.

Here Gandhi appears to us as an excellent individualist philosopher. the 2 great utilitarian philosophers—Bentham (1748-1832) and J. S. Mill (1806-1872)—wanted to place curb upon the activities of the state to reinforce the quantum of freedom of the individuals. The state, prescribed by Bentham and Mill, is named limited state. Both Bentham and J. S. Mill didn't approve coercion for demanding allegiance from the individual’s.

But Gandhi appears to us as more aggressive. Under any circumstances the individual’s freedom can't be sacrificed. Gandhi’s love for individual’s freedom ranks him with the good anarchist philosophers (we shall discuss his anarchism later on). The central idea is that to Gandhi state is an undesirable political organisation due to its close reference to violence.
Gandhi wasn't interested in the least in build up a comprehensive and well-argued political orientation . He was a mass leader, philosopher and insurgent . On various issues and situations he expressed opinions which constitute certain aspects of political orientation and state sovereignty is such a theory. In Western political thought, state sovereignty may be a much talked theory and enormous number of students and philosophers has addressed this idea . Bodin and Hobbes are chief among them.

In general terms, sovereignty means the supreme coercive power of the state. we've already mentioned that Gandhi strongly objected to the present power because supreme coercive power usurps individual’s liberty during a ruthless way. Sovereignty receives allegiance by force. Such an influence of the state, it's needless to mention , cannot get approval of Gandhi. The Zulu “rebellion” of South Africa moved his mind and thought immensely.

The South African government released a reign of terror and torture upon the innocent people of Zulu and therefore the state authority exercised sovereign power. it had been unimaginable to Gandhi that a so-called civilised government might be such a lot cruel, such a lot soulless. So he concluded that sovereignty was nothing but the appliance of coercive power by that state and hence such an influence could never constitute the idea of a non-violent state organisation.

In the Western political thought sovereignty has two forms—monastic theory of sovereignty and pluralist theory of sovereignty. Though the latter form insists upon giving more freedom and autonomy to individuals and organisation, ultimately the state will have freedom and authority to use coercive power. Naturally even the pluralist approach of sovereignty did not impress Gandhi. To conclude, both sorts of sovereignty did not create a favourable impact upon the mind of Gandhi.
“Gandhi was a fanatical advocate not of traditional state sovereignty but of popular sovereignty strongly advocated by one among the agreement theoreticians.” J. J. Rousseau (1712-1778). Rousseau wanted to introduce popular sovereignty of the Greek city-state in his home state. within the scheme of Rousseau’s popular sovereignty the citizens had the chance to assemble in open places periodically and to participate within the sort of functions of state. Gandhi contemplated an equivalent sort of popular sovereignty for India.

For Assignment PDF
Subcribe YouTube : My IGNOU Solutions