Time for the truth about Britain’s imperial shame
By Shozab Raza
For students of imperial history, the revelation that the British government illegally concealed and destroyed thousands of papers documenting the end of the colonial period should come as no surprise.
Records of shameful acts of brutality and suppression against colonized peoples were either burnt in a series of purge operations, or were secretly stored at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s high-security Hanslope Park premises in Buckinghamshire. The operation was conducted to prevent successive governments, historians and members of the public from accessing intelligence reports detailing Britain’s imperial crimes. As these records reveal, the British government was intent on concealing any material that ‘might embarrass Her Majesty’s government’ or ‘embarrass members of the police, military forces, public servants or others’. In line with the thirty year rule, the documents should have been made available in the 1980s, but the so-called ‘Legacy Files’ which survived the purge, are only now being made available. From what we have seen of the papers so far, we anticipate that the reports will reveal a wide range of torture and targeted killing cases, from the ordered killing of a Kenyan Mau Mau insurgent who was ‘roasted alive’ to the massacre of 24 unarmed villagers in the colony of Malaya.
The lengths to which the British government went to destroy and hide these files is a much-needed reminder of the sinister forces that drive empire. Public figures like Niall Ferguson and Jeremy Paxman are seen extolling the virtues of empire, praising the export of infrastructure, parliamentary democracy and modern medicine to the uncivilised world. One only needs to tune in to a BBC or Channel 4 documentary on empire to see that globalisation and free market principles are hailed as beneficial products of the imperial age.
Such views, however, must be challenged. Whilst these developments are presented as legacies of empire, the immense cost at which they came often ignored. Let us not forget that empires were ventures of economic exploitation, founded upon racist and supremacist ideologies that justified the domination of non-white peoples. They were not importers of modernity; rather, they were systems that legitimised the looting of other countries, crippling the colonies and violating the rights of the indigenous communities inhabiting them. The case of India is a fitting example that reveals the nature of Britain’s empire. Hailed as the ‘jewel in Britain’s crown’, the Indian colony provided unprecedented levels of natural resources and ‘trading opportunities’ (a euphemism, of course) for the British. However, it must be remembered that the East India Company was only able to secure rights of administration in 1765 as a consequence of its treacherous trading deals with various rulers in the Princely States. The British Raj only formally came into existence after the brutal suppression of the First War of Independence in 1857, while the violence of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in 1919, where General Dyer ordered the killing of hundreds of unarmed civilians, still elicits anger amongst many Indians today. And, of course, let us not forget how Britain abandoned its imperial responsibilities during Partition in 1947, where the largest mass-migration of human history resulted in the killing of up to three million people and the upheaval of up to 15 million.
Thus, when the history of Britain’s empire is filled with betrayal, for what reason should we have expected the post-imperial government to act scrupulously when maintaining its imperial records? News of the destruction of these files has certainly caused embarrassment to the present government, but fortunately the remaining Legacy Files present new opportunities for historians to document the injustices of empire thoroughly. Perhaps we can now expect a new trend in historiography, where the Fergusons and Paxmans of the historical world will be replaced by those who expose, rather than applaud, Britain’s shameful imperial past.
-Radhika Madhani
Monika M Burbo
05/05/2012 at 09:49
Radhika
I thought instead that Jeremy Paxman presents in his book a balanced view of the history of the British Empire talking both of the sheer cruelty and attrocities committed as well as of the benefits, the testament to which is the Commonwealth to which former colonies, + a couple of others, belong voluntarily.
I applaud you, however, for bringing the most shamefully hideous attempts of the.succesiive governments to hide, or destroy, the evidence of the worst aspects of the UK’s history.
Monika M Burbo
05/05/2012 at 13:39
My spelling is usually a bit better. I wrote the above on my iPhone lying in bed.
Matt
05/05/2012 at 15:21
You act as if India had no hand in it suffering. How was Britain able to take over India? Why didn’t the Indians work together to stop the British? Why didn’t India have better weapons?
If the Indians suffered at the hand of Britain, then it is the Indians who need to look in the mirror.
Arthur
06/05/2012 at 15:41
The author of this piece can perhaps be forgiven if she is undertaking, say, an English, rather than a History, degree here at Oxford; but if the latter, then no doubt her tutors will be happy to offer her some extra tutorials. The article she has written must, in her own words, ‘be challenged’; for it is unfortunately most noteworthy for its journalistic superficiality and a ready use of emotive terms which cloud the issues discussed. The simplistic description of the Sepoy Uprising of 1857 as a ‘First War of Independence’ clearly shows that the author has a political axe to grind, and cannot be taken too seriously as an authority on India’s imperial history. Nobody disputes that acts of great brutality was committed by agents of the British empire, but Miss Madhani’s reference to the ‘sinister forces’ which drive expansion suggests that her mindset is still of an early twentieth century mould, a time when socialists were preaching that empire was the ‘last stage of capitalism’. Indeed, her contention that a ‘new trend’ in imperial historiography decrying the evils of empire is necessary would suggest that the last fifty years or so have entirely passed her by. While, more recently, Niall Ferguson does indeed conclude that the empire was, on balance, a good thing, his rather more balanced and academic treatment of the subject must be noted even if one disagrees with his final verdict. From the above article, I am left to conclude either that the author is unfamiliar with the subject on which she writes and has therefore cribbed her information from Google, or else that she is simply keen to fill her column at the expense of academic integrity. Perhaps we should hope for a new trend in the historiography, where the one-sided treatments of Britain’s imperial past will be replaced with a more measured and mature assessment.
Sherif Foda
16/05/2012 at 16:40
Arthur — your comment is both impertinent and irrelevant. You start off by insulting the author personally and detracting attention from the points she makes. I thought Miss Madhani’s comment focused on the destruction of documents and the potential effect this could have on the pro-empire accounts of British historians, but instead you attempt to throw in red herrings and suggest your knowledge of colonial India is vastly superior to the author’s. Journalistic superficiality? Her piece isn’t one of journalism. Emotive terms? So how would you describe Ferguson or Paxman? If nobody disputes the “brutality of the acts committed by agents of the British empire” (that we can surely impute to the principal British empire itself), then what’s wrong with characterizing these as “sinister forces”? I don’t see a real difference between brutal and sinister. Your reference to socialists preaching empire was the “last stage of capitalism” suggests that you’re holding a political axe of your own at the grinding wheel. Early-twentieth century mould? Really? Ever heard of post-colonialism? I’d say her mindset fits perfectly in the twenty-first century mould — you, on the other hand, must have your top hat covering your monacle. The “new trend” Miss Madhani is referring to, by the way, is one in which the most respected British historians adopt this post-colonialist view. (I would add that they have a bit of catching up to do, at least with respect to international jurists). Who cares what you’re left to conclude on Miss Madhani’s familiarity with the subject? Shouldn’t we leave that assessment to the institution in which we study (her tutors and professors — who are undoubtedly more qualified than you in the matter). I agree with your last sentence, though, Arthur. But I have a feeling your idea of a “measured and mature assessment” involves more self-righteous justification for what in your words is a brutal history than a mea culpa. I await your undoubtedly long-wided response to my comment, that surely got your coat-tails in a bunch.