Cohn’s book “Colonialism and It’s
Forms of Knowledge: The British in India” speaks about the ways in which India as
a colonized nation was “unravelled” and deemed ‘fit’ to be ruled by the British.
This was done by “constructing” certain forms of knowledge or “inventing”
cultural technologies of rule in order to know the country, its state system,
law and culture, people, polity and religion. This exercise was necessary so
that its ancient repositories of knowledge system could help the British get
closer to deciphering the ancient codes of rule and rulership and make the
country more amenable to be ruled effectively. Cohn therefore deploys the
notion of “modalities”, the main framework by which such knowledge “construction”
was rendered possible. In the process, the administrators also made a strong case
of ‘Oriental Despotism’, lawlessness and the theocratic nature of the state whereby
it was argued that Indians could not rule themselves but needed a “strong hand”
to be governed with few exceptions like Hastings and William and who believed
that India’s civic constitution wasn’t despotic.
The chapter “Law and Colonial State
in India” forms part of the four separate essays where Cohn deploys the trope
of ancient Indian law, clothes, language and art, artifacts and antiquities of
nineteenth century colonial India in order to construct a certain kind of knowledge. These form
part of the larger schema whereby such manipulations and strategies feed into and become links in the long
chain of colonial subjugation. According to Cohn, the British in order to
instrumentalise their idea of ‘peeling off’ the layers and extricating the
various codes, tried to de-code the classical texts which were chiefly in
Sanskrit and Persian by taking help of learned natives. Apart from this, based
on the Western exegesis of law and order, the British administrators
transplanted the same by redefining traditional forms of authority and rule
with the “collector” who besides collecting revenue was incharge of maintaining
law and order and dispensing justice through his aids the Dewan, pandit or
maulwi in the Diwani and Faujdari Adalats or courts.
Cohn premises his argument of
colonial knowledge forms and practice on the Foucaldian framework of
“governmentality” and “knowledge as power” but which gets sabotaged by its own
making since the one who was considered superior in knowledge and civilizational
attributes that is the coloniser is vulnerable to the colonised who are
interpreting the codes as laid down in the ancient texts. Also Cohn, while
dealing with the colonial forms of knowledge becomes oblivious to the intent
and purpose of indigenous forms of knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment