Dear students,
I have omitted the Mitchell book from the readings for Session 2 on the colonial state. See updated syllabus in the Google Drive folder.
For Session 3, I have added a recent piece as a companion to Anderson, as well as an article on Anderson by Ram Guha.
Please come to the next class with your proposals for the book reviews.
Carol
I have omitted the Mitchell book from the readings for Session 2 on the colonial state. See updated syllabus in the Google Drive folder.
For Session 3, I have added a recent piece as a companion to Anderson, as well as an article on Anderson by Ram Guha.
Please come to the next class with your proposals for the book reviews.
Carol
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 “unraveled” 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.
ReplyDeleteThe 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 knowledge. These form part of the larger schema whereby they 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.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete