This was an interesting read - I agree with almost all of it. However, I find the comparison to Palestine to be an unfair comparison. While on paper the word "decolonization" encompasses both, the act of fighting against an active colonizer, fighting for your liberation, is not the same as grappling with the societal change that a colonist imparted upon a colony in a post-colonial society. For all of the bad and good the British did, Indians were right to fight against the British for control over their own land, as is the same with Palestinians fighting against the Israeli occupation. Regarding whether we keep or revert colonial changes - from physical infrastructure to cultural beliefs - in a post colonial society is where we find the nuance of decolonization not always being "good".
I agree, fighting (ethically) for one's independence is justifiable. Experiences of colonialism and decolonization vary immensely. By referencing that tweet, I was commenting on the downstream cultural interpretation of "decolonization"—not the Palestinian freedom struggle writ large. I think it's inaccurate and immoral to view October 7th as an act of liberation. The idea of decolonization gives carte blanche to the atrocities of 10/7, just as the falsehood of Israeli exceptionalism obscures the evil of the occupation/genocide. Ideas like these can't be beyond scrutiny.
This article is so great and I agree with every single thing you’ve said.
But you putting focus on October 7th to make your limited point while there’s an ongoing genocide - you must see the problem. You’re (maybe inadvertently) contributing to a narrative that’s being used to fuel the genocide and you have a responsibility here. I’m sure there are other examples you can use to make that point.
For me October 7 is about what people do when all legal and peaceful means of ending oppression is taken away from them. And that is tragic but it’s also the fruits of Israels (and the US) actions. There can be no justice for victims of October 7 in the absence of justice for Palestinians.
Yeah I really liked the article but I have to push back on this point as well. If it is natural to you that the Dalit took up weapons against their own countrymen in support of a colonizer who would potentially treat them less abysmally, it only stands to reason that you would also understand the act of Oct 7.
The thing that makes Oct 7 - like the Dalit fighting alongside the British - understandable, is the wider context. We cannot pretend that other decolonial methods were not tried first. The peaceful protests, the Intifadas, the repeated appeals to international courts - I think you would be hard pressed to find a people who had tried SO MANY LEGITIMATE MEANS of attempted decolonization as the people of Palestine. But it is the rest of us who have failed. It was on us to ensure those methods were successful.
But we did not. And desperate times lead to desperate measures, as you clearly show to understand in your article.
It is not reasonable to expect any nation to choose to die quietly if the only choices they are offered are ‘fight or die’
Why is it not moral for Palestinians to defend their people and land? What is 'ethical' fighting? Under International Humanitarian Law, colonized peoples have the right to fight their oppressors. This doesn't just mean they can use violence only in strict self-defence against specific attacks by Israeli militants- saying that they can only use violence in these circumstances means they will be so limited that effective resistance is impossible. This is because one side has complete surveillance and military advantage. If you truly believe in Palestinians' right to fight oppression and genocide, that means you must accept civilian attacks, which have so readily been accepted by the world when they come from Israel. If someone was torturing and rapeing your teenage son, or thousands of Palestinian children (which Israel has been holding hostage for decades, what would you do? Only try to attack Bibi or the military? No- that is either ineffective or impossible. The killing of civilians is legal under IHL, as long as precautions are taken as far as possible. Israel has great capacity to identify people and save civilians, while Hamas obviously has none of the same capacity or technology. The only recourse of the Palestinian people was indiscriminate violence. This would be accepted and acknowledged if we were talking about any other group. Imagine Russia surrounding a Ukrainian city and treating it like an open-air prison, as Gaza was. If the Ukrainian military killed some Russian civilians as a last-ditch effort to do something, would you see them the same way as you do Hamas? How could Palestinians possibly do anything else when Israel knows everything and kills whoever they want whenever they want? Please explain how you want Palestinians to resist being murdered and displaced, in an 'ethical' way, that they haven't tried and that isn't just silently and passively accepting death. I'll wait.
I would love to know your thoughts on Just War theory, I'm new to your work so I apologise if I've missed something! (Also, amazing article, thank you!)
In the case of Israel, it is the Arabs who are the colonizers. Like Russia and Ukraine the Muslim Middle East sees Israel as the starting point for reclaiming it's past glory. The conflict has never been between Palestinians and Israel but the with the crumbling remains of the Ottoman Empire. The current conflict is fueled by Iran which is hardly concerned with the lives of people in Gaza.
Do you understand the concept of conversion? Palestinians are not colonizers just because they adopted Islam. The fact that Palestinians are much more ethnically Semitic than most Jewish people is proof that they are not the colonizers. Also, I think you are projecting about the cause of the ongoing genocide.
Please explain the roll of Iran in the conflict. Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis are all Iranian proxies. What possible reason could they have for wanting to destroy Israel? They share no borders and do not compete for resources. Palestinians are pawns of the Middle Eastern Muslims that do not care about their well-being. Do you think if all the Jews in Israel converted to Islam it would be an obsession world over? It is not a dispute over property. It is about Muslims wanting to subjugate a religious minority they had under their boot for 1400 years.
Do you really not understand that the Palestinian people want to attack Israel because it has been attacking them, stealing more and more of their land and water every year, and literally holding thousands of Palestinian children hostage and torturing them for decades. Please watch the new BBC doc “The Settlers to se whats really going on in Israel and why some people, me included, have a problem with it. This is about Westerners feeling bad after the Holocaust but still not wanting the victims to come to their countries, so they created a ‘homeland’ to send them to by pretending no one else lived there. Palestinians have been paying for Germany’s sins ever since. This is about land and water. But I see that you have demonized Muslims so fully you think their only goal in life is domination? No- clearly that’s you and the U.S.
Half the Jews in Israel were ethnically cleansed from Muslim lands. Their land was stolen by Muslims. But that doesn't seem to matter to you. One sided justice isn't justice, it's dominantion.
Palestinians had freedom of movement until the Second Antifada. Palestinians are in the position they are in because their leadership has refused to make peace.
Keep telling yourself that- again, I recommend that recent documentary. Would you make peace with someone who just came to your village from America, burned your olive trees, and violently stole your home? Why should they?
I was born in Bangladesh, a country with a complex history of political and economic struggles. Throughout our history, we have sought better governance and economic prosperity, often aligning ourselves with identity groups in the hope of achieving these goals.
Initially, Bangladeshis opposed British rule due to the devastating famine caused by their policies, believing that we would fare better under Muslim rule. However, our economy was once again devastated, culminating in the famine of 1970 under Pakistani governance. Following the Liberation War, we hoped for improvement under Bengali rule, only to face another famine in 1973.
Recently, Bangladesh experienced a popular revolution, with demands for greater youth representation in politics. However, given our history, it is difficult not to be skeptical about the potential outcomes of this new political regime. Blind adherence to identity groups has proven to be an ineffective approach to politics, as it overlooks the fundamental issues of governance and institutional design.
The success of the American experiment can be attributed, in part, to the fact that the American elite still identified as Englishmen. This perspective prevented them from blaming their problems on racial or religious differences, forcing them to engage in serious considerations about the nature of power. As a result, they instituted numerous checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power.
In South Asia and much of the decolonized world, we have repeatedly made the mistake of believing that we would be better off under the rule of someone from our own racial or religious background. This approach has led to a cycle of disillusionment and economic struggle, as it fails to address the underlying institutional issues that plague our societies.
However, there is a growing realization in Bangladesh that simply having a ruler from our own identity group is not enough. We must focus on institutional design and implement meaningful reforms to achieve lasting progress. The extent to which these reforms will be successfully implemented remains to be seen, but it is a crucial step in the right direction.
Thanks for sharing this profound reflection! I agree, the identity of the ruler does not guarantee the quality of the rule. What matters are the incentives, constraints, and values of the public institutions they govern with.
A very good point. Frederic Douglass once asked what the meaning of 4th of July was to a slave. One might also ask what the meaning of decolonization was to dalits or women or the various ethnic and religious minorities that were crushed by the bourgeoning nationalist movements of the 20th century; think of the Kurds, or even the Balochis in Pakistan. The traditional framing of nation states and cultures standing up against Western imperium is not sufficient on its own and must be animated by a universal spirit that binds all humanity
"Among the most viral takes following Hamas’ October 7th attack on Israel was this one: “what did y'all think decolonization meant? vibes? papers? essays? losers.” The implication being, whatever the act—in this case, the butchery of innocent families—the fact of it being done in service to “decolonization” made it worthwhile. That logic is the product of unchecked ideology—not truth."
Do you have any proof that Hamas participated in the "butchery of innocent families"? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Or are you just parroting Israeli Hasbra propaganda lines for some unknown reason. There was no butchery by Hamas of any families. I know many Indians/Hindus have an unsavory affinity for Israel and go out of their way to seek Zionist approval. It seems the Indian Christians have similar proclivities. This claim of yours is patently false. The Israeli occupation forces gunships were given the Hannibal Directive and fire indiscriminately on their own population in a bid to ensure that Hamas could not escape with any prisoners. Are you trying to curry favor with the colonizers by making statements like this? Are you positioning yourself as a polite and acceptable "model activist" who won’t ruffle the feathers of the brutal settler colonial apartheid state?
This delusional thinking is how the Muslim Middle East traps itself in corruption and chaos. The problem with using the Algerian model on Israel is that it's not a colony. They will not flee but rather grind you into dust. The reciprocal logic of this thinking justifies the total defeat of the Palestinians. Personally, I don't believe in perfect justice but trying to make the best world for as many people as possible.
90% of the Jews migrated there fleeing violence. Half of them from Muslim world. Your lack of compassion is a source of dellusion. Basking in hatefulness you will reep what you sow.
No hate here, but I will say, Israel is not a Jewish state. I take Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro's position here. I think he presents a great case here. And the response to being a victim of genocide should not be to go and visit it on the others.
The best method is to not start quarrels. The Algerians were told the same. And according to the French, Algeria was not a colony either. They considered it a part of France. And Israel is an American vassal colony. They will be forced to abandon it. People who actually understand geopolitics know that this meme of "AIPAC" control of American politics is a mirage. Their influence and power vastly overstated. The recent constitutional assaults in the US are the result of hysterical panic they are not an expression of power. We are patient, we will see how things play out.
I am not a fan of PostColonial Studies. Their epistemology is on shaky ground and the implications to society in general are terrible. I don’t think anything good can come from it.
I also find the anti-postcolonials who buy in the oppressor oppressed narrative hook line and sinker very perplexing. It is the same narrative that the colonizers used to sow divisions. It often follows the same key points: aryans were oppressors over dasyus, the same reference to purusha sukta, Buddha is a reformer who fought caste, caste for 2000 years, British legal system good. I mean come on! This is OK for someone starting to understand the history, but how long are we continuously going to believe this static picture of history? Everything can is constantly reevaluated with additional information, except for this narrative for the past 150 years?
I find the following missing aspects from this historical perspective: the genetic data about caste highlights ossification only around 500CE, a time of massive de-urbanization in India; Buddha was as much a casteist as a run of a mill fellow in 3rd century BCE; there were multiple “revolutions” in the form of Bhakti movement completely organic without any “enlightened westerner”. Peasants in the Europe and rest of the world were also treated poorly; the egalitarian movement of reformation actually thought of browns as sub-human.
History is obviously much more complex than any one telling, but I actually don't often see this particular history told—not to mention explicitly and with reference to modern discourse. I more often see Hindu nationalist retellings (as the scholars I've cited worry about) or ahistorical assumptions premised on faulty ideas like 'decolonization.'
If you're interested, I've actually addressed many of these historical details you note in my last few posts—I cite a genetic study tracing caste endogamy to 1,900 years ago (AJHG), note my displeasure with Buddha's moral reframing of caste (though it's unfair to label him casteist; he was a reformist at worst), and explain the paradox of Enlightenment-era moral progress alongside racism and slavery. You've overlooked Dhanda's quote in this article—I do mention pre-colonial anti-caste figures/movements, including the Bhakti movement.
There is absolutely zero representation of any non-leftist and non-colonial historical perspective of India. The perspective you highlighted might be new *to you*, but not to people who have been following the then British now American Christian apologetic literature.
The decoloniality literature is the neo-Marxist and your rebuttal is straight neo-Christian. Each and every single point you highlighted (at least in this piece) is at least a 100 years old.
You need to update yourself on the latest genetics literature. The older theories are dubious at best and sinister at worst.
The real reason you don’t support decolonization is because you (a Christian) identify with colonizers yourself.
Of course you would hate Hindus be a victim to historical atrocities so you either paint Hindus (falsely in the case of Indian history) as aggressors against their own society? You have a white Christian savior complex and you’re not even white. Actually pathetic.
It's a neat article, but seeing multiple people in your comments speak your same language and run cover for Palestinian atrocities is a bit unsavory, they are speaking probably knowing full well that if Palestinians had not just this language of morality but also the means, there is no real telling where their atrocity would have end or really the cheers by these types of people.
People say Hamas doesn't represent Palestine or whatever, are they colonized by them? Seems that colonization is more or less another form of government imposed upon the loser in a conflict. Neutral at that
Who cares about being unsavory? It's a contest for power, Palestinians will leverage what they can, Israeli's will leverage what they can. There is no actual moral scoreboard, the strong do what they will, the weak do what they must. Of course both teams use apparent moral appeals to curry favor with their imperial support (USA, China, Iran, Saudi's, etc.), but that's still just power running all the way through.
If it's a contest for power, let there be more transparency, or neutrality. If it's a settlement through arms, that should be made clearer and ethical crusaders on either side should be given no intellectual cover, that's my issue. For example the piece above is sophisticated, but it's effect is the same.
You are entirely right, in what you are saying. The issue is the intellectual class is doing some orthogonal moral calculus for two groups who would genocide each other if they had the capability. The intellectual space, and the propaganda space should ideally be as separate as possible.
Ideally it varies case by case, but our interests I would assume converge on truest facts. I am against academy as political advocacy group, it poisons.
This is such a good essay, and gave me so much to think about. I wonder if part of the problem of the “decolonization” narrative is the use of that word. It implies that the pre-colonial world order was the right one and that we need to go back to it. Maybe a better word would be autonomy or autonomy from oppression?
In a world where every country is autonomous and lacks an oppressing force, some of those countries become bad ones and become an oppressing force themselves, which might cause a neighboring country to intervene. But today they can intervene without colonizing. (See the world defending Ukraine without taking it over. We are trying to protect its autonomy, not “decolonize” it.)
Thank you for the discussion! It brings to mind this episode of a science/philosophy podcast on how pre-colonial nostalgia in India for times that never actually were can foster nationalism (something we are seeing worldwide): https://www.monkeydancepod.com/episodes/episode-15
I appreciate you bringing your analysis to its final point about profiting from "decolonization." Much to chew on!
What an interesting article, it clearly demonstrates how history is never as clear cut as we may like to think, colonialism was a brutal system, but brutality is often balanced with pockets of good, or as you show: conquerors to some may be liberators to others.
Oppressing forces are internal as well as external. I lived through the Zimbabwe Gukarahundi in the early 1980s that took place after the long struggle against the white minority government resulted in black majority Independence. Over 20,000 people were murdered by the new black government because they belonged to a minority tribal group.
Even worse were the decades of anti-Tutsi pogroms in Rwanda to led to the 1994 genocide that flared up for several years after the original murder of somewhere between 880,000 and 1.2 million people.
People can be pretty barbaric even without outside colonization.
I'd argue that Dalit people are descended from the victims of a much, much older conquest. They were originally peoples, ancient Adivasi. Subjugation over centuries or even millennia was what turned them into castes, or in the British terminology, "outcaste" or "scheduled castes." Their lands were taken from them very long ago.
"For Dalits, the story is that colonialism—however egregious—was itself a respite from a yet crueler system of oppression and exploitation: Brahmanism."
Whilst I agree that painting India’s pre-colonial era as ‘good’ and colonial is ‘bad’ is silly, I don’t think anyone earnestly believes that aside from strong Hindu nationalists. I think this argument mostly comes up when defenders of British colonial rule wanna say “Heyy well actually India was still bad before the British got there!!” It’s just a silly argument.
No one is arguing that the British invented caste, however through colonial technologies, like the census and electoral systems, they did institutionalise the caste system.
Also arguing that Christian missionaries came to India in good faith is laughable… most missionaries came to India with the civilising mission in mind. They held the view that all Indians were barbaric.
And as for the sati point, read Can the Subaltern Speak?, by Spivak. It’s literally decolonisation 101 so I’m shocked you’d say the campaign against sati as positive statement about the British/ point against decolonisation
To me, decolonisation may refer to an armed political movement, say FLN, or decolonising knowledge, say deconstructing the western gaze in history. Decolonisation movements aren’t always good or bad, they just are. This is what goes for India, despite breaking off Britain’s oppressive rule (which is was), and leaving Indians in more divisions than before (which they did) most people with a good understanding of Indian history do not argue that India’s decolonisation was amazing, in fact I would argue most think it was a shit show?
Decolonization was not a shit show in as much as it allowed for private companies to leverage more power outside of the British state at a time when the British imperial power was on the decline. Decolonization had become quite useful for entrenched powers just as colonialism had been in the past.
I was specifically speaking on the decolonial movement in India as it led to the partition that displaced and killed millions, and left two communities permanently fractured.
Overall my main point is that decolonialism cannot be characterised as good or bad, it just is. But if we can talk directly about India, I would argue that high elite politicians left an absolute mess behind.
The partition that displaced and killed millions, and left two communities permanently fractured was itself the result of an even earlier cultural-religious colonization project that included the Middle East, North Africa, South East Europe, the Iberian Peninsula, and as far east as China.
Decolonization is always a mess, it's a movement from order and institutional rule towards something divided and interstitial, and there are obvious incentives for doing so, that state of messiness is quite useful for those who can leverage accordingly. Again, neither good nor bad, some gain power, others lose it.
This was an interesting read - I agree with almost all of it. However, I find the comparison to Palestine to be an unfair comparison. While on paper the word "decolonization" encompasses both, the act of fighting against an active colonizer, fighting for your liberation, is not the same as grappling with the societal change that a colonist imparted upon a colony in a post-colonial society. For all of the bad and good the British did, Indians were right to fight against the British for control over their own land, as is the same with Palestinians fighting against the Israeli occupation. Regarding whether we keep or revert colonial changes - from physical infrastructure to cultural beliefs - in a post colonial society is where we find the nuance of decolonization not always being "good".
I agree, fighting (ethically) for one's independence is justifiable. Experiences of colonialism and decolonization vary immensely. By referencing that tweet, I was commenting on the downstream cultural interpretation of "decolonization"—not the Palestinian freedom struggle writ large. I think it's inaccurate and immoral to view October 7th as an act of liberation. The idea of decolonization gives carte blanche to the atrocities of 10/7, just as the falsehood of Israeli exceptionalism obscures the evil of the occupation/genocide. Ideas like these can't be beyond scrutiny.
This article is so great and I agree with every single thing you’ve said.
But you putting focus on October 7th to make your limited point while there’s an ongoing genocide - you must see the problem. You’re (maybe inadvertently) contributing to a narrative that’s being used to fuel the genocide and you have a responsibility here. I’m sure there are other examples you can use to make that point.
For me October 7 is about what people do when all legal and peaceful means of ending oppression is taken away from them. And that is tragic but it’s also the fruits of Israels (and the US) actions. There can be no justice for victims of October 7 in the absence of justice for Palestinians.
I'm not enturely sure that you know the definition of genocide.
Yeah I really liked the article but I have to push back on this point as well. If it is natural to you that the Dalit took up weapons against their own countrymen in support of a colonizer who would potentially treat them less abysmally, it only stands to reason that you would also understand the act of Oct 7.
The thing that makes Oct 7 - like the Dalit fighting alongside the British - understandable, is the wider context. We cannot pretend that other decolonial methods were not tried first. The peaceful protests, the Intifadas, the repeated appeals to international courts - I think you would be hard pressed to find a people who had tried SO MANY LEGITIMATE MEANS of attempted decolonization as the people of Palestine. But it is the rest of us who have failed. It was on us to ensure those methods were successful.
But we did not. And desperate times lead to desperate measures, as you clearly show to understand in your article.
It is not reasonable to expect any nation to choose to die quietly if the only choices they are offered are ‘fight or die’
Why is it not moral for Palestinians to defend their people and land? What is 'ethical' fighting? Under International Humanitarian Law, colonized peoples have the right to fight their oppressors. This doesn't just mean they can use violence only in strict self-defence against specific attacks by Israeli militants- saying that they can only use violence in these circumstances means they will be so limited that effective resistance is impossible. This is because one side has complete surveillance and military advantage. If you truly believe in Palestinians' right to fight oppression and genocide, that means you must accept civilian attacks, which have so readily been accepted by the world when they come from Israel. If someone was torturing and rapeing your teenage son, or thousands of Palestinian children (which Israel has been holding hostage for decades, what would you do? Only try to attack Bibi or the military? No- that is either ineffective or impossible. The killing of civilians is legal under IHL, as long as precautions are taken as far as possible. Israel has great capacity to identify people and save civilians, while Hamas obviously has none of the same capacity or technology. The only recourse of the Palestinian people was indiscriminate violence. This would be accepted and acknowledged if we were talking about any other group. Imagine Russia surrounding a Ukrainian city and treating it like an open-air prison, as Gaza was. If the Ukrainian military killed some Russian civilians as a last-ditch effort to do something, would you see them the same way as you do Hamas? How could Palestinians possibly do anything else when Israel knows everything and kills whoever they want whenever they want? Please explain how you want Palestinians to resist being murdered and displaced, in an 'ethical' way, that they haven't tried and that isn't just silently and passively accepting death. I'll wait.
I would love to know your thoughts on Just War theory, I'm new to your work so I apologise if I've missed something! (Also, amazing article, thank you!)
In the case of Israel, it is the Arabs who are the colonizers. Like Russia and Ukraine the Muslim Middle East sees Israel as the starting point for reclaiming it's past glory. The conflict has never been between Palestinians and Israel but the with the crumbling remains of the Ottoman Empire. The current conflict is fueled by Iran which is hardly concerned with the lives of people in Gaza.
Do you understand the concept of conversion? Palestinians are not colonizers just because they adopted Islam. The fact that Palestinians are much more ethnically Semitic than most Jewish people is proof that they are not the colonizers. Also, I think you are projecting about the cause of the ongoing genocide.
Please explain the roll of Iran in the conflict. Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis are all Iranian proxies. What possible reason could they have for wanting to destroy Israel? They share no borders and do not compete for resources. Palestinians are pawns of the Middle Eastern Muslims that do not care about their well-being. Do you think if all the Jews in Israel converted to Islam it would be an obsession world over? It is not a dispute over property. It is about Muslims wanting to subjugate a religious minority they had under their boot for 1400 years.
Do you really not understand that the Palestinian people want to attack Israel because it has been attacking them, stealing more and more of their land and water every year, and literally holding thousands of Palestinian children hostage and torturing them for decades. Please watch the new BBC doc “The Settlers to se whats really going on in Israel and why some people, me included, have a problem with it. This is about Westerners feeling bad after the Holocaust but still not wanting the victims to come to their countries, so they created a ‘homeland’ to send them to by pretending no one else lived there. Palestinians have been paying for Germany’s sins ever since. This is about land and water. But I see that you have demonized Muslims so fully you think their only goal in life is domination? No- clearly that’s you and the U.S.
Half the Jews in Israel were ethnically cleansed from Muslim lands. Their land was stolen by Muslims. But that doesn't seem to matter to you. One sided justice isn't justice, it's dominantion.
Palestinians had freedom of movement until the Second Antifada. Palestinians are in the position they are in because their leadership has refused to make peace.
Keep telling yourself that- again, I recommend that recent documentary. Would you make peace with someone who just came to your village from America, burned your olive trees, and violently stole your home? Why should they?
I was born in Bangladesh, a country with a complex history of political and economic struggles. Throughout our history, we have sought better governance and economic prosperity, often aligning ourselves with identity groups in the hope of achieving these goals.
Initially, Bangladeshis opposed British rule due to the devastating famine caused by their policies, believing that we would fare better under Muslim rule. However, our economy was once again devastated, culminating in the famine of 1970 under Pakistani governance. Following the Liberation War, we hoped for improvement under Bengali rule, only to face another famine in 1973.
Recently, Bangladesh experienced a popular revolution, with demands for greater youth representation in politics. However, given our history, it is difficult not to be skeptical about the potential outcomes of this new political regime. Blind adherence to identity groups has proven to be an ineffective approach to politics, as it overlooks the fundamental issues of governance and institutional design.
The success of the American experiment can be attributed, in part, to the fact that the American elite still identified as Englishmen. This perspective prevented them from blaming their problems on racial or religious differences, forcing them to engage in serious considerations about the nature of power. As a result, they instituted numerous checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power.
In South Asia and much of the decolonized world, we have repeatedly made the mistake of believing that we would be better off under the rule of someone from our own racial or religious background. This approach has led to a cycle of disillusionment and economic struggle, as it fails to address the underlying institutional issues that plague our societies.
However, there is a growing realization in Bangladesh that simply having a ruler from our own identity group is not enough. We must focus on institutional design and implement meaningful reforms to achieve lasting progress. The extent to which these reforms will be successfully implemented remains to be seen, but it is a crucial step in the right direction.
Thanks for sharing this profound reflection! I agree, the identity of the ruler does not guarantee the quality of the rule. What matters are the incentives, constraints, and values of the public institutions they govern with.
A very good point. Frederic Douglass once asked what the meaning of 4th of July was to a slave. One might also ask what the meaning of decolonization was to dalits or women or the various ethnic and religious minorities that were crushed by the bourgeoning nationalist movements of the 20th century; think of the Kurds, or even the Balochis in Pakistan. The traditional framing of nation states and cultures standing up against Western imperium is not sufficient on its own and must be animated by a universal spirit that binds all humanity
Quote:
"Among the most viral takes following Hamas’ October 7th attack on Israel was this one: “what did y'all think decolonization meant? vibes? papers? essays? losers.” The implication being, whatever the act—in this case, the butchery of innocent families—the fact of it being done in service to “decolonization” made it worthwhile. That logic is the product of unchecked ideology—not truth."
Do you have any proof that Hamas participated in the "butchery of innocent families"? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Or are you just parroting Israeli Hasbra propaganda lines for some unknown reason. There was no butchery by Hamas of any families. I know many Indians/Hindus have an unsavory affinity for Israel and go out of their way to seek Zionist approval. It seems the Indian Christians have similar proclivities. This claim of yours is patently false. The Israeli occupation forces gunships were given the Hannibal Directive and fire indiscriminately on their own population in a bid to ensure that Hamas could not escape with any prisoners. Are you trying to curry favor with the colonizers by making statements like this? Are you positioning yourself as a polite and acceptable "model activist" who won’t ruffle the feathers of the brutal settler colonial apartheid state?
Bro…they live-streamed themselves doing it…
You have links?
You can find them easily enough if you care to look.
This delusional thinking is how the Muslim Middle East traps itself in corruption and chaos. The problem with using the Algerian model on Israel is that it's not a colony. They will not flee but rather grind you into dust. The reciprocal logic of this thinking justifies the total defeat of the Palestinians. Personally, I don't believe in perfect justice but trying to make the best world for as many people as possible.
Yes, you are just peacemakers. 🙄
90% of the Jews migrated there fleeing violence. Half of them from Muslim world. Your lack of compassion is a source of dellusion. Basking in hatefulness you will reep what you sow.
No hate here, but I will say, Israel is not a Jewish state. I take Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro's position here. I think he presents a great case here. And the response to being a victim of genocide should not be to go and visit it on the others.
🥱
I am fortunate to not live in a conflict zone, but I try to settle my quarrels.
The best method is to not start quarrels. The Algerians were told the same. And according to the French, Algeria was not a colony either. They considered it a part of France. And Israel is an American vassal colony. They will be forced to abandon it. People who actually understand geopolitics know that this meme of "AIPAC" control of American politics is a mirage. Their influence and power vastly overstated. The recent constitutional assaults in the US are the result of hysterical panic they are not an expression of power. We are patient, we will see how things play out.
Yah, yah, yah, time to wake up. I hope that the Muslim world will stop making war on everybody, settle down and make peace.
I am not a fan of PostColonial Studies. Their epistemology is on shaky ground and the implications to society in general are terrible. I don’t think anything good can come from it.
I also find the anti-postcolonials who buy in the oppressor oppressed narrative hook line and sinker very perplexing. It is the same narrative that the colonizers used to sow divisions. It often follows the same key points: aryans were oppressors over dasyus, the same reference to purusha sukta, Buddha is a reformer who fought caste, caste for 2000 years, British legal system good. I mean come on! This is OK for someone starting to understand the history, but how long are we continuously going to believe this static picture of history? Everything can is constantly reevaluated with additional information, except for this narrative for the past 150 years?
I find the following missing aspects from this historical perspective: the genetic data about caste highlights ossification only around 500CE, a time of massive de-urbanization in India; Buddha was as much a casteist as a run of a mill fellow in 3rd century BCE; there were multiple “revolutions” in the form of Bhakti movement completely organic without any “enlightened westerner”. Peasants in the Europe and rest of the world were also treated poorly; the egalitarian movement of reformation actually thought of browns as sub-human.
History is obviously much more complex than any one telling, but I actually don't often see this particular history told—not to mention explicitly and with reference to modern discourse. I more often see Hindu nationalist retellings (as the scholars I've cited worry about) or ahistorical assumptions premised on faulty ideas like 'decolonization.'
If you're interested, I've actually addressed many of these historical details you note in my last few posts—I cite a genetic study tracing caste endogamy to 1,900 years ago (AJHG), note my displeasure with Buddha's moral reframing of caste (though it's unfair to label him casteist; he was a reformist at worst), and explain the paradox of Enlightenment-era moral progress alongside racism and slavery. You've overlooked Dhanda's quote in this article—I do mention pre-colonial anti-caste figures/movements, including the Bhakti movement.
https://dalitamericana.substack.com/p/the-banality-of-caste
https://dalitamericana.substack.com/p/how-does-moral-progress-happen
https://dalitamericana.substack.com/p/one-mans-moral-war
There is absolutely zero representation of any non-leftist and non-colonial historical perspective of India. The perspective you highlighted might be new *to you*, but not to people who have been following the then British now American Christian apologetic literature.
The decoloniality literature is the neo-Marxist and your rebuttal is straight neo-Christian. Each and every single point you highlighted (at least in this piece) is at least a 100 years old.
You need to update yourself on the latest genetics literature. The older theories are dubious at best and sinister at worst.
The real reason you don’t support decolonization is because you (a Christian) identify with colonizers yourself.
Of course you would hate Hindus be a victim to historical atrocities so you either paint Hindus (falsely in the case of Indian history) as aggressors against their own society? You have a white Christian savior complex and you’re not even white. Actually pathetic.
It's a neat article, but seeing multiple people in your comments speak your same language and run cover for Palestinian atrocities is a bit unsavory, they are speaking probably knowing full well that if Palestinians had not just this language of morality but also the means, there is no real telling where their atrocity would have end or really the cheers by these types of people.
People say Hamas doesn't represent Palestine or whatever, are they colonized by them? Seems that colonization is more or less another form of government imposed upon the loser in a conflict. Neutral at that
Who cares about being unsavory? It's a contest for power, Palestinians will leverage what they can, Israeli's will leverage what they can. There is no actual moral scoreboard, the strong do what they will, the weak do what they must. Of course both teams use apparent moral appeals to curry favor with their imperial support (USA, China, Iran, Saudi's, etc.), but that's still just power running all the way through.
If it's a contest for power, let there be more transparency, or neutrality. If it's a settlement through arms, that should be made clearer and ethical crusaders on either side should be given no intellectual cover, that's my issue. For example the piece above is sophisticated, but it's effect is the same.
You are entirely right, in what you are saying. The issue is the intellectual class is doing some orthogonal moral calculus for two groups who would genocide each other if they had the capability. The intellectual space, and the propaganda space should ideally be as separate as possible.
Whose interests are served by more transparency or neutrality?
Ideally it varies case by case, but our interests I would assume converge on truest facts. I am against academy as political advocacy group, it poisons.
This is such a good essay, and gave me so much to think about. I wonder if part of the problem of the “decolonization” narrative is the use of that word. It implies that the pre-colonial world order was the right one and that we need to go back to it. Maybe a better word would be autonomy or autonomy from oppression?
In a world where every country is autonomous and lacks an oppressing force, some of those countries become bad ones and become an oppressing force themselves, which might cause a neighboring country to intervene. But today they can intervene without colonizing. (See the world defending Ukraine without taking it over. We are trying to protect its autonomy, not “decolonize” it.)
Oppressing forces
Thank you for the discussion! It brings to mind this episode of a science/philosophy podcast on how pre-colonial nostalgia in India for times that never actually were can foster nationalism (something we are seeing worldwide): https://www.monkeydancepod.com/episodes/episode-15
I appreciate you bringing your analysis to its final point about profiting from "decolonization." Much to chew on!
What an interesting article, it clearly demonstrates how history is never as clear cut as we may like to think, colonialism was a brutal system, but brutality is often balanced with pockets of good, or as you show: conquerors to some may be liberators to others.
Oversimplification obscure the messy truth of the world. No people are absolutely good or evil. Good often comes with the bad.
Oppressing forces are internal as well as external. I lived through the Zimbabwe Gukarahundi in the early 1980s that took place after the long struggle against the white minority government resulted in black majority Independence. Over 20,000 people were murdered by the new black government because they belonged to a minority tribal group.
Even worse were the decades of anti-Tutsi pogroms in Rwanda to led to the 1994 genocide that flared up for several years after the original murder of somewhere between 880,000 and 1.2 million people.
People can be pretty barbaric even without outside colonization.
I'd argue that Dalit people are descended from the victims of a much, much older conquest. They were originally peoples, ancient Adivasi. Subjugation over centuries or even millennia was what turned them into castes, or in the British terminology, "outcaste" or "scheduled castes." Their lands were taken from them very long ago.
"For Dalits, the story is that colonialism—however egregious—was itself a respite from a yet crueler system of oppression and exploitation: Brahmanism."
The story of tradeoffs continues.
Whilst I agree that painting India’s pre-colonial era as ‘good’ and colonial is ‘bad’ is silly, I don’t think anyone earnestly believes that aside from strong Hindu nationalists. I think this argument mostly comes up when defenders of British colonial rule wanna say “Heyy well actually India was still bad before the British got there!!” It’s just a silly argument.
No one is arguing that the British invented caste, however through colonial technologies, like the census and electoral systems, they did institutionalise the caste system.
Also arguing that Christian missionaries came to India in good faith is laughable… most missionaries came to India with the civilising mission in mind. They held the view that all Indians were barbaric.
And as for the sati point, read Can the Subaltern Speak?, by Spivak. It’s literally decolonisation 101 so I’m shocked you’d say the campaign against sati as positive statement about the British/ point against decolonisation
To me, decolonisation may refer to an armed political movement, say FLN, or decolonising knowledge, say deconstructing the western gaze in history. Decolonisation movements aren’t always good or bad, they just are. This is what goes for India, despite breaking off Britain’s oppressive rule (which is was), and leaving Indians in more divisions than before (which they did) most people with a good understanding of Indian history do not argue that India’s decolonisation was amazing, in fact I would argue most think it was a shit show?
Decolonization was not a shit show in as much as it allowed for private companies to leverage more power outside of the British state at a time when the British imperial power was on the decline. Decolonization had become quite useful for entrenched powers just as colonialism had been in the past.
I was specifically speaking on the decolonial movement in India as it led to the partition that displaced and killed millions, and left two communities permanently fractured.
Overall my main point is that decolonialism cannot be characterised as good or bad, it just is. But if we can talk directly about India, I would argue that high elite politicians left an absolute mess behind.
The partition that displaced and killed millions, and left two communities permanently fractured was itself the result of an even earlier cultural-religious colonization project that included the Middle East, North Africa, South East Europe, the Iberian Peninsula, and as far east as China.
Decolonization is always a mess, it's a movement from order and institutional rule towards something divided and interstitial, and there are obvious incentives for doing so, that state of messiness is quite useful for those who can leverage accordingly. Again, neither good nor bad, some gain power, others lose it.
So you agree with me ?
Great piece, loved the message- shuddered at the Thomas Sowell mention (quite the buried trigger) but nice work