Moral Authority and Imperialism
Justification in the age of empire
A Means to an End
For a great portion of its history, the West has relied on “moral authority” to justify its expansion and actions abroad. This term carries with it many ambiguities, which were used to further various Western ambitions throughout the age of imperialism. For many Western European nations, the challenge was maintaining moral authority, while for those under colonial subjugation, the challenge lay in reclaiming fundamental aspects of moral authority, and subsequently their political and cultural freedom.
What is Moral Authority?
Before one can understand the paths taken to both maintain and reclaim moral authority, its vagaries must be explored. Some define the term as "a philosophical concept that should serve as a basis for, but is not in itself a rule, of written law. The moral authority and legitimacy of law can be based on metaphysics or religion, on nature, on some aspect of society, or on the individual. It may be referred to as a "higher law", involving right reason, which calls a person to the performance of their duties and restrains them from doing wrong."
The White Man's Burden
As evidenced by this definition, there exists much room for interpretation; leeway the West exploited to the fullest in its subjugation of regions during the age of mperialism. Through the rhetoric of empire and pseudo-science, many Western European nations managed to convince themselves and the rest of the “civilized” world that what they were doing with respect to colonization was not just beneficial, but absolutely necessary. Nowhere is this clearer than in Rudyard Kipling’s, “The White Man’s Burden”, written in 1899: “Take up the White Man’s burden — And reap his old reward: The blame of those ye better, the hate of those ye guard.”[1] This interesting line demonstrates a very important point within the context of Europeans' duty: Kipling argues that by bringing the colonized people under ‘protection’, and consequently ‘bettering’ them, Europeans and white Americans will gain only their ungrateful scorn.
A Widespread Phenomenon
This stance was reaffirmed by Heinrich von Treitschke, a German historian and history professor who lived during the 19th century: as he states, “The most important possession of a state, its be-all and end-all, is power. Power must justify itself by being applied for the greatest good of mankind. It is the highest moral duty of the state to increase its power. Only the truly great and powerful states ought to exist. Small states are unable to protect their subjects against external extremes; moreover, they are incapable of producing genuine patriotism or national pride and are sometimes incapable of culture in great dimensions.”[2] Under that ideology much of the non-Western world during the 19th and early 20th centuries was fair game for imperial pursuits.
Imperial Ambitions
With the imperial rhetoric of those like Kipling and von Treitschke backing their actions, the West began to branch out, subjugating nations and cultures throughout Africa, Asia, and much of the rest of the world. The practical means for doing so differed in each case, but a central method was overwhelming the various peoples with superior military might, and installing a puppet government. This was how Britain colonized India. Through their nearly total control over the Indian government, the British were able to maintain control of the nation and people for nearly a century. It was not until 1937 that the British government enacted the Government of India Act, which gave India the institutions of a self-governing state. Yet even after this bill passed, India was still not completely autonomous, as the Act still had a provision for a British executive arm. It was from this context that Mahatma Ghandi, one of the champions of twentieth-century freedom movements, would emerge.
Gandhi Position on Violence
For Gandhi, the imperial subjugation of the Indian people by the British was morally unjustifiable. This view not unique to him or any other Indian, but his methods for regaining the moral authority of his nation, and subsequently much of the non-Western world, were. Rather than accepting his plight, Gandhi became active in politics. Through diverse methods, he was able to reach a great amount of the population and spread his views regarding the moral injustices of much of the West. For him, any form of coercion or imposition on another person or nation was morally unacceptable: “I am an uncompromising opponent of violent methods even to serve the noblest of causes. Experience convinces me that permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence.”[3]
Moral Authority Regained
This was his main point throughout his campaign to remove the British from India and regain his conquered people’s moral authority. Non-violent protests were his way of demonstrating that it was the British who lacked moral authority. Atrocities like the notorious massacre by General Dyer of nearly 400 unarmed Indians at the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar gave more credibility to Gandhi’s arguments that the West had lost its moral authority, if indeed it had any to begin with. As he argues, “The movement of non-violent, non cooperation has nothing in common with the historical struggles for freedom in the West. It is not based on brute force or hatred. It does not aim at destroying the tyrant. It is a movement of self-purification. It therefore seeks to convert the tyrant.”[4] Through these methods, Gandhi was able to set a precedent from which other nations could regain their moral authority. His tenacity in revealing the injustices of the West cannot be understated, as his efforts effectively ended British colonial power during the postwar period.
[1] Bentley, Jeremy. Ziegler, Herbert. 2003. Traditions and Encounters, A Global Perspective on the Past: 937
[2] Andrea, Alfred. Overfield, James. 2005. The Human Record, Sources of Global History: 295.
[3] Thornton, John. Varenne, Susan. 1962. The Essential Gandhi: 174.
[4] Ibid., 174.
Gandhi
|
More in History
Latest Articles