Loubna El Amine, Partha Chatterjee & Lebanese Slapperjees

Prof. Loubna El Amine writes in the LRB-

In Nationalist Discourse and the Colonial World (1986), Partha Chatterjee looks for – and fails to find – a postcolonial nationalism distinct from the colonial ideas it had fought against.

Chatterjee was unaware that the first modern Nation State was the USA. It wasn't Imperial. Portugal had a huge Empire. But it wasn't modern. Japan became a modern Nation State within a generation. But its political ideas remained deeply Japanese. It is a different matter that all countries modify their Judicial and Legislative arrangements. Partly, this is because of mimetic effects. Thus the UK introduced a Supreme Court to come into conformity with European Law and Practice.

Chatterjee wrote-

All countries have no historical alternative but to either remain as they are or change in the same manner as their neighbors. Some change in an opposite manner to their neighbors. Generally, this ends badly and they have to revert to the straight and narrow path of Tardean emulation.

Chatterjee speaks of a 'world order'. Surely this was defined by the US and the USSR? Neither were 'colonial powers'. Both ensured that Europe was shorn of its colonial possessions. However, neither could enforce their diktat by force of arms- as America's debacle in Vietnam, or the Soviet debacle in Afghanistan- was to show. Some countries, it is true, copied their sensible neighbors and rose up. Others did not and turned into shitholes. But this had nothing to do with any 'World Order' or black helicopters or Aliens in Flying Saucers or shape-shifting Lizard People from Planet X.

Chatterjee thought only the West could look for and find stuff because of 'the hegemony of Western rationalism'.
Yet Japan was Eastern. It was doing better than many European countries. Singapore is Eastern. It is now ahead of the UK or Australia and, in PPP terms, better off than the US.
Rationalism is not Western or Eastern. Only Racists believe otherwise. As for 'hegemony'- the thing is about as real as 'good vibrations'.

Chatterjee was saying, 'if the East tries to look for and find stuff in a non-Western way, it wouldn't be able to get out of bed coz 'thematically', the East is shit as Niradh Babu showed in his 'Autobiography of an unknown Indian'. However, if it uses a Western way of looking for and finding its way out of bed, then it won't be Eastern at all which is 'problematic'. Boo hoo, whatever are brown Babus supposed to do?'

 Chatterjee thinks that chatting- or discourse, as he calls it- has to change such that Chatterjees clearly demarcate Colonial discourse from Nationalist discourse. But, simply by speaking Bengali, not English, Bengalis could do this easily enough. Suppose they used an English idea in a Bengali sentence. Then, they could hire a guy to slap them till they gave up this evil habit. Thus, the creation of a caste of Slapperjees would have solved the big problem Chatterjee identifies. Why could Chatterjee not see this? The answer is that he did not understand that discourse changes when slapping occurs. Might is what creates 'Hegemony'. But, for Might to remain Mighty it has to do Sciencey stuff and find ways to pay for tech. That's 'Rationality'. That's how Modernity wins.

The plain fact is, killing and chasing away the Colonial or the Imperial forces is what creates Modern Nation States. George Washington showed this to the Americans long before Partha turned up there to talk bollocks.


India, it is true, had a different trajectory. Once the Raj could not pay its way, India became independent. 'Free money' and PL480 food shipments from Amrika enabled a pretense of Socialism to be kept up. But then LBJ demanded his pound of flesh vis a vis Vietnam. So India had to have a 'Green Revolution' and allow its people to start producing stuff- though, no doubt, this scandalized Chatterjee chatter-boxes in their Ivy League fox-holes.

Chatterjee came from a Hindu comprador class which was enriching itself off the backs of mainly Muslim peasants in East Bengal. This meant the nationalism of his class cut its own financial throat and led to its ethnic cleansing from the East. There is a good reason why they were so ineffectual. Naturally, it was Hindus from Hindu majority regions who would lead the Independence struggle. Chatterjee focuses on Gandhi and Nehru. But both acquired political power by going to jail for long periods. Their ideology wasn't important. Gandhi could raise money because of his caste and where he was from. Nehru could rule the country because he was a Hindi speaker of the right caste. That's it. That's the whole story.

Curtis Smith, reviewing Chatterjee's book, writes-

There were plenty of crackpots 'decrying the modern' as well as a lot of engineers and Doctors and Economists who wanted a 'powerful modern nation-state'. But they didn't put in the jail time or, if they did, they were from the wrong caste or region. Chatterjee does not mention Ambedkar- who had Doctorates in Econ from Columbia and the LSE- and who is the only 'Founding Father' whose intellect we still respect- but Chatterjee's schematics would not allow him to do so. Why? Ambedkar was attacking untouchability which does not exist in the West. It is pointless to speak of 'Western rationalism' when discussing a problem which the West has never known. But this is the case for all the idiographic problems any Nation State is confronted with. There are no off the peg solutions. Ideology and 'discourse' are no use. You have to roll up your sleeves and do piece-meal 'mechanism design' and then see what works and whether the thing can be scaled up.

Loubna is from Lebanon- a deeply divided country which has its present shape because the French wanted a 'Christian' client state in the Region. But the French weren't there long- less than 30 years. It remained what it was before except in so far as the commercial genius of its own people had scope to reshape its Economy. Had Britain, not France, been the mandatory power, it would be like Jordan. Why? The Brits were not as stupid as the French. They believed in the Rule of Law. But it is folly to think they imposed their culture on anybody. Chatterjees continued to wear dhotis and eat sandesh though they had been British compradors for two hundred years. They did, however, show a great appetite for meretricious French scholarship. But this was because they were blathershites.

Lebanon is unfortunately situated. Unlike Syria, which is equally diverse, it never had a strongman. It is possible that, if it hadn't been the site of a proxy war, it would have prospered simply because of the talent and hard work of its people.

But does the accident of geography, the cruel role of geopolitics, have anything to do with 'colonial categories'? Loubna, who teaches ancient Chinese Political Philosophy at North Western, thinks so. For heaven's sake, why?

The postcolonial world is structurally bound by colonial categories, limited in its ability to move beyond them.

What does she mean? I suppose she is railing against lines drawn on a map by White guys a hundred years ago. But those lines don't seem to have meant shit to the Israelis. Maps can be redrawn. Lots of people in the region keep trying to do so. If lines on maps remain it is because such lines are actually quite useful- though of course, they can be ignored if that is more convenient.

The fact of the matter is that Europe had mandates in the region for only about twenty or thirty years. They first had to adapt to the lay of the land and by the time they got the hang of things, they had to leave.

Why is Loubna suggesting otherwise? The answer is that Lebanon is turning into a shithole. Macron looks better than any of its own politicians. Apparently 50,000 people have signed a petition asking for France to come back and take over the running of the country. Niradh Babu, it will be remembered, ended his 'Autobiography of a self-hating Indian' by piteously whining for Whitey- any sort of Whitey- to come back and rule the bestial Bengalis. But nobody was tempted. You have to say your country is rich and well run before anyone offers to take it off your hands.

Before the explosion, the only practical option available to Lebanon was a structural adjustment programme. There is perhaps now a second option on the table, involving one version or another of French tutelage. But there is also potentially a third, revealed by those now cleaning the debris, and vowing to fight for the lives lost. The mass protests of last October may have petered out, but the revolutionary spirit behind them endures. May it succeed against all odds.

In other words, the Lebanese will rebuild their country. They will get rid of stupid rules about what Religion the President or the PM or the Speaker has to be. They will copy other successful trading nations. They will innovate. What they won't do is quote Partha Chatterjee. Otherwise, the 'cunning of history' will turn them into a caste of Slapperjees to prevent their country catching up with West Bengal in terms of per capita income.