Showing posts with label Sanghera. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sanghera. Show all posts

Friday, 2 February 2024

Satnam Sanghera decolonizing his own colon

Nandini Das, a Professor of Literature, reviews Satnam Sanghera's stupid new book in the Guardian.  


In the early 1730s, a new subscription craze transformed Georgian Britain.

The only craze which worried people back then was the Gin craze.  

Every year, for five guineas, “Bartram’s box” would delight plant collectors and gardeners with seeds from among a hundred different North American species. The supply chain had a Pennsylvanian Quaker, John Bartram, at one end and another Quaker, English merchant Peter Collinson, at the other.

Bartram was also supplying seeds to France, Germany and even distant Russia. So what? How is it relevant if he was a Quaker?  

The overpriced phlox and rudbeckia we now buy from garden centres in seasonal attempts to brighten up our outdoor spaces, the rhododendrons and magnolias that arrest our attention across the drabbest of streets, were all introduced to England thanks to their initiative.

Nonsense! There were a variety of routes by which such seeds were acquired. The rhododendron- the national flower of Nepal- was introduced through Gibraltar in 1763. The magnolia first appeared in England in 1687 though another strain was brought in by Mark Catesby in 1730.  

Collinson and Bartram’s subscriber list included dukes and earls who vied with each other to beautify their estates, but the pair were equally well connected beyond the movers and shakers of high society.

Dukes and Earls spent a lot of time buying seeds and digging holes in the ground for their proper reception. It was not the case that their Estate managers procured such items and saw to their planting and watering by labourers. 

Collinson was a member of the Royal Society and exchanged letters with the collector Hans Sloane and the botanist Carl Linnaeus.

How very strange! A botanist writes to another botanist! A still largely agricultural country has plenty of horticulturists some of whom are members of the Royal Society. This is extremely sinister!  

Bartram would later become one of the founding members of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, alongside Benjamin Franklin.

Which was bizarre because he lived in Calcutta- right?  

When the combination of that impeccable social and intellectual network got Bartram an appointment as botanist to King George III in 1765,

Collinson and Franklin lobbied the King who appointed Bartram Royal Botanist for North America with a stipend of fifty pounds a year.  

his plants would also find a home in the Royal Gardens at Kew.

he was also made a member of the Swedish Royal Society. His plants found homes all over Europe.  

Sathnam Sanghera’s Empireworld tells the story of Bartram and Kew as part of a nuanced, complicated account of the British empire’s impact on the world as we know it,

Seeds would have been sent to Europe by botanical surveys or merchants employed for that task even if there had been no settler colonialism. Spain and Portugal had already enabled all sorts of new food and cash crops to spread across the globe.  

and it is a story that is strikingly, remarkably alive to the contradictions inherent in its telling.

There are no contradictions or 'nuances' in a simple matter of merchants creating a demand for commodities which they then supply.  

For example, the technologies that facilitated the transporting of the plants and seeds

sailing ships. But sailing ships had existed for thousands of years! 

that changed the English landscape

which had been changed even more when England became a big exporter of wool 

and accelerated modern plant science

which existed in countries without Empires. Linnaeus was Swedish.  

also drove the large-scale cultivation of indigo, sugar cane, and rubber, and thereby determined the destinies of countless thousands of enslaved and indentured labourers in British-owned plantations across the world.

If they hadn't been British owned, they would have been French or Dutch or Spanish or indigenously owned. The Arabs employed plenty of slaves on clove plantations in Zanzibar. But then the Zanj rebellion of black slaves in Southern Iraq occurred in the Ninth Century!

And these enterprises, leading as they did to the kind of large-scale ecological destruction

there was none at that time. The use of fossil fuels is a different story but that occurred much later.  

whose effects are still felt today, also created a need for conservation movements and environmental activism.

The environmental activism that was required back then involved killing beasts who wanted to eat you.  

Neither global communication, nor global cuisines, would be the same without any of this.

Yes they would. All that was required was trade. Imperialism didn't matter in the slightest. The fact is our diet has continued to change in the seven decades since European Imperialism gave up the ghost. I've given up rice and am now eating quinoa. I want to kill myself.  

And it’s not just the world of plants that was affected by Britain’s colonial ambition.

Many plants were mercilessly killed by Brigadier Dyer at Jallianwallah bagh. Sabzi Singh Aalu-Gobi has written a moving account of various non-violent satyagrahas against British tyranny carried out by a Babul tree near his Nannee's house in Jallandhar. Sadly, the said tree was not being given ticket for Assembly Election by those fucking cunts who are running Kangress. Thus, the tree got drunk and crashed into a car being driven by Sabzi Singh. Fucking cunts who are running the Courts were so cruel that they suspended Sabziji's driving licence and fined him Rs 50. Atrocities like this carried out by British Imperialists like Pratap Singh Kairon (real name Peter Smith-Callaghan) caused Sabzi Singh to migrate to Youkay. Sadly, Hindu bastid- Rish Sunak- is now ruling. Whole country has gone to the dogs what with the stink of curry everywhere! I tell you, before we start getting rid of foreign plants, we must first deport all those smelly Hindoooo bastids. They are legacy of Imperialism! 

Writing in another chapter that investigates the extraordinary global prominence of British charities and non-governmental organisations,

which has to do with the fact that the Brits were rich and soft hearted 

Sanghera identifies the same dynamics at work.

Oxfam is trying to colonize you! Wake up sheeple! RSPCA will turn you into a catamite for the Royal Pleasure of Charles Rex! All is fault of Rishi Sunak. Would a Sikh Prime Minister permit such atrocities?  

Take hunting, for example. Its deep entanglement with ideas of English imperial masculinity

whereas in India only transvestites went for Shikar- right?  

was directly responsible for driving various animal species to the brink of extinction around the world.

Very true. Woolly mammoth was roaming around peacefully fifty thousand years ago. Then English imperialists persuaded the Neandertals to kill and eat those mammoths.  

But it was equally the catalyst for the various charities that emerged in response, and for the codification of countless environmental protections.

But that happened after the Raj ended. The WWF dates from 1961.  

“It’s all true, but the opposite is also true”, as Sanghera puts it.

Nothing Sanghera says is true or even meaningful. He is a cretin.  

History is not a balance sheet: sometimes it requires that we hold multiple truths in our mind simultaneously.

History is a Journal each of whose entries can give rise to a debit or a credit for any particular account. We may hold multiple incompossible beliefs in our minds simultaneously, but a belief is not a truth. 

Nations – and individuals – can do great evil at the same time as doing good.

Only if those they are doing evil too are too stupid or cowardly to stop it happening.  

And that’s where it gets complicated: sometimes doing what’s considered evil can lead to good, and vice versa.

No. Doing evil leads to evil being done. It is a different matter that a benefit received by a party may burgeon such that ultimately all survivors are better off. But that doesn't change the fact that evil was done.  

The raking light that Sanghera throws across the contradictions at the heart of the story of empire doesn’t come without some trepidation for the author.

If the British Empire was bad, then people like me and Sanghera who are British only because that Empire existed, should be sent packing. 

Empireworld is in some ways a sequel to his previous book, Empireland, where the discussion of imperialism’s role in the making of Britain’s past and present attracted a substantial backlash that included public and personal attacks.

From people like me who thought Sanghera was a whiny little shit. Don't study rubbish at Uni. Do an MBA like Rishi. Make something of yourself rather than continually play the race card.  

Sanghera deals with this backlash at the beginning of his first chapter, and he returns to it a few times subsequently.

He is a very precious and special little flower. Sadly, it is an imported flower. Put him in a Bartram box and mail him to Narendra Modi.  

But his larger response is to spell out the complexity of historical assessment with painstaking clarity, showing, repeatedly, the deep entwinement of the positive and negative contributions of empire.

He shows nothing at all.  Britain needed a kick ass Navy to protect itself. But Navies cost money. So, to pay for the Navy, Britain engaged in oceanic trade which in turn meant it went in for both settler colonialism and, at a later point, diversified into tax-farming in India and providing Public Goods as the paramount power.  

The propagation of British legal and political frameworks is a case in point.

No it isn't. Polities which were cohesive and economically viable could thrive regardless of their legal or political framework. Those which weren't cohesive or economically viable tended to fail.  

In present-day Mauritius, Nigeria, and India, many of the most restrictive and divisive of state mechanisms, aimed at imposing and retaining the power of certain social groups at the cost of others, have deep colonial roots.

Only because they had deeper pre-colonial roots.  

It is a credit to Empireworld that it does not turn away from that uncomfortable truth.

It eagerly devours that turd. 

Consider the following extract from it.

Introduction: Spot the Colonial Inheritance

To do so would involve spotting the pre-Colonial inheritance.  

There is nowhere on earth that crackles with the atmosphere of British empire like New Delhi.

Nonsense! It was only built after it had become clear that Britain would have to gradually transfer power. That's why its architectural style is 'Indo-Saracenic'. The VeeTee terminal is Victorian and triumphalist. Lutyen's wife, daughter of a Viceroy, was however a Theosophist who believed in a Tambram Universal Messiah.  

The British may have fled the subcontinent many decades ago, but you can still feel the influence of the largest empire in human history in the city which was designated India’s capital by the British, in the place of Calcutta (now Kolkata), in 1931.

Government House in Kolkata is English. Rashtrapati Bhawan isn't.  

You can sense it in the streets, the uptight diagonals and preternaturally tidy but scorched patches of lawn

No you can't. Coming to London from New Delhi, as I did, what struck me was the narrowness of the streets and the gemutlich cosiness of the place. But the Lutyen's Delhi I left was still rather empty. There was little motor traffic on the broad boulevards. After the Asian Games, the City really took off. 

sitting in contrast to the chaos of Old Delhi,

or the chaos of Daryaganj.  

with its winding, narrow roads, some accessible only on foot. You can divine it in Parliament House which, designed by the British architects Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker in the classical style, mostly ignores Indian architecture, except for the occasional nod to its context in its decoration.

India has a new Parliament building. It must be said, it was far from obvious back when the old building was being designed, that the Central Legislature would have much power. It seemed likely that the Princes would remain while the Provinces would be autonomous. Indeed, this was the upshot of the 1935 Act. Parliament was an alien idea and had an alien architecture because it would be a place where things just went round in a circle. It would not be sovereign like Westminster. 

You can almost smell it around the bungalows that Indians invented as a form but the British embraced as a colonial ideal,

Nope. The PWD simply put up a lot of them because they were cheap to construct with local labour. Their occupants were saving up to buy a nice suburban villa back home.  

scattering them on tree-lined roads in what is known as the Lutyens Bungalow Zone. It’s a 7,000-acre area originally established to house government officials, the colonnaded verandas offering imperial administrators somewhere to cool down, somewhere to take refreshments and somewhere to maintain, in the paranoid colonial way, surveillance.

This is misleading. The Princes were invited to build palaces for themselves. Leading lawyers and Legislators built their own mansions. Prosperous contractors and merchants too got in on the act and there was some speculative building.

The mood even seeps into Old Delhi, where the Maidens Hotel,

built for the Coronation Durbar 

my home for half a week in the middle of a series of international research trips tracing the legacies of British imperialism, doesn’t seem to have got the memo that empire ended at all.

Nonsense! It is peddling itself as a 'heritage hotel'.  

Established in 1903 by an Englishman, but now run by the Indian Oberoi chain of luxury properties, its website talks proudly about how it ‘offers a journey back in time’. The welcome letter in my room waxes lyrical about how the hotel retains its ‘original 19th century colonial charm and architecture’ (I’ve seen British colonialism described in all sorts of ways, but never ‘charming’).

This is because Grievance Studies insists that the British Raj involved Viceroy Sahib personally sodomizing every single coolie in the country. Such behaviour was not charming at all. It was brusque, it was rude. It was deeply undignified. 

One of the hotel restaurants is called the Curzon Room, after one of the viceroys who exercised authority in India on behalf of the British sovereign.

I lived on a road everybody called Curzon Road even thought Gorinmint had renamed it Kasturba Gandhi ki Bakri ki marg. Connaught Place became Rajiv ki gandhi chaddi chowk.  

And it all goes down curiously well with a clientele that consists of a mix of Indian and European guests, one of its many rave online reviews declaring that it is ‘one of the nicest hotels . . . Brings you back to the colonial British time.’

When Hindus and Sikhs flourished in Peshawar and Lahore.  

It’s a surreal place

No. It was an expensive place 

to base myself for my tour examining the international influence of British empire, not least because there are also few places on earth, in the twenty-first century, more committed to the task of decolonization than New and Old Delhi, or what, when combined, India calls its National Capital Territory.

There is nothing to decolonize in the twenty-first century. Why be committed to any such thing? Oh. This mad fucker means Tibet.  

I’m not just thinking here of Coronation Park, the 52-acre plot which was once the site of the grandest imperial spectacles, including the Delhi Durbars but has in recent decades become the dumping ground for the unwanted statues of British imperialists, and now, having been cleaned up, is home to only a handful of viceroys and monarchs.

Why think of it at all? No Delhiwallah does.  

I’m thinking of Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s claim in 2014 that India had been troubled by ‘1200 years of slave mentality’ (he combined British rule with preceding periods of Mughal/Muslim rule in his definition of colonialism),

this cretin doesn't get that Modi was referring to the Dynasty's rule.  

and of his efforts to delete all things colonial since.

Fuck Colonial, it is 'Congress mukht Bharat' that he wants to see.  

These decolonization efforts have included redeveloping the capital’s Parliament in a $1.8 billion initiative, replacing the building opened by the British in 1927 with one dreamed up by Indian architect Bimal Patel.

Modi isn't a fool. He knows India doesn't need any decolonizing. The new Parliament is his attempt to put his mark on Delhi. It now looks as though he will be re-elected with a bigger majority. His party is now the default National party.  

The two Parliament buildings face each other, but on the day I visit the smog caused by Delhi’s intense pollution is such that you can barely make out the edges of one building when standing next to the other. New Parliament House is not quite complete, but there has already been an opening ceremony, when Modi unveiled a 28-foot-tall statue of the militant Indian independence figure Subhas Chandra Bose, near the India Gate memorial – where the statue of the British monarch George V once stood.

Nobody gives a shit about George V. Modi is glorifying Bose because he hopes to displace Mamta in West Bengal.  

Bose, who was popularly known as Netaji, and whose defiance of British empire extended to seeking alliances with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, is something of an obsession for Modi’s governing, Hindu nationalist party, the BJP.

Because they were foolish enough to think they could take on Mamta. What they didn't get is that to defeat the TMC, you have to be actually, physically, beat the fuck out of their goons. Since the BJP can't protect its people from being knifed or gangraped by Mamta's thugs, they will lose seats in West Bengal in the upcoming general election.  

I’m in Delhi on the very holiday Modi created in tribute to Bose’s birthday: so-called Bravery Day, also known as Parakram Diwas,

there is no holiday on this date.  

which is being marked by, among other things, a terrifying fly-past of fighter jets that makes this part of the world feel like it’s being invaded all over again.

Perhaps this nutter mistook Republic Day for Parakram Diwas.  


As a tribute to Bose, Modi – who is reportedly keen to rename India ‘Bharat’ (the Hindi name for the country) on anti-colonial grounds

Bharat is an alternative name mentioned in the Constitution  

– has also rebranded three islands of the Andaman and Nicobar archipelago, previously named after imperial figures and once serving as a colonial penal colony, and this impulse to relabel things in the name of decolonization is hardly new.
in 2023, 21 of the largest unnamed islands of Andaman & Nicobar Islands were named after the 21 Param Vir Chakra awardees
Since independence, the cities of Bombay, Bangalore and Calcutta have been given more indigenous names – Mumbai, Bengaluru and Kolkata respectively. But efforts have intensified. The ceremonial avenue that links the two Secretariat buildings in central New Delhi

They are across the road from each other. The avenue in question links the President's mansion to the National Stadium.  

was once called Kingsway (and, in translation, as Rajpath), but is now known as Kartavya Path (the Hindi word for ‘duty’), the Prime Minister’s website declaring that the renaming displays a ‘shift to public ownership and empowerment’.

And has nothing to do with decolonization. Modi was saying 'unlike the Dynasty, we in the BJP don't think of ourselves as Kings. We are dutiful servants of the public.'  

Elsewhere, Modi has unveiled a new ensign for the Indian Navy in place of the St George’s Cross (described casually in news reports as ‘a sign of slavery’);

Australia and New Zealand got rid of the George Cross on their naval ensigns at the end of the Sixties. Atal's government did introduce a new ensign but it was difficult to distinguish from the sky and the sea and so it was retired. Modi's government got it right.  

14 the hymn ‘Abide With Me’, traditionally played to conclude Republic Day celebrations, has been replaced with the patriotic song ‘Aye Mere Watan Ke Logon’; Indian musical instruments including the sitar and tabla have been introduced for Independence Day ceremonies; and the government launched the ‘Har Ghar Tiranga’ campaign in 2022, to mark seventy-five years of India’s independence, encouraging Indians to put up the national flag (the Tiranga, meaning ‘three-coloured’) in celebration. A campaign which means that, as I walk around in 2023, there appear to be more national flags per square foot of the capital than there are posters featuring Modi’s face.

Modi has done a lot to make his party synonymous with the patriotism. The Opposition sought to combat this by creating a coalition called INDIA. Sadly, it soon fell apart. Anyway, all this has nothing to do with the British Empire. The BJP is hinting that the Dynasty is European and pro-Muslim whereas the vast majority of Indian citizens are Hindus.  

The government has also declared war on the English language, colonial use of English having, in the words of Robert Young, ‘alienated colonized people from themselves’ by devaluing their own languages.

If Sanghera started miaowing like a cat he would end up devaluing cat language.  

In October 2022, officials in BJP-ruled Maharashtra

the BJP is in coalition with the Shinde wing of the Shiv Sena 

were forbidden to say ‘hello’ when greeting the public – they were instructed to say ‘Vande Mataram’ instead or ‘I bow to thee, oh motherland’.

This was optional. Congress too said 'hello' should be done away with. I pointed out many years ago that 'Hello' is Christian term. The Lord's Prayer states 'Our Father who does Art in Heaven/ Hello be thy name'.  

And, following a 2020 move to allow practitioners of ayurveda, the traditional Indian system of medicine, to perform surgery (to the dismay of many medics),

Postgrad Ayurvedic students were required to take two courses on certain types of surgery. But these were procedures not generally performed by allopathic surgeons.  

the Madhya Pradesh state government has declared its intention to offer medical degrees in Hindi.

A good idea because it means students might actually grasp what they are learning rather than regurgitating it parrot fashion.  

Speaking to the Guardian, Dr Rajan Sharma, former head of the Indian Medical Council, described the move as ‘regressive, backward-looking, pathetic, deplorable’. He continued: ‘Where are the Hindi speaking teachers to teach medicine?

They are Hindi mother tongue Doctors.  Rajan Sharma himself speaks shuddh Hindi. I believe he is from Haryana. No doubt, his teachers explained things in Hindi while writing in English on the blackboard. He fears that the prestige of the Medical degree will fall if Doctors are perceived as not knowing English. 

I am not even going to talk about how good the translations are going to be because that implies one accepts the policy which I don’t. The policy will be a failure.’

It will succeed if done properly. 

But the ultimate point I’m making here is not that decolonization is futile.

It happened long ago. What Sanghera is commenting on is strategic actions of a partisan, political, type. The ruling party is trying to show that the opposition is retarded and reactionary or, as with Rahul, retarded and only one quarter Hindu by blood.  

Some of these initiatives, and those elsewhere around the globe, are crucial steps in restoring the self-respect and agency of the formerly colonized.

Fuck off! Self-respect and agency are what you get when your income rises and you can buy more cool shiny stuff.  

Sharma’s fury echoes through my mind as I continue to walk around India’s capital,

Sharma was representing the class interest of Indian Doctors. He naturally does not want all sorts of mickey mouse Medical Colleges giving licenses to rustic retards.  

Googling information within the confines of my international roaming data allocation. I understand why he objects and can see why other people might also have problems with this aspect of India’s decolonization project.

 Sharma was born after Independence. Decolonization happened long ago. What he objects to is politicians monkeying with the standards and practices of his profession. 

After all, there are factors besides British colonialism which make English today the world’s most spoken language, with approximately 1.5 billion speaking it as a first or second language: the enduring popularity of Friends, the dominance of English on the internet, American English in general.

English became the language par excellence of global commerce and scientific research.  

Also, what happens amid this decolonization to the many English words, not least ‘bungalow’ and ‘veranda’, which derive from Indian languages?

Many of these words may be subjected to sexual abuse at the hands of Hindutva fanatics. Just the other day I stepped onto my veranda and found nothing but grass under my feet. My Estate Agent informed me that my house has no veranda but, because I am an Indian living in Engyland, it must be the case that I have a veranda. What could have happened to it? The answer is that Rishi Sunak must have sexually molested it. That is why it is hiding somewhere and weeping piteously.  

And what about the practical challenge of removing English from a society which sprinkles it in almost every advert, every TV/Bollywood script, every other conversation, and provides linguistic common ground for India’s speakers of at least 121 languages?

This practical challenge can only be met if millions of Hindoooos join the RSS and sexually molest any porches which are seeking to displace verandas in India. 

To see it through, India would need to disown writers like Rohinton Mistry

who is Canadian.  

and Arundhati Roy,

who declared that she was seceding from India decades ago 

who happen to be among the best on the planet at writing in English.

Fuck off! They are shit.  

It would need to take on the popularity of English-language books across India: walk or drive around long enough and someone will try to flog you a pirated copy of Harry Potter or Malcolm Gladwell.

They should concentrate on flogging Sanghera.  

It would need to undo its intensely competitive English-language newspaper market, in which the Times of India enjoys a readership of some 15 million, and the Hindu has some 6 million readers.

India's population is 1.4 billion.  

It would need somehow to erase the fondness across India for classic writers such as Dickens and Shakespeare,

both of whom can be read in vernacular translation 

and then it would have to ban the intense study of English literature, which, as Gauri Viswanathan has pointed out, has a longer academic history in India than in Britain.

Viswanathan was lying. Chancery English was taught in Britain long before the first British schools were set up in India.  

But Sharma, and other critics of the Indian decolonization mission, need to pace their anger.

Sharma is welcome to attack Hindi language instruction if it is sub-par. Let us see if Madhya Pradesh can produce text-books which gain his imprimatur.  

For if Modi continues with or even accelerates his initiative, which seems to have proved popular so far, there will be bigger things to get exercised about.

Modi's aim is 'Congress mukht Bharat'. Incidentally, the INC was set up by a White ICS officer- albeit a vegetarian Vedantist.  

Such was the depth and length of British imperial involvement in the Indian subcontinent that ongoing decolonization could reshape India in profound ways.

Someone should reshape this cretin in profound ways.  

Not least, the nation’s built infrastructure would have to be rethought.

Why stop there? Why not suggest that India's geographical location would need to be rethought? Instead of being bordered by the Indian Ocean why should it not relocate to the Pacific or Atlantic?  

Banning new Western-style apartments and office blocks might be relatively achievable

Don't be silly.  

and even admirable; it turns out they’re not particularly suited to the climate, Time reporting recently that ‘many Indian architects [have] abandoned the vernacular traditions’ – such as ‘the earthen walls and shady verandas of the humid south, and the thick insulating walls and intricate window shades of the hot dry northwest’ – only to find that Western-style buildings struggle to cope so well ‘with the weather extremes of different regions’ in India.

India is overpopulated. It's a case of high-rise or homelessness.  

But removing other colonial features of the built environment could be rather more disruptive. Take, for instance, the wide streets that would have to go

there is plenty of encroachment on those 'wide streets'.  

because British colonialists introduced them

where? Only in the Cantonment and 'Civil Lines' both of which might be at some distance from the 'Native town'.  

for reasons of public health (to ‘ventilate the towns and blow away smells and disease’), temperature regulation (though if anything they ‘proved to be environmentally unsuited to hot climates’) and security (to ‘preserve colonial power through surveillance’).

Does this cretin think that the vast majority of urban Indians lived in the fucking Cantonment? In India, surveillance was done by beggars or bhishtis. Those considered a threat had a spy planted among their domestic servants. Broad avenues were bad for surveillance because a beggar or a bhishti would stick out like a sore thumb. 

Digging them up would be quite a task, as would be removing Delhi’s postboxes and the associated system of mail, the empire having introduced the imperial postal service to India in 1854.

Nonsense! All Indian rulers had a Postal service and the East India Company followed suit in the second half of the eighteenth century. They made letter carrying a monopoly in the 1837. The 1854 reforms were carried out under the EIC. God alone knows what this cretin is babbling about. 

However, electronic communication has probably done for them anyway, and it was very much Indians who made it work, in a country where few towns even had street names and a dozen different languages might be spoken in one town.

This was irrelevant. The professional letter carrier knew who received letters and delivered them properly no matter what address had been written down. Ghalib frequently complained that his correspondents would ascribe bizarre or disreputable localities as his place of residence. Still the letter carrier knew that a missive addressed to 'Old drunkard who lives on Piss street at the junction of Shit avenue' was meant for the acclaimed poet. 

In turn, even these challenges would be dwarfed by the task of curing India of its obsession with cricket, a palpably imperial spectacle

a rustic children's game from the Weald. It wasn't imperial at all. Polo- okay. The thing was associated with the Mongols and the Turks. There was an Imperial Cricket Conference but India was only admitted to it in 1926 by which time it was obvious that the Raj was on its last legs.  

which, in India, is only marginally less popular than breathing. As Brian Stoddart explains, ‘cricket was considered the main vehicle for transferring the appropriate British moral code from the messengers of empire to the local populations.

Nonsense! Conversion to Christianity might do so as might training to be a barrister or attending a Public School or British University. But cricket could be played by savages. 

Colonial governors were especially important in emphasising cricket as a ritual demonstration of British behaviour, standards, and moral codes both public and private.’

Sadly, Australians played it. Remember the Bodyline controversy?  Face it. No Ozzie can be a gentleman. On the other hand Clive James could look quite fetching in a push-up bra. 

Imperialists were so successful that the Bollywood film industry plans its releases around the cricketing calendar; gambling on cricket makes up the vast majority of sports betting in the country; India’s national cricket team has many of the world’s top players; and the Indian Premier League is the most lucrative domestic league on the planet.

India uses money. Guess who else uses money? British people! This means, if Indians want to decolonize themselves they must give up money. The same is true of farting.   

And as if that wasn’t enough imperial heritage to face up to, Modi could, if he wanted, take on the popularity of other sports introduced by the British, from horse racing (‘the sport of kings, as it was known widely, was inevitably among the first of sporting activities to be introduced to new colonial situations, partly because of the availability of horses, partly because of its traditional association with the English landed gentry, and partly because of its established gambling tradition’)

This silly man doesn't get that horse racing began when horse riding began.  

to croquet (‘genteel games like croquet were to be found in most outposts of empire along with indoor activities such as billiards, board games, and different forms of card playing’),

Guess what else was found in most outposts of empire? Masturbation! Indians must give up wanking to decolonize themselves 

tennis (the Colonial Secretary Lord Milner once came to visit Palestine and, after taking tea with the Governor of Hebron and his guests, played tennis with them; the ball boys were two Arab convicts who had been excused from prison for the occasion, but had to fulfil their duties on court while in leg-irons)

When Lord Milner visited Cairo, he took a shit. Egyptians gave up defecation and thus successfully decolonized themselves.  

and football (Sir Richard Turnbull, a governor of Aden, once remarked that ‘when the British empire finally sank beneath the waves of history, it would leave behind it only two monuments: one was the game of Association Football, the other was the expression “Fuck off ”’).

The Houthis are certainly telling the Royal Navy to fuck the fucking fuck off.  


Let’s face it, Modi would have less on his hands if he attempted to delete dal, or honking in traffic, or religion, from Indian culture.

Sanghera would have less on his hands if he attempted to delete stupid shit from his brain. But then he couldn't write books.  

But the ultimate point I’m making here is not that decolonization is futile.

The cunt is repeating himself.  

Some of these initiatives, and those elsewhere around the globe, are crucial steps in restoring the self-respect and agency of the formerly colonized.

No they aren't. Getting rich is all that matters.  

In India, they clearly mean a great deal to lots of people: outside New Parliament House, I’m approached by a homeless man who I assume is going to request money, but he instead enquires where I come from and then asks, with pride, ‘Do you have anything like this in your country?’, indicating the new Parliament.

Sanghera looks Indian. Perhaps the homeless dude, who clearly wanted to cornhole Sanghera, was asking what happened to the proposal to build a new building for the British Parliament. I'm kidding. He expected Sanghera to start talking about Big Ben at which point the homeless dude would whip out his pecker and say I've got a bigger ben for you bhaiyya. Kindly bend over.' 

I have to admit that we probably don’t: while the Indians have rapidly put up this building, plans to refurbish the disintegrating Houses of Parliament in London are the subject of interminable argument. My ultimate point is that decolonization,

this is the third time he has mentioned his ultimate point. Perhaps the homeless dude was able to shove his point up Sanghera and thus the boy's brains have been buggered.  

which is growing in popularity as an idea across India, across the former British empire and in Britain itself, can only ever be tokenistic.

It can't be anything at all because decolonization happened long ago.  

Having spent years tracing the legacies of British imperialism in Britain, and having now spent several more years tracing the legacies of imperialism across the globe, I realize that

you should have learnt a bit of History before wasting your time so egregiously 

the British empire’s influence upon the quarter of the planet it occupied, and its gravitational influence upon the world outside it, has been profound.

Why didn't you just ask your daddy or mummy? They would have explained to you that the British Raj profoundly affected the lives of your grand-parents and great grand-parents. One result was the fact that you were born in Britain.  

British imperialism is baked into our world and, frankly, it would be easier to take the ghee out of the masala omelettes I’ve become addicted to eating for breakfast in India.

only because substituting dalda or olive oil for ghee is very very fucking easy. On the other hand, British imperialism disappeared long ago. It wasn't really 'baked in' to anything. It is a different matter that England once had considerable influence on the US and other places which subsequently became independent. But that was because, as happened in India, the Brits could adapt and innovate on the basis of what pre-existed their arrival. At one time, there was a small class of Anglophile Indians who did mimic their masters. But they now have other mimetic targets. But so do British people- even if they have names like Sunak or Sanghera.  

Friday, 28 April 2023

Satia's Sanghera- decolonizing the colon

Franz Fanon was from Martinique- which is not a colony but a part of the Republic of France and thus of the EU.

Fanon spent some time in Algeria which was settled by French people. The indigenous Arab majority, however, weren't too happy with these invaders and, I suppose, were glad to see the back of them.

Priya Satya and Sathnam Singh Sanghera are of Indian heritage. British Rule in India was nothing like French rule in Algeria or, more sadly for us Babus, Marinique's participation in the EU. 

Yet Priya, writing of Sathnam's new book in the Nation, begins her review by mentioning Fanon. For heavens sake, why? India, which was never a settler colony, had been independent for a decade by the time Fanon got to Algeria. 

For anti-colonial thinkers of the last century, decolonization was not a mere transfer of power. It was about reparation, including repair of the self.

Not as far as India or Kenya or Egypt of any other actual African of Asian country was concerned. The indigenous people wanted the interlopers out. Also they wanted to move into their nice shiny bungalows and offices. Still, for economic reason, they might tolerate the continued presence of some Europeans. But there was zero need to 'repair the self'. Getting back to the ancestral religion was a different matter. Repentance or 'metanoia' may have been required. But giving up Gin and Tonic and reverting to traditional garb, did not involve any great spiritual repair or reparation. The thing was salutary. 

It is good to change your habits- especially as you get older. There were plenty of Europeans who thought they should give up their Citified ways and an addiction to cocaine and move back to the countryside so as to grow their own turnips.  At any rate, that is what I was told by such Europeans as I was acquainted with before I took to dropping in on them so as to read out my latest translation from Dante, Goethe, or Sir Mix-a-Lot. 

“Decolonization is the veritable creation of new men,” wrote Frantz Fanon in The Wretched of the Earth.

Fuck would he have known about it? The fellow was as French as onion soup. God alone knows how he was supposed to cure Arabic speaking lunatics. 

I suppose, ex-slaves or the descendants of serfs might have divided loyalties or what Du Bois called 'Double Consciousness'  or may have experienced cognitive dissonance. But Sikhs- Sanghera is a Jat Sikh- experienced nothing of the sort. The Brits had encouraged their religion and, in Sikh regiments, British officers encouraged and led Sikh forms of worship. Moreover, Lahore University, unlike Calcutta University, was 'Orientalist' from the first- i.e. greater stress was placed on learning Persian and Sanskrit- while British policy was favourable to the development of Punjabi language literature in the Gurumukhi script though administrative records continued to be maintained in Nastaliq. 

As Jean-Paul Sartre made clear in a preface to the book, decolonization was equally required of former colonizers: “Let’s take a good look at ourselves, if we have the courage, and let’s see what has become of us.”

The Whites in Algeria hated Sartre and tried to kill him. The Algerian conflict was nothing like anything seen in the British Empire. Sartre was supposed to be some sort of Leftist philosopher. His country was pretty shitty and had seen plenty of collaboration with the Nazis. The French did need to take a good look at themselves and become a little less shitty. This also involved telling their Philosophy professors they were stupid and worthless. Fanon, poor fellow, was bucking for promotion by sucking up to these nutters. Foucault had a good Psychiatrist who did some original work on lithium salts. The Maoists forced the fellow out of Medicine. But he had a good prose style- i.e. could write vacuous bollocks- and thus got in to the French Academy.  

But the “new humanism” envisioned by these thinkers could not flourish, as first the Cold War,

which was in full swing when Fanon & Sartre were writing stupid shite. Indeed, the Americans were backing nutters like Sartre (John Ford hired him to do a screenplay for a Freud bio-pic), Derrida, Foucault etc. precisely because they were stupid and useless and thus bound to embarrass or run afoul the mainstream French Communist party.  

BTW, India was ahead of France in that women had the vote and Communists were free to organise and fight elections. Incidentally, Ranajit Guha, representing the Indian Communist Party, had visited Paris as part of Alexander Shelepin (the future KGB chief who was believed to have gotten rid of Kruschev) World Democratic Youth Conference for fucking to death not just Democracy, not just Youth, but the whole fucking World. 

Guha was just 5 years younger than Shelepin. But then, M.N Roy had been Lenin's man in China, which is why the guy ran away to the safety of a brief spell in a British Indian jail cell. Sarojini Naidu's elder brother- Chatto- wasn't so lucky. He either starved to death in Moscow or died in a Gulag. 

My point is, India was ahead of France as far as Lefty Lunacy was concerned. True maybe Communism might not arrive in Peking by way of Calcutta but- thanks to Rajni Palme Dutt and the Gaekwad giving 5000 quid to the Labor Party in 1918- it was not wholly absurd to suggest that Communism might come to Paris by way of Saigon and Algiers, or that Dutch tulips might flame red thanks to a virus imported from Djakarta. 

Satia and Sanghera- being second generation shitheads too stupid to become either Rishi Sunak or Vivek Ramaswamy- must try to glom onto a genuine grievance their Muslim brothers and sisters might have- viz Bush/Blair's brutal war of revenge which under Obama Mama just turned into stupid-greedy, self-defeating, shit. 

and then the so-called War on Terror,

which failed almost immediately. By 2004, Iran was emerging as the major beneficiary. By 2014 it was triumphalist. Iran boasted of controlling four ancient capitals- Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus and Sana. This wasn't too far from the truth. 

The plain fact is that the financial crash at the end of Dubya's reign put paid to any notion that the West would shape, and profit by, the 'New World Order' (or 'Rules Based Comity of Nations'). Obama and the Arab Spring was an Indian Summer of hope before wintry clouds drew in.  

hindered the emancipation of decolonizing nations,

They were decolonized long ago. Fanon's Algerian heroes briefly flirted with radicalism in the Sixties but soon turned into a kleptocratic junta which, in the Nineties, crushed the Islamists.  

renewing the commitment to the ideas of Western civilizational superiority that had long upheld Western empire.

Portugal kept its Empire longest. Nobody thought it had civilisational superiority precisely because everybody admitted that its people were very good and decent and just lovely to get along with.

In recent years, however, calls to reckon with the West’s imperial past have regained a sense of urgency.

Fuck off! Nobody gives a shit. The UK is run by a guy called Rishi Sunak. A brash young man named Vivek Ramaswamy is running for President of America.  Both are very very fucking rich. But they didn't study worthless shite at their very expensive Colleges. 

The United States, Britain, and other nations in Europe are now the scene of insistent questioning of the public glorification of slavers and imperial “heroes,” the provenance of museum collections, and the inequalities dating from the colonial era that are shaping the impact of the climate crisis.

The thing is a fucking nuisance. Still, if it permits Governments to get rid of History from School curriculums, good can come out of bad. 

But as the British journalist Sathnam Sanghera drives home in his new book, Empireland, widespread ignorance about the past

such as that which he himself displays. Don't forget Kwarteng's PhD was in shite of this sort. He managed to fuck up the British economy more quickly than any other Chancellor. Clearly, studying History makes you thicker than shit.  

has made coming to terms with it exceedingly difficult. Sanghera sardonically proposes an “Empire Day 2.0”—an update to the pro-empire holiday that was part of the British calendar from 1902 to 1958—to promote awareness about an imperial past that continues to elude British consciousness, despite the innumerable quotidian ways in which it infuses the country’s language, economics, food, state institutions, demography (including Sanghera’s very existence as a Sikh Briton), and more.

Sanghera supports compulsory repatriation of New Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. They were only able to settle in Britain because of the Empire which was very evil. Let us rid ourselves of this horrible reminder of those disgusting darkies who suckered us into ruling over them.  BTW, I iz not bleck. It's just that I don't wash regular coz, according to a little known provision in Magna Carta, only Super-Models are allowed to lick the dirt of my lily-white skin.

Confronting this past is crucial to contending constructively with the United Kingdom’s public history, racism, relations with Europe, pandemic management, and more.

No it isn't. Rishi Sunak's family contended constructively with whatever was negative about UK history. Follow that example by all means. Don't bother with Sanghera. Affirmative action can only go so far. The guy has nothing interesting to say.

Sanghera describes his own journey in making sense of the imperial past, which began in 2019 when he visited Punjab—where his family is from—while making a documentary for the centenary of the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre in Amritsar, where British forces

Indian soldiers commanded by a British soldier born in India whose family owned a famous brewery. Brigadier Dyer went on to lead Indian soldiers to victory over the Afghans a short while later. He was made an honorary Sikh by the priests of the Golden Temple. Sadly, he forcibly enrolled the entire Amritsar bar as special constables and forced them to do work they thought degrading. That's why their fellow lawyers across the length and breadth of India went crazy.  

killed hundreds of Indians gathered in a city park. Visiting the Jallianwala Bagh memorial, Sanghera learns the true extent of the brutality and injustice of the 1919 massacre and its place in a longer history of British violence toward and racial humiliation of Punjabis

there was no such history. Some Punjabis had killed or molested Whites and Dyer took revenge. This worked. The struggle shifted to one against not Whites but the Udasin Mahants. Olivier, as Secretary of State, came down on the side of the Akalis. It was the Arya Samajis whom the British Governor considered mutinous.  

—a past entirely left out of his high school history curriculum.

The thing is not left out of Indian school curriculums. But Sanghera's parents didn't send him home for his education. They paid a lot of money for him to study in England.

In any case, what are a few hundred deaths compared to the million Sikhs that the Akhal Takht claims were killed during Partition? The Khalistan insurgency may have had a death toll of at least 30,000. The Brits were the best thing that happened to the Sikhs- at least in the opinion of some of their own leaders and intellectuals.  

What he knew of the British Empire had, if anything, left him feeling vaguely proud as a Sikh—a community he’d long believed had done well under it.

This is perfectly true. 

The Koh-i-Noor diamond, which had once belonged to the Sikh king,

who took it from an Afghan King who had swallowed it and was forced to shit it out 

was now among the crown jewels as a symbol of “great British-Sikh relations,” he’d thought, but the scales fall when he learns that the diamond had been seized by the East India Company and that its return has been demanded ever since.

The scales fell from my eyes when I discovered that Iyerland- which I believed the Brits had specially created so as to house drunken Iyers like myself- had been run over by half Marathi leprechauns named Varadkar. 

Sanghera reflects on his miseducation as he discovers the reality of British rule in Punjab

which was very good compared to what went before or what came after- at least from the Sikh point of view 

and realizes how colonial racial notions haunt even the psyche of formerly colonized people—including those now living in the metropole.

Very true. His parents fled General Dyer and came to settle in Wolverhampton because there are no White peeps there- innit? What haunts the psyche of young Punjabis is the prospect of getting a visa to Canada or Yurop or Amrika. On the other hand, now Amritpal Singh has been arrested, perhaps Sanghera will put on turban and take over the leadership of Waris Punjab de.  

Sanghera offers his book as an audit on British historical education, revealing the carelessness with which British children are taught their country’s history.

Us Brits don't want to know about shitty colonial wars. Just tell us about how the Europeans, headed by a bloke named Caesar, invaded Britain till Nigel Farage rose up and told him to fuck the fuck off back to Brussels.  

Even the world wars are whitewashed, with history lessons ignoring the enormous contributions of Black and brown people to the British war efforts.

They contributed less than a quarter to the war effort. Frankly, the Imperial game was not worth the candle from the Defense point of view.  

For Sanghera, this exclusion from episodes central to “our national story” was his education’s “most serious and painful omission.”

He should have been taught about how British workers had previously killed or otherwise ejected immigrants who were prepared to work for low wages. Come to think of it, the Brits were one of the first countries to expel the Jews. My point is, an accurate account of English history would have had White kids signing up with the BNP. 

At a reunion for his grade school, Wolverhampton Grammar, he finds himself newly conscious of the “imperial tone” of Britain’s public schools and how they celebrate empire

rather than telling wogs and nig-nogs to fuck off back where they came from 

while avoiding teaching about it. “Education,” he concludes, “can be a tool of colonialism.”

This man is a tool right enough. He may appear educated but he is as thick as shit.  Still, his parents spent good money to get him into a posh school so maybe he is thick in an upper-class way- like Kwarteng, or BoJo. Shit. Sunak too is probably thick. There goes my pension!

It may surprise some that a Briton today needs to prove

to earn a little money and get affirmative action 

the imperial roots of things like Britain’s racial diversity and racism.

Britain should have clamped down on coloured immigration in 1947. Apparently, it was the Governors of West Indian colonies who insisted on no Visa barriers for the 'Windrush' generation so that emigration serve as a 'safety valve'.  

But Sanghera shows that such knowledge has been deliberately excised

by Leftists and anti-Racists 

from British society, compelling an adult Sikh Briton to set sail to find the walls of the Truman Show world that has shaped his existence.

This is crazy shit. I personally know at least four Sikh Leftist intellectuals in the Wolverhampton area. The father of a friend of mine who was high up in Indian intelligence met one such for dinner. He wanted to know the truth about whether his Bedi ancestors had sided with the Udasin mahants who had made Brig. Dyer an honorary Sikh. The scholarly gentleman quoted chapter and verse to explain why this had been the case and, as a bonus, gave an insight into Amarinder Singh's maternal family background. Later, the Intelligence man explained to his son that this sort of information was not available in India. It wasn't just that the Brits had burned some archives. The fact is our own people had destroyed a lot of files. Leftist Sikhs in the UK pieced these things together. Why? They wanted a proper theory of 'class formation' or some such Commie drivel. Incidentally, one of the best Punjabi poets of that time had actually read Hegel. My point is that Sanghera represents a steep fall in the quality of Sikh intellectuals in this country though some of the people I am thinking of had actually worked in factories, done construction, etc. But that was why their brains weren't stuffed with shit. It was always instructive for a chap influenced by the Cambridge school of history to sit with these dignified, white bearded, men to get a bottom-up perspective. I suppose, as Punjab turned into a shit-show under AFSPA, that 'subaltern' view embittered the twilight years of the Sikh Leftist intellectual. 

“The idea that black and brown people are aliens who arrived without permission, and with no link to Britain, to abuse British hospitality” has been, Sanghera writes, “the defining political narrative” of his lifetime, even as he endured routine “Paki-bashing” in 1970s and ’80s Wolverhampton, once the constituency of perhaps the most notoriously racist politician in recent British history: Enoch Powell, whose dreams of becoming viceroy of India were shattered with the country’s independence in 1947.

Kids who go to a posh school in a place like Wolverhampton are going to get bashed up one way or another.  

Empireland is not a lecturing or hectoring book but rather a generously shared journey of discovery.

It is a sound enough careerist move. But Sanghera will be saddled with having to write Introductions to more and more retarded narratives penned by refugees from yet more noisome shitholes.  

Sanghera is a journalist in the Orwellian mold, inviting readers to witness his experiment on himself as an example of the conclusions that a decent, acerbically witty, public-school-educated Brit might arrive at after wading through the evidence of what Britain owes to empire. (Orwell himself appears frequently in the book, as a critic of empire in its heyday.)

Orwell was either a police-spy or a genuine Lefty. Sanghera is a self-promoter. Had he studied something worthwhile at Uni, he'd be a billionaire by now.

A chapter on colonial migration to Britain is followed by an account of the massive scale of white migration out of Britain—a net exporter of people through the 1980s.

These figures are known to be misleading.  

Sanghera contrasts Britons’ “sense of…entitlement” to move freely about the world and resist assimilation with their resentment toward immigrants to Britain.

Very true. Would Sikhs like Muslims to move back to East Punjab? Perhaps. What about such Hindus as they chased away? The truth is the Sikhs want Rohingyas to come and settle among them. But only if they are LGBTQ. Nothing less will do. 

Using the first-person here (“our tendency as travelers,” “our racism”), he gallantly implicates himself in such habits and mentalities—an assertion of belonging, at whatever cost, that demonstrates what it is to take responsibility for the culture and deeds of one’s nation, however marginal one’s ties to them.

Indeed. I often say to my pal, King Charlie, 'Us Brits are too goshdarned pale innit? This spooks the nigh-nogs who think we might be ghosts. Tell you what, lets do black-face for the coronation. Rishi will be thrilled.'  

Sanghera grew up wanting “to be more British” than the rest of his family.

I wanted to be more Chinese than the rest of my family. Bruce Lee was big back then.  

He is explicit about his love of country, rejecting Paul Gilroy’s description of British national identity as “brittle and empty” and proclaiming his pride in its achievements.

Fucking over Hitler or Napoleon or the Spanish fucking Armada. The Danes were okay. They invented the Ham omelette. 

He validates those moved by Boris Johnson’s 2016 speech glorifying “British soft power,” while at the same time compelling reflection on what it means to “be British.”

Being British means leaving reflection to mirrors or other shiny objects.  

For Fanon, decolonization depended on moving “from national consciousness to political and social consciousness,”

which is why his island is still part of France. The locals were smart enough to see they'd be way better off as part of the EU.  

from rediscovering national culture to creating it by collectively constructing a new future.

But the future will be new even if don't construct shit. All we need to do is to stop repairing stuff or else smash a statue or two just to move things along.  

Sanghera calls for something similar in urging Britons to face up to uncomfortable facts in order “to navigate a path forward” and “work out…who we want to be.”

We don't want to be this sad loser. We want to be Rishi Sunak. Oh. You've been reading my diary. All right! I want to be Priti Patel and wear stiletto heels! Happy now? 

Expressions of patriotism are perhaps also a necessary safeguard against the accusations of “anti-Britishness” inevitably lobbed at those proffering critical views of Britain’s past.

Very true. Priti might try to bite this fellow's face off. Gujju females can be very fierce you know. 

By reminding his readers of the long tradition of British dissent about empire—Victorian

Edwardian. Victoria died before the Younghusband expedition 

outrage at the looting of Tibet, for instance—Sanghera is able to frame the return of that loot as perfectly British and also dashes cold water on the argument that we can’t judge colonial activities by today’s very different standards. For good measure, he facetiously throws in a long footnote that fulfills the obligatory demand that nonwhite Britons express gratitude for all that Britain has given them.

How come nobody made any such obligatory demand of me? Is it coz Tamils are darker than Sikhs? Fuck you Whitey! Fuck you very much! 

Observing how his education had made him view his Indian heritage through patronizing Western eyes,

Actually, it was his Daddy and Mummy moving to Youkay which caused him to have such eyes.  

Sanghera recalls the story of Duleep Singh, the abducted Sikh boy king who was exiled to England and coercively Anglicized after the British conquered Punjab.

He married an Abyssinian alcoholic after converting to Christianity.  

Singh later reeducated himself and tried, belatedly, to revive the Sikh Empire.

So did I. Whiskey can do that to you.  

Sanghera recognizes that he is similarly “making an effort to decolonize myself”—present tense.

Try detox first. If that doesn't work, try an exorcism. Only if that fails should you decolonize yourself by granting independence to your arse so it can make lots of money shitting out books about decolonizing the colon.  

It is difficult to “review” such a personal journey, one that seems to continue the inventory of the self that Sanghera began with The Boy With the Topknot, his earlier memoir about growing up Sikh in Wolverhampton. Empireland, after all, is not intended for professional historians like me but rather for those who don’t already know that the horror story of the Black Hole of Calcutta—the story of the crowded dungeon where dozens of British prisoners suffocated to death that long served to justify the British conquest of Bengal in 1757—is unreliable.

What justified the conquest of Bengal was that it was as easy as pie and very very fucking profitable. On the other hand, it isn't true that the Black Hole of Calcutta is Ranajit Guha's anus. He lives in Vienna. 

Indeed, while scholars will find Sanghera’s pattern here somewhat nerve-wracking—first taking seriously the inaccurate claims typically invoked to deny the realities or the importance of colonialism, then showing how they don’t stand up to scrutiny—he is speaking to a lay audience that has absorbed pieties and fictions about the empire from everywhere rather than facts from today’s actual historical experts.

Some woke intellectuals did create A level papers in Empire History but few students took the bait.  On the other hand, West Indians certainly had grave cause for complaint if their ancestors had been victims of the slave trade. Nothing similar can be said about India. As Disraeli pointed out, the place hadn't really been conquered. The Brits just supplied a service for a fee. 


But Empireland does offer a case study in the transformative effects of a self-guided tour of scholarship on the empire.

Priya means 'Is Sardarji ka bara bajh gaya- he should have studied History properly at Uni. Instead he just opening books at random and now has gone totally doolally.  

Sanghera dives headfirst into an ocean of dissertations, journal articles, and books from academic presses, citing a roll call of major scholars in the field, albeit with some notable omissions. The historian Kim Wagner

an odd choice. Punjabis think there was an agent provocateur involved. Don't forget that back in the Twenties and Thirties, there were influential families who claimed to have triggered the massacre (suggesting they could do it again) so as to restore the 'smack of firm government'. BTW, elderly Punjabis used the word 'Rowlatt' to mean disorder and confusion. But then, Ghaddar had and even worse meaning.  

guides him in Amritsar and the art historian Alice Procter

again an odd choice. Still, the earlier generation of curators tended to embarrass the fuck out of plebeians like me by assuming we must be descended from some Raja or Dewan with a similar surname. Also a lot of them were homos- at least that was my assumption.

in museums, but it’s unclear whether anyone has similarly guided his reading. And so, though Sanghera learns about everything from the origins of Britain’s ownership of Manhattan to the genocide of Tasmanians, he arrives at some odd conclusions about the literature itself, such as that “very little about British empire…is certain or knowable”—a claim belied by the rest of his book.

Perhaps this is the native shrewdness of the Sikh asserting itself. The fact is nothing in Punjabi politics is as it seems. There is always another side to the story.  But that is also why Punjabis are a spiritual and moral people. Material reality is deceptive. Spiritual Truth is irrefragable. 

It’s not that our knowledge about the British Empire is uncertain, but that a grasp of historiography is essential to navigating writing about it.

No. You don't have to be able to write in a certain style to be able to separate what is propaganda from what is truth. Kipling- a great lover of the Punjab- made this point forcefully.  

Much of the existing literature was “born imperial”—written by the empire’s scholar-administrators and boosters—as I demonstrated in my book Time’s Monster.

But James Mill wasn't a 'scholar-administrator'. He compiled a book and got a job with John Company.  The primary sources for historians are administrative archives, but they predate Imperialism properly so called. 

It was scholarship invested in supporting imperial aims, often verging on propaganda, to assuage continual doubt about the enterprise

No. Initially, writers wanted to show there was money to be made in a certain place. Later on, once the Flag had followed trade, there were auditor's reports. Sometimes a loss making region was retained for a a strategic or defensive purpose. But, over all, the thing had to cover its costs or else paramountcy became merely cosmetic or notional. Portuguese rule in large parts of Africa had that quality but there were also parts of India which officials were careful to leave well alone. 

—explaining devastating violence in India, for instance, as part of a plan of eventual uplift.

Only because 'uplift' meant more trade and a better return on capital.  

Moreover, its lasting influence has depended on the destruction of compromising official records, as Sanghera himself recognizes.

Not really. The one thing Indians know about official records is that they were filled with lies.  IPS officers knew that well enough. As for the Heaven Born ICS Magistrate, they would frequently boast that they never looked at CID files and would hear no gossip about such matters at the Club. 

In recent years, historians have gone to great lengths to revise this faulty, contrived view of the British Empire. It matters who writes history and which sources and methods they use. Yet despite a wealth of alternative sources, Sanghera often quotes, frustratingly, from works that he knows have been debunked

by credentialized cretins who wrote bunkum 

(e.g., Jan Morris’s glorifying Pax Britannica trilogy from the 1960s and ’70s). He takes at face value a claim about the “Sikh hatred for Muslims” in the Indian Uprising of 1857 in Lawrence James’s Raj, a 1998 pro-empire narrative that was based on British sources.

Delhi's Muslims were obliged to take it at face value more particularly after Sikhs very kindly explained things to them before slitting their throats. Still, there were Sikh noblemen who owned property in Delhi and they protected their tenants even if they were Muslim.  

Scientists have disproved “race science,” but when pseudoscientific racial misconceptions persist, we don’t say the science is uncertain.

We say that our current Structural Causal Model is incomplete or tentative in certain respects. This does mean that there is uncertainty as to whether a particular data set is being currently misinterpreted.  

Likewise, historical knowledge about the British Empire isn’t uncertain because of a 2003 popular book written by a historian of finance

Niall Ferguson. Finance was fundamental to the Empire. What some racist wrote didn't matter at all.  

who didn’t consult the vast literature on the regions and peoples that lived under it and who explicitly sought to offer “lessons for…the United States as it stands on the brink of a new era of imperial power.”

Okay. That's hilarious. The Iraq quagmire did line a few well connected pockets but it was a disaster for which we will continue to pay a very high price for decades. I'm not saying the occupation of Iraq couldn't have paid for itself. But you'd have had to disintermediate the neo-cons and the evangelicals and...urm... every fucking American blathershite except there were British and French and German blathershites who were even more demented.  

Sanghera stresses that history is argument, but there are more and less accurate arguments.

Nope. There are Structural Causal Models. Arguments are second order and imperative or non-informative if based on assumed, not measured, parameters.  

To suggest that making historical claims “is almost always a matter of opinion” devalues the careful scholarship that allowed Sanghera to assemble his book’s own quite clear conclusions.

Screw careful scholarship. We have become a lot better at building and testing Models. Just point us to data-sets. If we can make money out of the thing here and now, then maybe someone might be interested in our arguments. If Kwarteng had learned something useful from his Econ PhD, he'd still be Chancellor. 

The portrait of an unfathomable literature does, however, play effectively to Britain’s “anti-intellectual” culture, allowing Sanghera to make his case on the very same commonsense grounds on which the Conservative MPs of the so-called “Common Sense Group” oppose any reckoning with the empire. He offers his assessments as those that any reasonable person (that very English legal standard) encountering an imposing literature might reach.

It is common sense, that people from New Commonwealth countries who came to England and began earning well above the average MUST have received benefits from English rule. Why not tax them at a higher rate so as to make reparation payments to those the Empire harmed? Race is a costly to disguise signal- i.e. scope for evasion is low. Sadly, this means the most talented will fuck off if they aren't already non-doms.  

Autodidacticism has always been important to anti-colonialism, given the complicity of educational institutions in empire.

History teachers used to row over to the West Indies to whip slaves during the Summer Vac.  

Fanon and Gandhi engaged in intense study and self-examination, as did the Punjabi revolutionary Bhagat Singh, who read copiously right up to his execution in 1931.

Because Netflix hadn't been invented yet.  But even if it had, the fact remains that Fanon's natal place is still part of France. His study and self-examination were useless. Neither Gandhi nor Bhagat Singh moved the clock on Independence. Indeed, Gandhi probably delayed it. So what why mention them now? They were self-publicists- sure- and Bhagat Singh is a romantic hero but, in his own eyes, so was Savarkar.  

Sanghera shows that rigorous independent reading (presumably enabled by institutional access to scholarly literature) produces a fairly solid understanding of imperial history, apart from a few stumbles arising from the undue deference he gives to less reliable works.

Sanghera has written self-serving shit of the 'me poor brown boy- boo hoo!' variety. Priya has written nonsense. They are well matched.  


Avoiding such stumbles would require a guided tour. When Sanghera concludes‚ citing P.J. Marshall’s 1976 book East Indian Fortunes as well as remarks by a researcher at the Adam Smith Institute (a neoliberal think tank), that scholarly opinion is “divided” on whether empire mattered in Britain’s industrial revolution, one wishes that a mentor had been there to nudge him toward more recent scholarly works, such as Maxine Berg’s Luxury and Pleasure in Eighteenth-Century Britain or my own Empire of Guns (on Sanghera’s home region, the Black Country)—or toward the crucial genre of the scholarly book review.

Such work is tendentious. The plain fact is that the industrial revolution would have occurred even if Dutch ships carried British exports. What about French ships? Then, there would have been no United Kingdom.  

Among serious scholars, there’s meaningful disagreement about the diverse ways that empire mattered in the industrial revolution, but not whether it did.

It didn't. The Belgian industrial revolution- kickstarted by two Brits- shows this. Essentially, if real wages had risen too much in the North, then people from there would have shifted to some similar area and industrialization would have proceeded there. This was the reason that though people read William Cobbett, they knew that it wasn't possible to turn back the clock to Merrie England. Suppress industry at home and industrialists go work for some Continental magnate or go pollute some Edenic stretch of the new world. Sadly, this would mean that the skilled workman too would go to where technology was progressing fastest. Merrie England would be stuck with inbred nitwits.  


Without such a guide, Sanghera is liable to make too much of a fact like “some of the tax revenue” collected by the colonial government “went to Indian schools,” counting it against the claim that the British drained Indian wealth. But this meager instance of public expenditure was often the result of Indian movements pressing an otherwise uninterested colonial government.

The colonial government had no objection to Indians paying a cess and thus gaining schools. Most Indians, however, wanted nothing to do with edumication. We all strive to have our own sub-caste classed as 'Educationally Backward'.  

Once we consider that indigenous governments might have done more (Baroda, one of the “princely states” that the British ruled indirectly through local potentates, spent much more on education),

because that was what the Gaekwad wanted. He also gave 5000 quid to the Labour Party in 1918. No doubt the Tory Viceroy had indirectly ruled that this should be done. 

it’s difficult to chalk up such expenditures as a net gain for Indians—especially if colonial education aimed to make them docile subjects.

Why stop there? Why not suggest that Whitey's education is designed to cause Black dicks to shrink? Also it is making darker skinned women lose the razor sharp teeth they used to have in their voracious vaginas. Thus the only reason you see so many White peeps all over the place in Amrika Yurop is coz coloured women haven't bitten off their heads with their vagina dentata. 

Wake up sheeple! Don't you get that Edumication is a trick Whitey be using to enslave you and turn you into good little Professors? Wouldn't you rather have a ginormous dick or a twat which can bite people's heads off?  

It is difficult to overestimate the value of mentorship in the study of history:

If you are paying more than about twenty pence for it, you are being swindled. 

Sanghera’s account of the profound costs of an impoverished historical education

which is zero. Kwarteng's PhD in stupid shit cost the UK billions.  

appears in the United States at a time of the systematic gutting of social science and humanistic learning.

Wait till Vivek becomes President.  

Still, even unguided, Sanghera arrives at the sturdy conclusion that Britain derived substantial material benefits from its empire

because sensible countries receive substantial material benefits from stuff that they do 

(assembling an especially excellent rebuttal to imperial apologists’ desperate gesturing at “India’s railways”).

Got to say, Indians turned out to be shit at heavy engineering. Marshall was right. Indian entrepreneurs were of poor quality. But, as Visvevarayya knew, the bottleneck re. indigenous engineering and technological manpower had been removed by the mid-Thirties. If we'd had sensible leaders like Fazli Husain and Lala Harkishen Lal and the Nawab of Khatri and Nariman in Bombay  (the Justice party in Madras was sensible enough) Indian could have had ten percent catch up growth for two decades more particularly because of the War.

Time and again, he demonstrates the clarity that comes with acquiring more than “a superficial understanding of imperial history.” It is reassuring, as a scholar, to learn both that the literature is sound on the whole and that our role as teachers is important.

Teachers are needed so lads can graduate from writing 'Boo hoo! I'm brown' to 'Dear Whitey, do you have to be so fucking White? Have you tried dying yourself with woad? Or would that be too Tory? '.  

At times, the determined neutrality of Empireland allows Sanghera to clinch the reasonable-person argument: Whether you believe that Britain’s relations with its colonies were good or bad, it’s clear that “brown people are here because” Britain had colonies.

Few 'brown people' would be here if real wages weren't higher than back home. You'd probably have the same number of Indian billionaires in Mayfair- but the Tandoori restaurants would be run by enterprising Albanians. Seriously, they make a good curry.  

But often, this studied neutrality results in contradiction. Despite chronicling Victorian dissent about colonialism, Sanghera, in a fit of fairness of mind, defends the canard that “You can’t apply modern ethics to the past.”

Or to the present because modern ethics is twisted shit about not pushing a fat man out of the path of a run-away trolley.  

Despite his astute skepticism of the balance-sheet approach to empire, he nevertheless attempts to “weigh up” its legacies. After proclaiming that reading history as “a series of events that instill pride and shame [is] inane,”

though lots of Sikhs read their history in that way and have very successful careers in the military before starting up their own business. 

he ends by affirming his pride in the empire as “the biggest thing that ever happened to us [and] the world.”

Yet, that's not how Brits actually feel. Defeating the Armada- okay. Dunkirk- fair enough. The Battle of Britain- now you're talking! Nobody except Niradh Babu gave a shit about the Battle of Plassey.  

Attachment to the idea of descending from something that mattered on a massive scale is perhaps understandable, but by this logic, Germans might also express pride in that big thing that happened to them, whatever the destruction it caused. It might be better to simply see history (like the Germans, actually) as a means of understanding our humanity.

Coz if we don't see history that way we might misunderstand our humanity and try to live like giraffes.  

A zeal for “balance” also leads Sanghera to hasty reproach of some advocates for change. He rebukes an activist’s suggestion that the presence in the Tory cabinet of several prominent British Asians whose families emigrated from East Africa may be rooted in the role of British Asians as “subcolonial agents,” describing it as an attempt to ascribe individuals’ political views to “ethnicity.”

There were plenty of Africans employed in the Colonies. They tended to be very good at their jobs and quick to spread new techniques for growing cash crops. The problem was that the terms of trade tended to fall- this is the 'immeserizing growth' theory. 

Anyway, Kwarteng was from Ghana and Zahawi is Kurdish Iraqi.  

But this is an argument about their history, not their ethnicity, akin to Sanghera’s own explication of the historical roots of white Britons’ racism. The peppering of criticism of campaigners for change recalls Orwell’s efforts to disarm readers against his call for socialism by assuring them of his shared distaste for vegetarians, pacifists, feminists—the “woke army” of his time.

Is Sanghera calling for Socialism? If not why compare him to Orwell- who, let's face it, wrote rather well.  

Certainly, the culture war around the subject of empire has made it difficult to express curiosity or admit ignorance and thus engage in the learning essential to getting past that past. But it’s only comparable to “children fighting in a playground,” as Sanghera calls it, if we mean a situation in which one kid bravely speaking the truth is being bullied and silenced by another kid many times his size (in terms of institutional power and resources) who insists that he is actually very small and has never been that powerful. Sadly, steering this middle path hasn’t protected Sanghera from torrents of abuse, including death threats.

OMG! I was that paragon of parrhesia in the playground explaining to the bullies that their daddy put their pee pee in their Mummies chee chee place and that's how babies are born. Sadly, I got a lot of death threats and torrents of abuse from their parents until I was finally sacked from my position as Vice Principal. 


For many anti-colonial thinkers, autodidacticism strengthened the bonds of community with others seeking change.

This was also true of mutual masturbation.  

Upon reading Tolstoy, Gandhi began a dialogue with the author;

who was already corresponding with some young Hindu. Tolstoy had read Vivekananda and Ramakrishna.  

he also read the Bhagavad Gita in the company of London’s Theosophists.

coz he hadn't read it at home due to being shit at Sanskrit 

If distance from today’s activists was somehow necessary to Sanghera’s book, a sense of connection with the anti-colonial past might have been all the more empowering.

Not if anti-colonial past farted in his face.  

But apart from the very late mention of the unlearning that Duleep Singh and Jawaharlal Nehru subjected themselves to,

they were under the impression they were prima ballerinas at the Bolshoi. Some rude fellow pointed out that they were Indian men. They cried and cried. 

Sanghera doesn’t invoke those who made and won the argument about empire—including the role of education in sustaining it—in the past century (forcing him to often reinvent the wheel). While he knows that imperialists like Lord Salisbury acknowledged that the empire enriched Britain, apart from a brief mention of Dadabhai Naoroji, Sanghera omits the long line of brown and Black thinkers who have made this same argument.

If a rich guy does business with you, you naturally assume that he is doing well out of the deal. You don't have to be a mighty thinker to make this argument.  

He explores the relevance of colonial-era white supremacist notions

which were more prevalent in parts of Europe which had no fucking colonies. 

to Britain today without a sense of the intervening anti-racist struggle that renders this a question today.

This is unlikely. He would have heard about the Anti-Nazi League and their clashes with skinheads. 

He is delighted when Black Lives Matter suddenly makes his “esoteric” study of the British Empire “mainstream,” but colonialism isn’t esoteric; masses of people have been thinking about and struggling against it while he was fed public school pabulum.

i.e. the sort of shite which gets you to Ivy League 

BLM didn’t come out of nowhere.

It came out of America which had slavery. But America is cool and anyway West Indians can legitimately make the same complaint. Indians can't.  

Without awareness of this anti-colonial tradition, Sanghera at times underestimates the suffering that empire caused. He believes Sikhs took Britain’s side in the ghadar of 1857, but Punjab only appeared loyal because of the devastation of recent conquest and preemptive British counterinsurgency action.

In other words the Punjab Service was competent whereas the Bihar and Bengal Armies were very shitty indeed.  

Punjabis in California later named their movement to free India the Ghadar Party in homage to the rebels of 1857.

This is an Arabic word which means treachery. I suppose Lala Hardayal chose it. He was academically very accomplished and became a Philosophy lecturer. In other words, he was stoooopid. Bhai Parmanand persuaded him to embrace celibacy just as he had persuaded the Mahatma. But Hardayal kept marrying Swiss or Swedish damsels. You can take the boy out of Punjab, you can't take the Punjabi out of the boy. 

Sanghera’s obliging concession that he has “had a better life” in Britain than he would have had in India forgets the historical tie between India’s relative poverty (if that is the measure of a good life)

says a lady living in America 

and Britain’s prosperity. He perceives Punjabi migration as a kind of upward mobility facilitated by colonialism, but much of it was a desperate effort to escape colonial policies that caused hunger and landlessness. Many Punjabis arrived in Britain after the traumatic mass displacement caused by the British partition of Punjab in 1947.

Very true. Anglicans from Bedfordshire massacred Sikhs and forced them to abandon their rich agricultural lands in West Punjab. One lady, Edwina Mountbatten, raped trillions of elderly Sikh men causing them to die of exhaustion. This is why Punjabis tried to escape to the West Midlands.  

It’s tragic that adults today must undergo the same process of psychological and cultural recovery that Gandhi and Nehru did ages ago.

Very true. Many adults are crying their little eyes out because they are having to go through the process of psychological and cultural recovery which caused Gandhi to prance around in an adult diaper while Nehru had to put on a sherwani.  

The historical record is clear; it’s just that most people have been assiduously kept ignorant of it,

despite the very many videos on Pornhub showing Viceroy orally raping Indian peasants. British extracted gazillion gallons of jizz from starving Indians. Kingji may kindly make reparation.  

and the current British government wants things to stay that way.

Rishi is suppressing the truth about theft of Indian jizz by past Viceroys. 

Still, I share Sanghera’s inspiring optimism about the changes afoot in British education

Question- Which Viceroy guzzled the most Indian jizz?

a) Viceroy Deep Throat

b) Viceroy Honeytits Cumbucket

c) Viceroy Cock Gobbler

d) Viceroy Dufferin

Oddly, the answer isn't (d). It used to be when I were a lad. But many changes have been afoot in British education since then. 

and in museums around the world, thanks to courageous efforts like his and those of movements like Black Lives Matter and Rhodes Must Fall.

Zelensky's Ukrainians are arrant cowards compared to those who campaigned against Cecil Rhodes. 

“Sikh” means student; it is a faith based on trust in teachers (gurus) and in community, on collective service and learning.

Where is the Guru Granth Sahih and where is 'Empireland'?  

And so, in fraternity, I wish Sathnam chardi kala on his ongoing journey.

But not chaddi kholo otherwise some Viceroy will gobble your knob. Mind it kindly.