THE DOUBLE STANDARDS
First Independence of Former Colonies: Dress reveals servility to Western Masters
One of the distinguishable traits of former colonies is the manner that politics has come to be run by family dynasties with children continuing to be scions of their former colonial masters. Combined with the family name is the silent pact to govern the country in a manner that would please the western masters. The manner of servility can be automatically seen by the manner former colonies at independence have dressed. The examples of India, Sri Lanka and Myanmar reveal much.
All of the colonial invaders set sail with orders from the Church & King to declare all territories and lands that were not occupied by Christians as ‘Discovered’ (even though natives were living for centuries) Orders were that these lands be confiscated, natives converted or killed, treasures plundered and profits secured. This venture was called the ‘white man’s burden’ to ‘civilize’ the already civilized continents and nations that had a far richer civilizational history than the invaders that arrived with gun in one hand and Bible in the other.
The white race claiming to ‘civilize’ non-whites is responsible for millions of deaths across all the continents of the world. These crimes against humanity have never been put to the dock because it is these same nations that run the international legal and trade ensuring that the same non-white nations remain slaves to them. A little relief has come to those who are agreeable to playing ‘uncle toms’ and functioning as the white man’s lap dog.
The administrations of these colonial rulers endeavoured to ensure that if ever they left they would leave countries in the hands of locals who would be willing to continue and follow the white man’s rule. Missionary education using English distancing natives from their local history and culture to embrace a behaviour and alien lifestyle was the goal and a good look at all former colonies that gained independence and the manner the locals took over governing of their newly independent nations aptly depicts their servility.
The case of India, Myanmar and Sri Lanka are taken as comparison to showcase this.
The East India Company comprised of London businessmen who ventured to make money importing spices from South Asia. It laid the foundations of the British Empire. The East India Company controlled a standing army of some 200,000 men. Official Company rule of India began in 1757. Using the Doctrine of Lapse from 1824 entitled the British East India Company to take any princely state or territory under the direct influence of the company as a vassal state under British Subsidiary System annexing automatically if any Indian ruler was either ‘manifestly incompetent or without male heir’.
Therefore, while the independent territories and states have long civilizational history, the annexed ‘India’ has hardly a history of 150 years because India as a nation became so only after the British annexed independent states and territories.
India suffered much under British rule and estimates are as high as 100million deaths. Given that India was Christened only by the British and before its annexure the states were all independent entities, India has no historical bondage or desire to maintain India’s unification except that Indian leaders are replicating the British version of empire building by expanding Indian hedgemony across the Asian continent especially among India’s direct neighbors which accounts for the hostility of its neighbors against India. This is one reason why India does not care about its balkanization.
Therefore, Indian nationalism politically used partners with the West but with a clear desire to make India as partner rather than doormats that former colonies have turned into including Sri Lanka of late. Thus, India is able to use Hindu nationalism as and when it suits Indian political establishment while diplomatically able to speak to the West on its terms. The only difference that makes India and Indians stand out is that other than the Indians domiciled and working in western climes who are proud to be the white man’s stooge, Indian empire building goes on regardless.
India gained independence on 15 August 1947
Myanmar Independence – 4 January 1948
What stands out about Myanmar is the manner that the Burmese have stood against Western influences even at the time of independence, seen in the manner that the leaders all wore local attire instead of the full suit. Gen. Aung San was never the leader that the British wanted and it was the key reason why he was assassinated. Anyone not towing the line of White Western imperialism is not likely to last long.
Sri Lanka Independence – 4 January 1948 (Sri Lanka remained a dominion of Great Britain until Republic Day on 22 May 1972)
In 1948 Sri Lanka’s population was 6.5million. Ceylon (Sri Lanka) gained ‘independence’ on 4 February 1948. The flag that was hoisted was the same flag used by the Kingdom of Kandy and the last King Sri Vikrama Rajasinghe. This flag had been used for centuries. The use of the same flag was proposed in September 1945
“This House is of opinion that the Royal Standard of King Sri Vikrama Rajasinha depicting a yellow lion passant holding a sword in its right paw on a red background, which was removed to England after the Convention of 1815, should once again be adopted as the official flag of Free Lanka.”
Though Ceylon was given independence, the British signed the Kandyan Convention with the Sinhale nation that used the same flag.
The present flag incorporating two colours to represent the Tamils and Muslims was implemented in 1951.
Typically the British recruited local ‘chiefs’ to enslave the indigenous masses and then used education to create a set of locals willing to worship and do as the white west abided. Apart from a handful of local leaders all of post-independent family dynasties to whom independence was handed were very happy to be the lapdogs of the West so long as they could enjoy the fruits of power.
The West would iconize people who pretend to be leaders of their people but are in reality tamed into following West’s orders. Nelson Mandela has often been accused of this. He said everything that the people wanted to hear but in action he did everything that the West wanted done. The same can be said of Mahatma Gandhi which is why there is a rising belief that the person responsible for India’s independence is Netaji Subash Chandra Bose. Mandela never demanded the white’s return lands confiscated by them. Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe did. Mandela became a hero to the West, Mugabe was portrayed as a tyrant. In reaching out to the whites Mandela ignored the humiliations and degradations suffered by his own. Most of the local leaders to whom independence was handed had been programmed in such a way to evade asking for historical injustices to be accounted for. The leaders that did were all assassinated. The local leaders were too busy dining and wining with their counterparts and jubilant that they were now accepted as equals, though by ‘equal’ the definition meant that equality would last only so long as the locals agreed to the terms and conditions of the white west. The moment that is challenged the wrath of the west would be delivered as Gaddafi and Saddam found out too late.
While the white west never acknowledge, apologized or was held accountable for their crimes, it was the non-whites that had to always forgive and forget, reconciliate and be accused of crimes and be punished for them as well. Was it not the whites that put the machetes to kill in Rwanda?
Unless nations are willing to asset the historical rights of their nation and their people is it meaningful to celebrate independence. Are we really an independent nation today, if we can’t even buy equipment or have the agreement nullified because another nation does not wish us to sign it. Are we an independent nation when our foreign policy is dictated by foreign think tanks just as a new constitution is being drafted to strategically divide the nation to expand the tentacles of a growing Indian empire?
Shenali D Waduge