Chapter 41 Chapter 7 The End of the Empire 3

3 In terms of the actual situation at that time, the fate of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America could be said to be in the hands of a few countries in the northern hemisphere.People from all over the world also deeply understand the sorrow that people everywhere cannot help themselves.What's more, most countries (except for the Americas) are either directly occupied and governed by Western forces, or they are governed by them.People are very clear in their hearts that even if the jurisdiction of the local princes and sultans (such as "protected countries", marquis countries, etc.) is still above the court, the "advice" of the representatives of the protectorate must be listened carefully.Even in a country like China that still enjoys an independent status, outsiders enjoy the supreme extraterritorial right and the right to levy tariffs within its borders.Foreign insults are so severe, it is natural to think of chasing others.This is not the case in Central and South America, which are all sovereign and independent countries.Only the United States holds the big idea and regards the small Central American country as its de facto protectorate.This Big Brother mentality in the United States was most evident in the first and last third of this century.

But since 1945, the former colonial world has completely changed, becoming a group of independent countries with ostensible sovereignty.Looking back from today's perspective, this situation seems not only inevitable, but also the realization of the long-awaited expectations of the colonial people.As far as some countries with a long history of political entities are concerned, this statement is certainly not empty talk.For example, the great empires of Asia—China, Persia, Ottoman—and maybe one or two others, such as Egypt, could also be included.Among them, countries composed of the vast majority of single ethnic groups are the most important, such as the Han nationality in China, and the Shiite sect of Islam, which is equivalent to the state religion of Iran.People in this type of country generally have a strong hatred of outsiders, so they are often easily politicized.No wonder China, Turkey, and Iran have become the stage for a major revolution from within.However, these three countries are really exceptions; because the so-called political entities established on permanent territories are separated from other polities by fixed boundaries on the outside, and are governed and governed by a single permanent regime on the inside—that is, the concept of an independent sovereign state that is generally taken for granted— — for the vast majority of the rest of the peoples of the colonial world, it means nothing at all.Even if it exists, the idea has no meaning beyond the confines of individual villages (even in areas with permanent and fixed agricultural cultures).In fact, even if the local people have the consciousness of our group and our "ethnic group"—for example, some specific combined areas called "tribes" by Europeans—they coexist with other ethnic groups, mix with each other, and divide labor, but in the territory The concept of upper separation is often inconceivable, beyond the scope of their comprehension.In such regions, the only frontiers that could provide the basis for independent state forms in the 20th century were the spheres of influence created by the aggressive competition of Western empires.External forces have divided these lands arbitrarily and divided them into territories, usually completely disregarding the inherent local political, economic and social structures.Therefore, the post-colonial world follows almost exactly the borders left over from the imperialist era.

What's more, the residents of the third world not only hate the Westerners deeply (the reasons for the hatred are different: some hate these unbelieving Westerners from a religious standpoint; modern inventions, destroying the original social order; or simply out of resistance to changes in the general public’s lifestyle, thinking that all kinds of changes are in vain but not beneficial-this kind of thinking is actually quite reasonable), the advanced class of the country The common people strongly oppose the belief that modernization is the only way.Under such a situation of different ideas and concepts, it is naturally extremely difficult to form a united front to jointly resist the imperial forces.What's more, in some colonial countries, even if the colonial rulers despised and insulted the local people, no matter how high or low, they all regarded them as inferior ethnic groups, it was still difficult to arouse the whole people to unite and work together with the outside world.

Therefore, the main task of the middle class advocating the national movement in this type of country is how to win the support of traditional people and the masses who oppose modernization;One of the nationalist movements that emerged in India in the early years, such as the fiery Bal Ganghadar Tilak (1856-1920), was above all about winning the support of the masses of the lower and middle classes—rather than just trying to win the folks in western India ——The direction you have mastered is extremely correct.He not only defended the Indian sacred cow and the tradition that 10-year-old girls can marry; in the face of "Western" civilization and his own people who worship "Western" civilization, he even advocated ancient Indian culture—or the so-called "Aryan" civilization—and The superior nature of its religion.The first major stage of the war faction in the Indian national movement appeared from 1905 to 1910, and it was mainly launched in the name of this kind of "nativeness"; even the young terrorists in Bengal were no exception.Eventually, and by Mahatma Gandhi, mobilized villages and bazaars across India.Millions of ordinary Indians were inspired by the superiority of Hinduism.At the same time, Gandhi also took care not to lose the necessity of uniting with the modernists (in a practical sense, Gandhi himself was actually a member of the modernists) (see Chapter 13 of The Age of Empires).In addition, he tried his best to avoid confrontation with the Islamic people in India-the Hindu revolution advocated the establishment of a country by force, which inherently has anti-Islamic tendencies.Gandhi single-handedly made politicians into saints; his invention advocated collective passivity to achieve revolutionary ends (his "non-violent non-cooperation movement").What's more, he also skillfully used the developing Hinduism itself.Because in the ever-changing, all-encompassing, ambiguous face and teachings of Hinduism, it contains the potential power to accept reform and innovation.Gandhi made full use of and developed this force, and completed his social modernization movement from it, such as the sublation of the traditional caste system in India.However, Gandhi in his later years, before being assassinated, admitted that his efforts had failed.The murderer who assassinated him was originally a main fighter who followed the tradition of the Tilak faction and advocated the exclusive status of Hinduism.Gandhi knew that his most central and basic efforts were in vain in the end.From a long-term point of view, it will be difficult to coordinate between the actions of the general public and the needs of a strong country.Finally, the rulers of India after freedom and independence belong to a group that "neither remembers the past nor hopes to restore the glory of ancient India".They "neither have empathy for India's past, nor do they seek to understand it...their eyes are on the West; their hearts are deeply attracted by the advancement of the West." (Nehru, 1937, pp. 23-24) In contrast, at the time of this writing, the traditionalists who advocate Tilak's anti-modern stance are still represented by the militant Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) - even now - and they remain the center of general opposition, It is also a major separatist force in India.Its divisive influence not only exists among the general public, but also among intellectuals.Mahatma Gandhi once wanted to establish Hinduism as a new culture that retains populist traditions and has a dual spirit of innovation and progress.His short-lived effort has since vanished altogether.

Similar patterns have also appeared in the Islamic world.However, as far as modern Islamists are concerned, regardless of their private beliefs, they must show respect for the religion practiced by the people (even after the success of revolutionary reforms).There is another difference between the Islamic world and India, that is, although the former reformers also tried to inject reform and modernization into Islamic teachings, their motives were not to mobilize ordinary people, and in fact it never happened This effect.Jamal al-Din al Afghani (Jamal al-Din al Afghani, 1839-1897, editor's note: representative of Egyptian nationalism and pan-Islamism) had disciples in Iran, Egypt, Turkey and other places, and his supporter Abu Da (Mohammed Abduh, 1849-1905) raised disciples in Egypt, and Algeria had Badis (Abdul Hamid Badis, 1889-1940).The ideas promoted by the above-mentioned people do not care about the villages of the common people, but in the schools and universities in the palace of knowledge.In the classroom, it is natural to find a group of listeners who resonate with the beliefs of anti-European forces.But the real revolutionary parties in the Islamic world, and their outstanding figures (as described in Chapter 5), are secular innovators who have nothing to do with Islam.For example, Kemal in Turkey abandoned the traditional red black-tasseled felt hat (invented in the 19th century) in Turkey, and wore a British-style hard felt hat with a rounded narrow curved edge; and replaced the one with traces of Islam with Roman letters. Arabic font.In fact, he broke the connection between the Islamic religion and the laws of the country in one fell swoop.But despite this, the history of recent years has once again proved that large-scale mass mobilization is the most easily realized basis for anti-modern popular beliefs (such as Islamic fundamentalists).In short, there is a fundamental conflict between modern people in the third world and ordinary people, and there is a huge gap between the two sides.The former are often also nationalists, and nationalism itself is a completely unconventional new concept.

Thus, prior to 1914, anti-imperialist and anti-colonial movements were in fact not as prominent as we now imagine.This assumption arises naturally from our observation of the almost complete sweeping away of Western and Japanese colonial powers within the half century following the outbreak of the First World War.Even in Latin America, although the people were dissatisfied with the economic situation of their own dependence, they especially hated the United States, the only country that insisted on maintaining a military presence in the region. This xenophobic sentiment had not yet developed into an important aspect of local politics. resource.Among the Western colonial empires, only Britain faced some degree of problems in some areas - that is, problems that cannot be solved by police means. Before 1914, the United Kingdom had already handed over its internal self-government rights to the colonial areas with a large number of white immigrants. Beginning in 1907, "Dominions" such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa were established.In the disputed area of ​​Ireland, the United Kingdom also made a promise to grant self-government status in the future ("Home Rule").As for India and Egypt, no matter from the perspective of the interests of the empire itself, or from the perspective of local self-government or even independence, the development of the whole fact is quite obvious-both need to use political means to find a solution. Since 1905, it can be said that there have been signs of popular support for the national movements in India and Egypt.

But then again, the outbreak of the First World War was, after all, a series of events that seriously shook world colonialism for the first time, and destroyed the two empires at that time (Germany and Ottoman; the territories under the two countries were destroyed. Carve-up mainly between Britain and France).The First World War also temporarily knocked out another great empire, Russia (although within a few years Russia regained its possessions in Asia).For the colonies that had succumbed to the status of economic dependence, Britain urgently needed to mobilize local resources to cope with the war. Under the demand and pressure of the war, the colonial society began to be in turmoil.Coupled with the outbreak of the October Revolution, the old regime collapsed one after another, followed by the fact that the 26 counties in southern Ireland became independent (1921).For the first time, the foreign imperial forces showed signs of being doomed.By the end of the war, the Wafd party (Wafd) led by Said Zaghlul in Egypt, inspired by the words of President Wilson of the United States, put forward an unprecedented demand for comprehensive independence. After three years of struggle (1919-1922) , finally forcing the British to transform the protectorate into a semi-independent state under British control.With this conversion formula, Britain could easily apply it to other Asian territories it had acquired from the former Ottoman Empire, namely Iraq and Jordan. (The only exception is the Palestine area, which is still directly governed by the British. During the Great War, Britain, on the one hand, asked the Zionists to help against Germany, and on the other hand, it mobilized the Arabs to fight against Turkish forces. Both parties made promises. Under the conflict between the two, they were in a hurry, and all efforts could not be settled.)

But in India, Britain's largest colony, it is difficult to find a simple standard formula to deal with the growing unrest in the local situation. In 1906, the Indian National Congress party first adopted the term "self-government" as a slogan, and now the slogan has gradually evolved into a call for full independence.The advent of the revolutionary era (1918-1922) further prompted a qualitative change in the political ecology of the nationalist movement in the Indian subcontinent.Part of the reason was that the Islamic people rose up against Britain; the other part was due to the overreaction of a certain British general in the turbulent year of 1919.He committed bloody killings and surrounded the unarmed people on all sides.With no way out, hundreds of people were killed (the Amritsar Massacre).However, the main reason for the change in the Indian nationalist movement is the wave after wave of strikes by workers; in addition, Gandhi himself and the Congress Party, which has turned radical, have frequently called for a large-scale civilian non-cooperation movement.All of a sudden, an almost millennium-like excitement swept over the movement for freedom and liberation.Gandhi declared that the beauty of "self-government" was coming before 1921.The administration, on the other hand, "shows no signs of seeking any solution to the commotion caused by the current situation".Village after village was completely paralyzed by the non-cooperation movement.The rural areas of Bengal, Orissa, and Assam in the vast northern parts of India were in disarray. P.13) From then on intermittently, India's political situation began to enter a situation that was difficult to control.In the end, India was finally preserved, and it would not fall into the brutal and dark situation where the masses were lawless and rebelled everywhere. I am afraid that it was thanks to the reservation of the majority leaders of the Congress Party, including Gandhi himself, because they did not want to go to the road of destruction. .Perhaps it was this, combined with the leaders' lack of confidence in themselves, and their continued belief—a belief shaken but not entirely dispelled—that the British government really wanted to help reform India, at last preserved British rule. status. At the beginning of 1922, Gandhi announced that the "civilian non-cooperation" movement had stopped the promotion of the movement because it had caused the massacre of a village in a certain place.From then on, we can say that the British rule in India began to rely on Gandhi's mediation, which far surpassed the power of military and police means.

This statement is not without reason.At that time in Britain, although there was still a group of diehards advocating imperialism, Churchill appointed himself the spokesperson of the faction.However, after 1919, the truly prevailing view of the British ruling class believed that some form of Indian self-government similar to the "dominion status" was already an inevitable direction of development.At the same time, it believes that if the future of British power in India is to be preserved, an agreement must be reached with the Indian elite, including nationalists.The unilateral British rule in India will eventually come to an end, it is only a matter of time.Since India is the core of the entire British Empire, the existence of the Empire as a whole seems to be in jeopardy at present.The only exception is the African region and a few islands scattered in the waters of the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean.There, the dominance of the patriarch of the empire, fortunately, has not yet been challenged.The area of ​​land directly or indirectly controlled by Britain in the world reached an unprecedented peak between the two wars; however, at the same time, the confidence of the British rulers in maintaining the hegemony of the old empire also reached an unprecedented low.After World War II, Britain’s continued hegemony was clearly no longer there, and it basically did not resist the disintegration of its colonies and the trend of self-government. This is the main reason.It is probably for the same reason that after 1945, other major empires, especially France—including the Netherlands—still tried to maintain their status as colonial empires by force.Because their empire was not shaken by the Great War.The only headache for France is that it has not yet fully conquered Morocco.But the warlike Berber tribe in the Atlas mountains of North Africa was basically a military problem to be solved, not a political one.In fact, the Berber problem is far more serious threat to the local Spanish colonial regime in Morocco than it is to France. In 1923, Abd-el-Krim, a Berber intellectual, announced the establishment of the Rif Republic in the highlands, which was enthusiastically supported by the French Communist Party and other leftists.With the assistance of the French government, the faction was defeated by the Spanish colonial authorities in 1926.Since then, the Berbers on the high mountains have returned to their old jobs, serving in the colonial armies of France and Spain when they returned overseas, and resisting any form of central government in their hometown.As for the French Islamic colonial areas and French Indochina, the anti-colonial movement in pursuit of modernization did not really appear until after World War II.Only Tunisia has had a small development.