Reading Information:

Bernard S. Cohn, Chapter 1: “Introduction”, Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge: The British in India

Overview:

Before the premodern era, power was displayed “in the form of processions, progresses, royal entries, coronations, funerals and other rituals that guaranteed the well-being and continued power of the rulers over the ruled,” (Cohn 3). Britain, as other premodern states of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, sought increasingly to obtain and display power though various applications of information. Information and applied knowledge was crucial for the success of the colonial project of state building. All spheres of life and society would be defined and hence, controlled. This process included the “compilation, storage, and publication of statistical data on finance, trade, health, demography, crime, education, transportation, agriculture and industry,” Cohn 3).

To collect raw data and information, the British employed a variety of investigative modalities. “An investigative modality includes the definition of a body of information that is needed, the procedures by which appropriate knowledge is gathered, its ordering and classification, and then how it is transformed into usable forms such as published reports, statistical returns, histories, gazetteers, legal codes and encyclopedias,” (Cohn 5).

For example, the British specifically used historical modalities to learn of India’s existing form of government, its structure and capability. This information allowed the British to determine that because India’s government was deeply rooted and functional to the extent of waging war, collecting tax and settling land disputes, successful colonial rule would require incorporation, not overthrow of the existing government. Observational modalities served to identify Indians and their behavior in society. Learning of the different languages and vernaculars was important to later issue command. Survey modalities explored both natural and social landscapes allowing for the mapping of India and identification of archeological sites along with their relation to neighboring populations (Cohn 7). Enumerative modalities created census projects requiring the collection of each individual’s basic information such as age, name and occupation. Musicological modalities were undertaken to understand culture through study of arts, architecture, scripts, texts, etc. Similarly, surveillance modalities gathered information on potential criminals in order to establish a system of law and order.

Keywords:

1. Investigative Modality: The process of acquiring and then transforming information into various applications of knowledge in the forms of encyclopedias, historical contexts, statistical reports, etc.
2. Ontology: The study of existence in nature and the relation of beings.
3. Sanskrit: An ancient and religious literary language of India. Predominately spoken in Northern India and used for classical songwriting and poems.
4. Mela: A fair or hindu festival

Argument:

“The theater of power was managed by specialists (priests and ritual preceptors, historians and bards, artists and artisans) who maintained the various forms of knowledge required. From the eighteenth century onward, European states increasingly made their power visible not only through ritual performance and dramatic display, but through the gradual extension of ‘officializing’ procedures that established and extended their capacity in many areas. They took control by defining and classifying space,” by dominating all spheres of life and society (Cohn 3).

Evidence:

Cohn’s extensive research to support his claims involves historical data based on past events, public records and published documentations. Cohn makes reference to “enquiries,” a series of questions once asked by the British to determine how “revenue was assessed and collected” in India, as a form of historical modality (Cohn 5). Additionally, Cohn draws upon the travel accounts of British explorers and survey entries/projects undertaken by British engineers and archeologists alike. Cohn also draws support for his claims of “Britain’s civilizing mission in India” through the “major historical writings of Alexander Dow, Robert Orme, Charles Grant, Mark Wilks, James Mill, and James Tod,” (Cohn 6). These forms of evidence are highly factual and its contents are agreed upon within the historical community thus proving its reliability.

Historiographical Debate:

While Cohn does not explicitly address the work of other scholars, he does Cohn draw upon the major historical writings of Alexander Dow, Robert Orme, Charles Grant, Mark Wilks, James Mill, and James Tod as supporting the notion of the British mission to acquire all sorts of information to ultimately dominate and civilize India’s spheres of life and society.

Contribution to Our Understanding of Colonial Rule:

My initial understanding of colonial rule was that it was an ordeal of manpower and military strategy. A superior state dominated and colonized unrivaled territories and peoples. This superior state was superior due to technological advances in warfare, abundance of resources and high economic development. Upon reading this brief introduction of British colonial rule offered by Cohn, I have grown increasingly aware of the complexities of colonial rule. This introduction explained as to how colonial rule was established and maintained over long periods of time. Information was the key. Information was ever so important then as it is today. The British gathered and applied information in a manipulative manner to garner control of India. As Cohn writes, the British defined the “epistemological space” of Indians (Cohn 4). It took the collective efforts of individuals of all backgrounds, not just the military. Additionally, I thought it was interesting of Cohn to note that state building took place mutually between rulers and colonies. It had been my assumption that this occurred exclusively to those colonized.