Indochine: An Analysis of French Rule in French Indochina   The French ideology of freedom and equality was completely absent in French colonial rule, specifically Indochina. In the early 20th century before World War II, the French colonized the Indochina region, known today as Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos; during their rule, the military and police forces emphasized the importance of their empire, and taking any means to defend the empire. The film “Indochine” addresses the exploitation of native subjects in Indochina around 1930, and focuses on the transformation of the region under a political revolution. Race and War in France by Fogarty and Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power by Stoler are novels that discuss French rule in Africa and Asia, and we will be using the two works to further expand issues in the film “Indochine.” “Indochine” is a film set in 1930 French Indochina revolving around Eliane, a wealthy French rubber farm owner, Camille, a Vietnamese princess adopted by Eliane, and Jean-Baptiste, an officer in the French Navy. Eliane and Jean Baptiste have a hidden romance in the beginning of the film but after Camille is almost killed by a misdirected bullet, the story shifts to Camille and Jean-Baptiste. Camille believes Jean Baptiste saves her life and after Jean Baptiste is reassigned to a remote post on the coast, Camille leaves everything behind to find Jean Baptiste. When Camille is saved by Jean Baptiste, she discovers the horrors of French rule and revolts, killing a French Navy officer and escaping with Jean Baptiste. The film does a fantastic job portraying the cruelty of French rule and their mistreatment of natives, lack of compassion, and the complete absence of “equality” when dealing with the Vietnamese population. Although Eliane and Jean-Baptiste save Camille and often help natives, they too have moments of exploitation, showing their true backgrounds. Five scenes in the film stand out as best representing French Indochina and the role race and power played in colonial rule. “The prince Nguyen, his wife, and I were inseparable. Maybe this is what youth is all about. Believing the world is made of inseparable things. Men and women, mountains and plains, human beings and gods, Indochina and France.” Eliane says this in the opening scene when she is being driven by her Indian driver to her estate and plantation. She is discussing the relationship between France and Indochina, and the imperative role it plays in the shape of her country. In this scene, she is wearing pristine clothing in her expensive car, being driven through her rubber farm, watching all the Vietnamese workers producing rubber for her. Throughout the film, there are rarely scenes where native people in the background are seen smiling or lively; the only times any natives look healthy are scenes including royalty or elites. When Eliane is saying France and Indochina are inseparable, she is only considering her French perspective, a common aspect of colonial ideology. Even for her own daughter, Eliane often shows delusion when it comes to how white colonists see Vietnamese people. There is a scene where Eliane is informed that her daughter Camille is being verbally attacked for being Vietnamese, but she doesn’t seem to be too concerned. Stoler in Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power discusses the mistreatment of children based on their race; he writes, “…It was seen as a threat to white prestige, an embodiment of European degeneration and moral decay.” (Stoler 80) Even though Camille was raised by a wealthy French woman, society still views her as contaminated and lower class. Another significant scene that uncovers the French officials’ true nature is when Jean-Baptiste sets fire to a native family’s boat. Jean-Baptiste’s Navy vessel finds a small wooden boat in the delta after an 8pm curfew and even though everyone else on the Navy ship thinks it’s a genuine mistake, Jean Baptiste orders a sailor to light the Vietnamese boat on fire. When they are sailing away from the fireball on the water, a sailor confronts Jean Baptiste:   Sailor – “They’ll drown! Are you proud of yourself? Are you proud of your victory?” Jean Baptiste – “I followed the rules. You can have generosity and leniency…. No one will get inside my head and steal my soul, no one! Not even eternal Asia, no one!” This encounter revealed Jean Baptiste’s character as the stereotypical colonial official, showing no empathy or compassion for native deaths. “I followed the rules” is a common psychological mindset where shifting blame is simple if one didn’t actually make the decision, but rather followed an order. This is prevalent in war, and of course imperialism, making accountability for actions far more vague and impossible. Jean Baptiste also alludes to Asia having a soul of its own. Europeans viewed outsiders as uncivilized and wild, and being further from the homeland can alter someone’s perspective of the world. This concept was introduced by Joseph Conrad in Heart of Darkness, where the protagonist spirals into madness when he sails further into the Congo. “Indochine” addresses the same concept and uses it as an excuse for Jean Baptiste to potentially kill an innocent Vietnamese family. This lack of compassion was apparent in most of the film, but usually not by Eliane. As discussed earlier, Eliane does have a view of the world where France and Indochina are inseparable because they mutually help one another; this however is a mindset ingrained and innocent to her. Later in film, her rubber factory is set on fire and all her workers are outside refusing to return: Her head worker: “They set fire. It’s not an accident. We couldn’t stop the fire. All the rubber burned.” Eliane: “When can we get back to work?” Her head worker: “Tomorrow, I think.” Eliane: “Why not now? Her head worker: “They don’t want to go inside. They say they’ll be shot.” Eliane: “By whom?” Native: “Boom, danger! No work!” Eliane is clearly outraged by not only the fact that her plantation is ablaze, but also that her Vietnamese workers aren’t risking their lives for her money. She shows absolutely no concern for the natives and instead of trying to extinguish the fire, she runs into the factory to show it’s temporarily safe. Of course the workers don’t really have a say so they follow her into the building with fear and despair. In Race and War in France, Fogarty discusses the different stereotypes the French had for certain ethnicities. Indochinese people in particular were considered to be weaker but smarter, so during the war they often had background assistant work. This film shows how Eliane and French officials felt physically superior to the workers and would often manhandle them into groups.   The pivotal scene in the film is when Camille shoots the Navy officer in the head. Camille escapes Saigon to find Jean Baptiste and during her journey, she meets a Vietnamese family of four. After running through the countryside encountering endless natives struggling to survive, she finally finds Jean Baptiste at a slave auction. The French call it a working post, but earlier in the film an officer explicitly states it is a slave auction for Vietnamese workers. After Jean Baptiste identifies Camille, Camille sees Sao, the mother, and the rest of the family dead in chains on the water. Camille is horrified and when the Navy tries to capture her, she shoots the head officer in the head and escapes with Jean Baptiste. What’s interesting in this scene is the conversation between the French officials prior to Camille’s arrival. The French officials’ main fear is a revolt and riot, which they believe would crumble the empire. This was a legitimate fear imperialists had when colonizing new lands, and it was apparent in many other colonies in Asia and Africa. The final scene is about Camille’s former husband’s statement to his mother. After deciding that he will leave Saigon to fight for Vietnamese freedom, he tells his mother, “Camille is free. It’s her life, and she doesn’t owe anything to anyone…. Obedience made slaves out of us. The French taught me the words “freedom” and “equality.” That’s how I’ll fight them.” This quote is the only time French ideology is explicitly addressed in the film, and fascinatingly by a Vietnamese native talking about fighting against France. He understands the hypocrisy of French ideology, and sees that it’s only freedom and equality for themselves. A passage in Race and War in France states, “Colonial subjects, the thinking went, owed France a “blood tax” in return for the privilege of living under enlightened French rule.” (Fogarty 16) They believed their colonial rule itself was a way of helping the natives, so freedom and equality were granted to them under enlightenment. It didn’t matter to the French whether the Indochina natives were equal to them, but rather the natives received guidance to become more civilized. Camille’s husband realizes how absurd French ideology is so he ridicules the French by saying true freedom and equality will destroy French colonies. These scenes in “Indochine” show how French ideology was completely disregarded and contradicted in French Indochina. The film addresses many issues regarding exploitation, racism, and inhumane practices by European imperialists in their colonies, and how they contributed to their eventual downfall.   Works Cited Fogarty, Richard Standish. Race and War in France: Colonial Subjects in the French Army, 1914-1918. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins U, 2013. Print. Indochine. 1992. Stoler, Ann Laura. Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power: Race and the Intimate in Colonial Rule. Berkeley: U of California, 2010. Print.

The “ideological infrastructure of British rule in India” is the perfect India that the British dreamed of creating. With all the modalities and supposed improvements the British implemented, including law alterations and clothing rules, the India they imagined was, and always was, just an ideal. In practice, such a perfect form of colonialism is rare and virtually impossible. However, there is one way to create an ideological land – through photojournalism.

The photos in this journal were extracted from a publication by Frederic A. Sharf, titled “Northwest Frontier Church Missionary Society 1910-1912.” The album was originally created to document and report the progress of the Church Missionary Society’s work in India; specific locations include Peshawar, Amritsar, Mussoorie, Simla, and Lahore. To further narrow the subjects of the photographs, I’ve extracted 6 photos that represent the distinct British colonial rule of India, and what significance each holds in understanding this time period. Cohen discusses several modalities in Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge, but three in particular can be exemplified through photography – The Observational/Travel Modality, The Museological Modality, and The Surveillance Modality.

The Observational Modality is arguably the most well represented modality through photojournalism, since the subjects are chosen by the photographer to fit their agenda. Cohen states, “What is observed and reported is mediated by particular socio-political contexts as well as historically specific aesthetic principles, such as the ‘sublime,’ the ‘picturesque,’ the ‘romantic,’ and the ‘realistic.'” (Cohen, Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge, p. 7) Since the photos below were developed as a form of documentation to show progress, each and every subject will show an ideal or romanticism to appease the motherland. The Museological Modality is the collecting and understanding of native arts, architectures, scripts, and other historically significant artifacts. In addition, the invention of the camera created a new category of depiction, showing a more raw and natural side of colonialism. Finally the Surveillance Modality, a form of control where the power figure keeps distance from the locals to either show dominance, or because they are afraid of showing fear. Cohen writes, “They were uncomfortable in the narrow confines of a city street, a bazaar, a mela – anywhere they were surrounded by their Indian subjects.” (Cohen, Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge, p. 10) This can be seen in several of the photos below, and is an underlying issue in the power struggle the British face later on.

Photo 1:

Two photos of a British man and woman posing under the same tree. I chose these photos as the first of the series because of the subject’s facial expressions; the man has a stern, borderline menacing look, while the woman is smiling with her hands behind her back. This photo, and photo 2 are displayed side-by-side to show the juxtaposition of colonizers and natives.

Photo 2:

The demeanor in this photo is strikingly different from the first photo. The men are outpatients in a hospital in Peshawar listening to gospel music. Cohen describes faraway non-European lands as wild, and even explains the role of facial hair and clothing and their barbaric tones. This photo, practically the exact opposite of the first photo, shows locals seemingly distraught and exhausted. For documentation purposes, the photo could show what the British leaders want to see – inferior men all under control. Whether it’s accurate or not isn’t important to a colonizer.

Photo 3:

The Chief Bishop of Tarn Taran is instructing locals, and the Chief Bishop receives fish as a gift from the natives. Here we see a visual representation of Cohen’s clothing discussion. The British power figure, who more likely than not can’t effectively communicate with locals, is instructing natives, and return receives a gift. After gifting a man who just invades their land, the three Indian men stand behind the man with a sheepish look.

Photo 4:

(Top photograph) A language lesson between an educated Indian man and two British authorities. This photograph is the only one of the entire album where both parties are smiling. What’s interesting however is the clear difference in appearance between the Indian man in the picture, and all the other Indians photographed. This man seems to be better groomed, healthier, and better dressed than the others. Since language was an important key to understanding Indian history and culture, the British may have invested money and resourced on the Indian native.

Photo 5 & 6:

The British exploitation of native Indians. The bottom two photographs depict an Indian man in a camel drawn carriage, and an Indian man on an elephant. The British colonizers obviously have access to these animals, yet the top two photographs show British women in pristinely clean dress being carried by Indians.

What do these photographs from “Northwest Frontier Church Missionary Society 1910-1912” say about British rule? Until the fall of India as a colony, these were the only visual documents people in the motherland can see. If all they had access to were photos created by British missionaries and arts brought back, why shouldn’t the British approve of their country’s colonization?

With an inaccurate depiction of India, did these photo-journals contribute to ineffective orders by leaders back in Britain? Furthermore, how different would history be if the Indians were able to develop photos of the East India Company?

http://digital.wolfsonian.org/WOLF037711/00001/citation

http://digital.wolfsonian.org/WOLF037711/00001/pageturner#page/1