Reading Information

Bernard Cohn, “Introduction,” Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge

Overview

In the introductory chapter of his book, Cohn wants the reader to understand how the British obtained information about India throughout the period of colonialism. In order to understand, classify, categorize, and essentially control the Indian population, the British used “investigative modalities.” With these modalities, the British were able to collect “facts.” In British India, the first and most important method of obtaining information was the “historiographic” modality. Cohn calls this modality the “most complex, pervasive, and powerful” underscoring that it is also an underlying element in most other investigative modalities. History held a metaphysical power in British India, inducing conventions about the “real” social and natural worlds. Cohn explains that studying the divergence of representation of specific historical events in both England and India in order to understand colonialism in British India. Cohn mentions the observation modality, which encompasses the way that British socio-political context and the Romantic period would affect they way people would observe and report these observations. The survey modality includes a “wide range of practices,” like the mapping of India, the collection of biological specimen, or recording important architectural sites.

Keywords

1. Historiographic Modality: an investigative modality used by the British, in which they tried to understand Indian history and culture in order to construct a system of government.

2. Surveillance Modality: an investigative modality used by the British to survey India and its population from a distance.

3. Observation Modality: an investigative modality that encompasses how the British observed and recorded their observations of Indian culture.

Argument

Cohn’s argument in this chapter is that the British entered India, a new and different world, trying to understand it through only their only lenses of knowing and thinking. The British used investigative modalities to obtain “facts” and the used these “facts” as a foundation for administrative power. The British obtained knowledge, trying to classify and categorize the eccentric Indian world with the end goal of (obviously) obtaining control. The investigative modalities in British India generated publications, statistical reports, histories, legal codes, artwork, maps, and even descriptions of archeological sites that were all the British understanding of the Indian world. In order to genuinely understand colonialism in British India, one must analyze the experience from both the British and Indian perspectives.

Evidence

Cohn writes, “In India the British entered a new world that they tried to comprehend using their own forms of knowing and thinking.” (4) He is trying to underscore that the British would understand the Indian state through their own bias. Additionally he writes, “What were these ‘facts’ whose collection lay at the foundation of the modern state?” (4) By putting facts in quotations, Cohn is questioning that legitimacy of the information obtained by the British. Finally, Cohn writes, “A guiding assumption in my research on the British conquest of India in the 18^th and 19^th centuries is that the metropole and the colony have to be seen a unitary field of analysis.” (4) Cohn argues that a holistic analysis is necessary in order understand colonialism or “conquest” in British India.

Historiographical Debate

Cohn touches upon the works of a few British scholars, critically examining the bias in their work. In the discussion of the Historiographic modality he refers to the historic writings, which Cohn refers to as “narrative genres”(6), of Alexander Dow, Robert Orme, Charles Grant, Mark Wilks, James Mill, and James Tod. When discussing the Survey Modality, Cohn refers to the work done by James Renell, in which he officially documented surveys of India. When discussing the Surveillance Modality, Cohn discusses the work of William Herschel, who was experimenting with the use of fingerprints to individualize documents in India and Alphonse Bertillon, who was also working on a system to accurately identify individuals. The recorded contributions of these individuals are primary sources, given that they have firsthand experience in British India.

Contribution to Our Understanding of Colonial Rule

This chapter contributes to my understanding of colonial rule by underscoring the importance of criticizing primary sources. The British observation and understanding of the Indian experience should not be held as factual information. Cohn emphasizes that the British heavily relied upon their own understanding and inferences of Indian culture, social structure, and politics to construct government and other administrative structures. We should holistically analyze both perspectives in order to get a clearer, more complete understanding of colonialism. Additionally, the information presented in this chapter made me think of the changes that conquest of India induced not only in India but also in British society.