Reading Information

Bernard S. Cohn, “Chapter Five: Cloth, Clothes, and Colonialism,” Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge

Overview

This chapter of Cohn’s work focuses on cloth and clothes and their connection to colonialism within India. Cohn uses this framework by beginning with a somewhat current debate (1959) of a Sikh’s right to wear his turban instead of the uniform cap required by all transport drivers and by then tracing back to the role of clothing in general in early British rule in India. Cohn acknowledges the role the British played in making the turban into a notable feature of Sikh self-identity. Cohn writes that the British relied heavily on the Sikhs and the Punjab to man their army, which resulted in the creation of a standardized Sikh turban that became the trademark for Sikhs in the British army. Cohn continues to explain the significance of the turban by distinguishing the connotations of it at different time periods; it is now longer considered to be connected to an old military controlled by colonial rulers, but is now a representation of a Sikh’s unique identity that separates him/her from mass society. In the rest of the chapter, Cohn argues for the position that clothing is literally considered to be authority and power; it was the British way of obtaining power, status, and respect through wearing clothing that distinguished them from the Indian populace. Cohn lists specific examples of the use of sartorial policies by the British in India to secure their power and influence over the people. One example being the British’s ban on wearing the Gandhi cap in the Indian National Congress. Cohn ends the chapter with an analysis of turbans and shoes in India and how the British often misconstrued Indian customs leading to a pressure on the part of Indians to conform to these erroneous constructions, particularly in relation to turbans and shoes.

Keywords

1. Sikhism: religious movement that grew out of syncretic tendencies in theology and worship among Hindus and Muslims in north India in the 15th century.
2. Nadars: low-caste Shanars concentrated in the southwestern tip of India; often described as palmyra tappers; Protestant missionaries found success in converting a substantial number of Nadars who were able to  use position and influence of the missionaries to directly attack their superiors in the state hierarchy through change of dress that was previously forbidden to them.
3. Mughals: established suzerainty over northern India in early 16th century; based authority on divine relationship with God.

Argument

Clothes are a significant part of India’s history of colonialism and anticolonialism. “Clothes are not just body coverings and matters of adornment, nor can they be understood only as metaphors of power and authority, nor as symbols; in many contexts, clothes literally are authority” (114).

Evidence
Cohn draws information from recorded experiences of Englishmen. Two specific examples would be Cohn’s reference to the writings of Edward Balfour in describing Indian women’s dress in Bombay and directly quoting a Canadian visitor named Anna Leonowens from her description of the home a wealth gentleman living in Bombay. While this evidence is reliable, it is also biased in its portrayal of India from a British perspective. Cohn does try to compensate for this bias by providing a Indian’s perspective through the use of Gandhi’s works. Gandhi’s works provide an anti-colonialist perspective in that they reveal Indian resistance to British rule. This provides much needed Indian agency to the chapter and helps support Cohn’s argument of the significance of the role of clothing in anticolonialism.

Historiographical Debate

The author does not explicitly situate him/herself in a wider scholarly debate in the text.

Contribution to Our Understanding of Colonial Rule

Cohn introduces this idea that cloth/clothing is a medium for the British, and possibly other colonial rulers, to use to strengthen their cultural and political rule over the colonized population in India. British rule in India falls in line with the definition of colonialism Osterhammel provides in Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview. As Osterhammel describes in his work, the British are reluctant in making any type of “cultural compromises with the colonized population” and “are convinced of their own superiority and of their ordained mandate to rule” (Osterhammel 17). Cohn does mention the British making concessions to Indian customs, such as keeping their feet tucked in under them to the point of confining pain, the British ensured they held a position a dominance and separation from the Indians. As Osterhammel mentions in his work, colonial rulers do not try to assimilate with the colonized population, which applies to the British in India: “While the British established themselves as the new rulers of India, they constructed a system of codes and conduct which constantly distanced them – physically, socially, and culturally – from their Indian subjects” (111). Learning about British rule in India aids in better understanding the inner workings of epistemic forms of colonial power and relationships of dominance and subjugation between the colonizers and the colonized.

Reading Information

Bernard S. Cohn, “Chapter Three: Law and the Colonial State in India,” Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge

Overview

In this chapter, Cohn is relating the British’s attempt at incorporating India’s solid and well-established ancient civilization and its forms of self-governance with British ideas of law and government, which they believed to be the superior form. Cohn first explains British sovereignty in India and the role of the East India Company in India. The East India Company was able to exercise state functions from royal grants and charters provided by the British Crown and Parliament. As a result, the Company was able to act as the state with state functions such as the ability to wage war, raise taxes, etc., which also raised complex issues of the legitimacy of the Company acting as the state in India. The rest of the chapter is dedicated to British agents and scholars in adopting India’s established system of rule with English standards that English officials could tolerate and work with. Warren Hastings, a commercial and diplomatic agent for the East India Company, was one of these people and presided over two courts. Hastings stressed the importance of utilizing Indian law and rejected the widespread European belief of the Indian state being despotic. In the next part of the chapter, Cohn writes of Sir William Jones’ and H. T. Colebrooke’s quest to find the oldest text of Hindu law to guarantee its authenticity and authority and their completed publication of a compilation of Indian law called The Digest of Hindu Law on Contracts and Successions. However, the end result in India after Jones’ and Colebrooke’s search for the oldest Indian text was what they had strived to avoid: the transformation of Hindu law into English law.

Keywords

1. Despotic model: to rule “as a master over a slave”; arbitrary rule.
2. Mimamasa: method used to reconcile conflicting texts of equal authority by applying various rules for the interpretation of words, phrases, and sentences; also style of argumentation.
3. Case law: law based on precedent; court cases are based on decisions of prior cases.

Argument

The British’s approach to colonial rule involved establishing relations with native Indians through research of Indian law, history, culture, society, and language. The British intended to “creat[e] a body of knowledge that could be utilized in the effective control of Indian society” (61).

Evidence

Cohn uses a significant amount of evidence from the writings of English scholars during the time of British rule in India. Cohn references Robert Orme’s description of the process of the administration of justice in India from his work Historical Fragments of the Mogul Empire. Cohn quotes directly from letters and essays of Sir William Jones and H. T. Colebrooke in which they describe their experiences with India’s legal system. Cohn also draws from translations of the works of Indian authors. He specifically refers to an English translation of Ferishta’s History of Hindostan, a history of the Muslim conquerors of India, by Alexander Dow and an english translation of Abu’l Fazl’s Ain-i-Akbari, an account of the mode of governing under the most illustrious of the Mughal emperors named Akbar. Cohn relies heavily on the works of English authors and scholars to relate information regarding India, which would provide a biased perspective, but considering his argument for this chapter, the use of these sources is adequate in supporting his argument.

Historiographical Debate

I am not sure how the author is situating him/herself in a wider scholarly debate.

Contribution to Our Understanding of Colonial Rule

This chapter aids in our understanding of colonial rule by again showing the ways in which a colonial power can essentially “invade and conquer” an epistemological space. The chapter emphasizes the lack of agency a colonized territory in regards to representing its culture and history in the world; the chapter makes clear the control the British had over India’s narrative. This chapter also helps in understanding the reasoning for using an epistemic approach to colonial rule and why Jone’s and Colebrooke’s search for the oldest Indian text was so important in securing British rule. Cohn writes: “British law… could not become the law of India because that would be counter to the very nature of an established legal system… ‘a system of liberty, forced upon a people invincibly attached to opposite habits, would in truth be a system of tyranny’” (68). Cohn is explaining the British’s recognition of how weak their authority would be in India if they had established their own system by force. This is a contrast from an element of modern colonialism Osterhammel describes in his text, in which he writes that there is an, “unwillingness of the new rulers to make cultural concessions to subjugated societies” (15). In this chapter, Cohn demonstrates the necessity of making at least some “concessions to subjugated societies” that have deeply entrenched forms of self-governance to maintain power over them.