Imperialism in India Essay

Politics The effects of imperialism are both positive and negative. The positive effects are banning inhumane traditional practices such as sati and the dowry system, promoting widow remarriage and prohibiting child marriage. The negative effects are that Britain caused the traditional industries to crash. Also, poverty increased. British officials were paid out of the India treasury. Imperialism drained India’s wealth. It destroyed India economically and politically. India became dependent due to imperialism. It destroyed India’s handicraft and small scale industries. The imperialistic powers treated India as a place to extend their power. Imperialism gradually destroyed India. While destroying India economically and politically, imperialism also had some good effects on India. With the spread of imperialism and colonialism , foreign powers took an interest in India and thus introduced new means of transport and communication. Modern technology and education were also introduced. negative effects: Racism grew (british to the indains) economic hardship, british were upset by the indain desire for self rule and nationlism, loss of self sufficiency, reduced food production which led to famines. Positive effects: railroads were built, communication grew due to the building of telephones, and the telegraph, desire for unity, modern economy, public health improved, english language more commonly used and learned British Imperialism in India â€Å"All the leadership had spent their early years in England. They were influenced by British thought, British ideas, that is why our leaders were always telling the British â€Å"How can you do these things? They’re against your own basic values.†. We had no hatred, in fact it was the other way round – it was their values that made us revolt.† -Aruna Asaf Ali, a leader of the Indian National Congress. (Masani, quoted in Wood, 32, 1989) There is no doubt that British imperialism had a large impact on India. India, having previously been an group of independent and semi-independent princedoms and territories, underwent great change under British administration. Originally intended to consolidate their hold on India by establishing a population that spoke the same language as their rulers, the British decision in the 1830s to educate Indians in a Western fashion, with English as the language of instruction, was the beginning of a chain of events, including a rise in Indian nationalism, that led to Indian resentment of British imperialism and ultimately to the loss of British control over India. One of the most important factors in the British loss of control over India was the establishment of English as a unifying language. Prior to British colonisation, India was fragmented and multi-lingual, with 15 major languages and around 720 dialects. English served as a common ground for Indians, and allowed separate cultural and ethnic groups to identify with each other, something which had rarely if ever occurred before on a grand scale. Although it was mainly educated Indians of a privileged caste who spoke English, these were the most influential people in terms of acting as facilitators for nationalist ideas to be communicated throughout the populace. The publication of magazines and journals in English was also a great influence on the rise of Indian nationalism. Although most Indians received nationalist ideas orally, these journals allowed Indians who were literate in English to come into contact with the ideas of social and political reformers. Political and social reform in India was achieved as a result of the European political principles brought to India by the British. Indians were Anglicised, and the British ideal for an Indian was to be â€Å"Indians in blood and colour, but English in tastes, opinions and intellect†, as put by one British legislator (Rich, 214, 1979). This Western education inevitably led to well-read Indians encountering European principles such as human rights, freedoms of speech, travel and association, and liberalism. This was in direct contrast to the imperialism practised by the British in India and to the Indian experience – one third of the subcontinent was ruled by Indian princes under British supervision, and the rest was directly controlled by the Viceroy and administered by about one thousand members of the civil service, all of them English (Rich, 215, 1979). This knowledge of principles such as autonomy and freedom naturally led to many Indians desiring this for their own nation, understandable since it appeared that the world’s greatest and most powerful nations were self-governing democracies, and this system was obviously successful. Part of the newfound desire for freedom experienced by many Indians was the desire for native religion and customs to be respected. It is widely accepted that the Indian mutiny of 1857 was at least partly generated by Indian resentment of British interference in Hindu customs. Indian soldiers in the army were required to bite the ends off gun cartridges that contained pig fat and cow fat, which offended both Muslims and Hindus. When troops refused to use the cartridges, â€Å"eighty sepoys were thrown into gaol for disobedience, an act which finally triggered the uprising.† (Richards, 301, 1994). This showed a great lack of cultural and religious sensitivity on the part of British officers. Although the mutiny was put down quickly, it shook British confidence in their power, and resulted in tighter control of their hold on India. This in turn led to further resentment of British imperialism, and claims that military regulations were an attempt by the British to destroy the traditional caste system. (Richards, 301, 1994). In believing so vehemently that the British system was superior to the far inferior Hindu traditions, the British officers were essentially contravening the ideals of freedom that were an important element of the Western European political principles that they so wanted to instill in the Indian peoples. Following the Mutiny of 1857, Indian nationalism gained much more momentum than had previously existed in the first part of the century. This movement consisted mostly of British-educated intellectuals, and ironically was made possible by the British encouragement of higher education, originally intended to create a middle management that could carry out simple administration jobs. Most of the Indian nationalists – most notably Ghandi – were educated in Western Europe and were well-read in Western notions of freedoms, civil liberties and autonomy. The Indian National Congress was the largest and most obvious nationalist group, formed so that â€Å"educated Indians†¦could express dissatisfaction with the British colonial administration and suggest reforms.† (Cowie, 36, 1994) This Congress, however, had no power in terms of action and it can be seen as an attempt by the British to appease Indian nationalists who wanted progress. The seeming uselessness of the Indian National Congress in terms of enforcing changes and reforms can be seen as a great cause of Indian resentment of British nationalism. Even so, a nationalist organisation such as this would not have been possible had it not been for the fact that the British acquainted a group of Indians with European political principles (Cowie 27, 1994). As well as the moderate nationalism that grew within the Indian National Congress, extreme nationalism was also becoming prevalent. Aside from more violent protesters such as Tilak, nonviolent opposition to British imperialism emerged in protesters such as Ghandi. In response to the Rowlatt Acts, which enabled a protester or suspected terrorist to be imprisoned without trial, and the Amritsar massacre, in which 379 unarmed anti-British demonstrators were killed, Ghandi advocated a return to traditional Indian simplicity as opposed to Western materialism (Cowie 41, 1994). This dislike of materialism was owed in part to his experiences in England studying law, where â€Å"he discovered his Indian heritage through the work of 19th century British scholars who had re-created ancient Indian history and revived interest in ancient Indian literature and language† (Cowie 164, 1982). Ghandi also gained insight into his culture through â€Å"discussion with English friends on religion, both Christianity and Hinduism, which he now began to discover on a philosophical level† (Masselos, 121, 1972). Ghandi’s Western education allowed him to develop his radical technique of ‘satyagraha’ or ‘truth force’, whereby laws were opposed with the force of truth and moral consciousness instead of violence. This approach, though mostly a Hindu philosophy, in part derived its inspiration from Christianity, and the idea of turning the other cheek (Masselos, 122, 1972), and â€Å"drew upon humanist and radical strands in Western thought† (Masselos, 122, 1972). Studying Western history and ideas would have made Ghandi see that many Western approaches and ideas were extremely effective – and British forces may have reacted more positively to a method of protest that came partly from their own culture. Exposure to Western culture also aided Ghandi in seeing that satyagraha would be a powerful means of protest in an economic context – Ghandi claimed that the application of satyagraha against the British administration â€Å"could so paralyse the economy that the country would become ungovernable† (Cowie, 43, 1994). Ghandi used an approach that he had developed partly from his exposure to Western education to cause trouble in a facet of society that he knew was essential to the British consolidation of power in India. At this time, and while the world was in the throes of World War One, the British were committing more acts to instigate resentment amongst Indians. India had a large part in World War One, with more than a million pounds sterling voted from Indian revenues towards the cost of the war (Cowie, 39, 1994). With this in mind, the Montagu Declaration was issued in 1917, promising ‘gradual’ and ‘progressive’ self-government for India. There was, however, much suspicion that this declaration meant nothing and that Britain had no intention of relinquishing control beyond simple aspects such as health services, agriculture and public works (Cowie, 39, 1994). This of course caused much resentment – autonomy was essentially being denied, and in a condescending manner after India’s sacrifice for the Empire in World War One. During the 1920s and 1930s the Indian nationalist movement continued with strength. Ghandi’s campaign for independence went on, with his encouragement of peaceful protest and criticism of British administration and taxes. In 1921, Ghandi called for all Indians to boycott paying taxes on farming tools to the British, a strategy to have a negative effect on the economy. His non-cooperation campaign, despite its nonviolent aims, periodically became violent, and Ghandi was imprisoned in 1922 for instigating the movement. He was released two years later. The movement, however, was quite successful in terms of uniting the country in a movement under one leader (Masselos, 138, 1972), joined by their resentment of British rule. While earlier in the century, the English language and European political principles gave rise to the Indian nationalist movement, these were the tools used to strengthen the movement and to create unity among the Indian people. Many individual events associated with Ghandi’s satyahara approach, such as the Salt March in 1930 which demonstrated defiance of the British monopoly on salt manufacturing, and Ghandi’s â€Å"Quit India† campaign that lasted throughout the 1920s and 1930s, led to the eventual independence of India in 1947. The one movement that underpinned singular acts of patriotism was the nationalist movement, led by ‘Mahatma’ Ghandi. Ghandi was â€Å"†¦shrewd enough to utilise the nature of British rule in India to win independence without too much bloodshed† (Masani, quoted in Wood, 32, 1989). This movement was made possible by the establishment of English as a unifying language and by acquainting Indians with European political principles, which led to Indian resentment of British nationalism and ultimately to the British loss of control over India. The effects of imperialism are both positive and negative. The positive effects are banning inhumane traditional practices such as sati and the dowry system, promoting widow remarriage and prohibiting child marriage. The negative effects are that Britain caused the traditional industries to crash. Also, poverty increased. British officials were paid out of the India treasury. THE GREAT IMPACT OF IMPERIALISM Fundamentally, the imperialism idea comes from the early modernization concept that began with the 16th century. Afterwards renaissance, catholic reformation and reconnaissance actions follow this concept in order. Then geographical explorations take place in history and in this sense a lightening period exists by the help of these agendas. This lightening period consists of many different ideologies. We see these ideologies’ changing and shaping time to time and one of these specific action-oriented ideas is seen as imperialism with its impact on some African and Asian part, in particular, the response of conquered areas to the â€Å"west† in late 19th century and early 20th century. In order to express what the imperialism is, it can be said that imperialism is an ideology to make good society by being rooted in a particular economic system, capitalism, and benefits a particular class, which Marxists call the bourgeoisie or ruling class. (Butterfield, 2002) In this sense, we see the colonization action of the â€Å"west† under the name of imperialism against the African and Asian part of the world in late 19th and early 20th century. In some countries we see the entire-colonization and in some of them there was semi-colonization according to some reasons that are related with their understanding of modernity and the way that they show their reactions. In general sense it can be implied that the reaction of Sub-Saharan Africa against the impact of â€Å"west imperialism† was more strict than the one in Central Asia; in terms of economic reasons, nationalism and religion. To begin with the economic perspective of imperialism, imperialist countries’ need of row material and market and the change in the meaning of imperialism seem to be the crucial point. Up to 17th century, imperialism was not related with capitalism because in these times land power was important. However in later period of time, especially in the late19th century the spread of industrialization in the world had achieved the point where international competition for markets was becoming profoundly. After the third threshold of industrial revolution, the new imperialist political ideologies became the state politics of European countries. In this sense colonization action of â€Å"west† powers takes place. As a provision, we see the strict; but at the same time invalid reaction of Africans. In Asian side, we don’t see such kind of strict reaction as it is seen in Africa. This is because of their preparations against the probable imperialistic action of â€Å"west†, that can be regarded as the extension of rapid modernization of â€Å"west†. Especially European countries could not entirely colonized South Central Asian countries such as Iran and India. For example England could not fight with India; because India was not so weak in terms of economy and because of its economical interdependence, India’s military modernization had been taken place in order to fight with any power. However the situation in Sub-Saharan Africa was not so pleasing. They were still living as tribal societies and they were ready to be treated as slave. First of all, by the investigations of the European missionaries, â€Å"west† were aware of the row material sources that were not used, such as cool and diamond. By the power in their hand, â€Å"west† took the region under control and made the people work for their benefit. They also made African pay taxes. Actually that led revolt against foreign occupation. Africans tried to kill the tax collectors as time goes by. For example in 1902 a tax collection exercise in Bailundo, in the center of what is now Angola, went badly wrong when local people rebelled violently, attacking tax collectors and traders (both European and African). This was the first time that Africans had rebelled against the Portuguese in Angola. (BBC WORLD SERVICE, no date) That shows how deeply they were affected from the power of â€Å"west†. Also we understand that the gloom of Africans did not result from leaving their sources to â€Å"west† power. The main point that made them revolt was being made pay taxes. Secondly in terms of nationalism, liberation struggles of colonized countries come next. Fundamentally, the idea of these struggles relies on the French Revolution and the nationalism idea that comes next. In this sense there are structured similarities between Asian and African independence struggles. However the only point that they differ from each other is the process of their struggles. It is because the Asian nations were more ready in terms of military concept by the qualified commanders that came from â€Å"west† in the colonization process. Thus their armies were trained professionally by the Europeans and they were ready to fight with the â€Å"west† by the technology that came from â€Å"west†. Actually, it can be regarded as a contradiction in terms of training the nation and then loss of the colonized land because of the liberation action of that nation. In African side the situation was same; but their liberation process was too long. At that point the lack of modernization agendas can be shown as a reason. One other point about liberation is the modern education concept in Africa and Asia that was supplied by Europeans. Thus we are faced with the same contradiction again. â€Å"West† was supplying the modern education as one of the prerequisite of imperialism and many scientists and thinkers were brought up. As time goes by these thinkers were affected by the ideologies such as nationalism. For example Indian national leader Gandhi was one of them and played a big role on gaining the independence of India after the 2nd World War. (Cody, 1990) In this example we see the specific show of the contradiction that is mentioned above. Lastly to mention about the perspective of religion, the eurocenteric aim of spreading the Christianity all over the world under the idea of imperialism should be discussed. At that point, we see the similarity between South Central Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa again as we saw in liberation concept. In 19th century most of the Asian and African nations were Muslim and this was a big obstacle for the â€Å"west† to achieve their aim. â€Å"West† tried to assimilate the Asia and Africa; but they both showed their reaction similarly against the â€Å"west†. (Pappas, no date) If it is needed to combine religion with nationalism there is something to think about. If the African and Asian nations had been Christian; may be the nationalism idea would loose its validity and its impact on gaining the independence. Moreover, may be the colonized countries would be still colonized under the power of â€Å"west†. So it is obvious that the religion diversity made colonized nations fight for their independent conceit. To sum up the agendas of the impact of imperialist â€Å"west†, the insufficiency in the process of modernization and because of this, being under the control of â€Å"west† can be expressed as a summary. In the above examples we see that the impact of â€Å"west† and the probable reaction of South Central Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa are based on some economical, ideological concepts and religion in the light of many specific processes. Also it was obvious that there were both similarities and diversities between Africa and Asia in the period of â€Å"west† imperialism and economical perspective was the most distinct one in terms of diversities. On the other hand in nationalism, liberation struggle, the hope of independence and independent conceit were the common points; although there was a little bit diversity in the sense of the process of these concepts. Positive: Ending Poor Traditions †¢During the process of colonialism, the controlling nation has the power to revise or abolish certain social traditions of the region. This provides a means to eliminate damaging social trends and older ideals. For instance, after India was colonized, the long-standing practice of Sati was finally abolished. Sati was the practice where the first wife of a deceased husband would throw herself, or be thrown, onto the funeral fire with her husband as a show of mourning. It was not until the colonization of India that the rest of the world learned about the practice and moved to outlaw it. Positive: Modernization †¢Colonialism brought modernization to regions that were technologically underdeveloped. Modernization projects included building railroads for open trade, needed medical advancements and schools providing a modern education. These advances helped underdeveloped nations improve their global status as centers for trade. The improvements to education provided an opportunity for colonized students to compete with foreign students in fields including literature, art, math and science. Read more: Positive & Negative Effects of Colonialism | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_8505011_positive-negative-effects-colonialism.html#ixzz2MmpHwOQ6 Negative: Segregated Benefits †¢Many of the benefits of colonialism, such as education, were restricted to specific classes of individuals, usually based on skin color or ethnic origin. This segregation lead to a natural segregation throughout colonized countries and established the foundation for a racially segregated future. As an example, the extreme racial segregation in South Africa, known as the apartheid, is a partial result of African colonialism. The education segregation left an economic disparity in South Africa that resulted in continued segregation after the colonial period and a legacy of poor civil rights and human atrocity. Negative: Resource Drain †¢One of the primary goals of colonialism was the establishment of a resource-generating system through which natural resources from colonized regions were gathered and traded by the colonizing nation. This process reduced the availability of natural resources in the colonized nations, leading to times of hunger, poverty and need. Some colonies were heavily farmed, with food stores shipped to feed populations elsewhere while locals survived on less. Further, this created a system where a colonized country could be farmed for its natural wealth, but receive no monetary benefits. Read more: Positive & Negative Effects of Colonialism | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_8505011_positive-negative-effects-colonialism.html#ixzz2MmpLOLoP Imperialism in India: Bad or Good? Imperialism has been both positive and negative in the eyes of the Indians. It has helped them, but has also left them with no responsibility in their government. The British called the empire the British Raj. The European colonizers provided many things and helped solve old problems. They brought parts of civilization that most Indians were not able to create by themselves. They built roads and other means of transportation as well as telegraphs. They have helped India become more modernized and built a government that is strong and efficient. â€Å"To sum up the whole, the British rule has been- morally, a great blessing; politically, peace and order..† (Dadabhai Naoroji). Imperialism has brought new standards of humanity, like when they stopped infanticide and the slave trade in India. It has also brought industrialization and improved sanitation. Imperialism has also affected the colonizers in a positive way. They get cheap raw materials and make a profit off of what they provide for the Indians. All of this they got from a system of mercantilism. There were, however, a few negative effects of Imperialism. â€Å"All they do is live off of Indian while they are here. When they go, they carry all they have gained.† (Naoroji). Naoroji also adds that the natives call the system â€Å"the knife of sugar.† Another problem that arose was how the Europeans occupy all of the higher places in the government. â€Å"For a hundred years you have done everything for us. You have given us no responsibility in our own government.† (Mohandas Gandhi). Many of the old Indian industries were broken up, causing unemployment and poverty. Some also feel that they are treated as being inferior to the colonizers In 1990, Stephen Covey published The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. A business-oriented self-help book, the volume was a huge bestseller and is still in print today. During the same decade-and-a-half, the American economy grew hugely. A coincidence? Perhaps not. Let’s face it: our crusade to extend the benefits of Americanism to the rest of the world, especially the Middle East, has not been Effective. Now clearly it’s time to work Covey’s magic on Uncle Sam’s faltering imperial effort. Here’s what think-tank tigers need to know, the 7 Habits of Highly Effective Imperialists: 1. Be serious about your imperialism —the Great Game is not for dilettantes. Thrilling to accounts of the Battle of Plassey, savoring the Sykes-Picot agreement, taking in seminars at AEI—that’s not good enough. Here’s how the Los Angeles Times recently described Doug Feith, undersecretary of defense and leading neo-imperialist, in his home: â€Å"sitting in his library surrounded by stacks of Commentary magazines and books on the British empire and the Middle East.† In other words, an armchair warrior—literally. Is it any wonder Feith has been Ineffective? By contrast, the Highly Effective Imperialist gets off his fanny and â€Å"goes native.† We might consider, for example, Richard Francis Burton—now he was Effective. In the days before jets or mints on your hotel room pillow, Burton made his way across five continents. He helped discover the source of the Nile; he was one of the first Westerners to visit Mecca, disguised as an Afghan Muslim. Yet in addition to all his journeys, in addition to writing a half-dozen books and innumerable monographs on people and places, he also learned the local languages; he translated works from Arabic and Hindi, notably the Kama Sutra and The Arabian Nights. Not surprisingly, Burton saw little of England during his adult life—he died in Trieste in 1890—which is to say, Burton lived out the self-sacrificing injunction of Rudyard Kipling: â€Å"Take up the White Man’s burden/Send forth the best ye breed/Go bind your sons to exile/ To serve your captives’ need.† If Americans are serious about imperialism, they will make a massive commitment to teaching little Justin and Jennifer the tongues of their new realms: Arabic, Pashtu, Dari, Farsi, Urdu, etc. And then, even more important, they will steel their children for lifetimes of overseas service. Of course, Effective Imperialists must combine ethnic and linguistic â€Å"ground truth† with high Machiavellianism. To keep control of India, for example, the British cultivated the Sikhs as a ruling elite. Why? Because the Sikhs were a tiny minority. Once they were installed in the upper reaches of the Raj, the Sikhs were anxious for the Brits to stay, so as to preserve their top-dog status. That approach proved Effective for a century. By contrast, today, is there any American clever enough to see the wisdom of dividing Iraq into three parts, so as to make all three mini-states—Sunni, Shia, Kurd—dependent on the U.S. for border protection? Evidently not. And in any case, we’re still fighting two out of three of these groups 18 months after liberating them. Feith & Co. navigated by â€Å"moral clarity,† not by historical or political landmarks. According to an August report in Rolling Stone, one U.S. Army colonel, a veteran of Middle East work, fluent in Arabic, was interviewed by Feith for a possible job. During the session, Feith looked down at his rà ©sumà ©, â€Å"I see you speak Arabic,† Feith said. When the colonel nodded, Feith snapped, â€Å"too bad† and dismissed him. To make matters worse, the Feithians appointed their unskilled friends and relatives—Michael Fleischer (brother of Ari) and Simone Ledeen (daughter of Michael)—to prominent positions in the Coalition Provisional Authority. After a few months of sightseeing and war profiteering, such folks have mostly come home—not Effective. 2. Get the locals to like you. This is hard, I know. It’s counterintuitive to expect that the people you’re killing will give you their hearts and minds. In the words of Voltaire, â€Å"It would be easier to subjugate the entire universe through force of arms than the minds of a single village.† It took the British two difficult decades to subdue the Sudanese Muslims in the late 19th century, but by the mid-20th century, Sudan had gained its independence—and also great hostility to the West. Other British colonial non-success stories include Zimbabwe, which is one of the few countries where London is hated more than Washington. We might also recall that the British â€Å"liberated† Iraq twice in the last century, in 1917 and in 1941. And what do they have to show for the gravestones they left behind in Mesopotamia? Today, it’s the Americans’ turn to score low as colonizers. One poll taken this spring showed that 92 percent of Iraqis saw Americans as occupiers; just two percent saw them as liberators. As George W. Bush himself conceded on April 13, â€Å"I wouldn’t be happy if I were occupied either.† During the Athens Olympics, the Bush-Cheney campaign sought to make re-election hay out of the Iraq soccer team’s success; yet an Iraqi player cut the Rovers off at midfield, telling the Americans: â€Å"We want to live. Stop killing civilians. Help rebuild Iraq instead of destroying it.† We might call this Mission Not Accomplished. So what to do? Once again, the Effective Imperialist looks to what’s worked in the past. England and Scotland had fought each other for eons—â€Å"Braveheart† and all that—but they merged in 1603 when James VI of Scotland inherited the English crown and became James I of England. Four centuries later, the relationship still works. So today, if some rising young buck in the Bush dynasty went to Iraq, married a girl named Sistani, embraced Shia Islam, and brought the new Mrs. Bush home to social and political prominence, that would be the beginning of a beautiful transnational friendship. A future American president with a Shari’a-worthy beard might not please American neocons, but he would be Effective at earning Iraqi allegiance. 3. Be ruthless. If Habit #2 doesn’t work, then try Habit #3. We might consider, for example, the Effectiveness Lesson in the Book of Samuel. God said to Saul: â€Å"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.† But while Saul mostly followed the Lord’s commandment, he spared a few folks and critters. God was outraged at this insufficient ruthlessness. As future-king Samuel explained to soon-to-be-ex-king Saul, â€Å"Thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected thee from being king over Israel.† So Samuel had to mop up, completing the earth-scorching. Now that’s Effectiveness. Similarly, when the Romans wanted to be rid of troublesome Carthage once and for all, they flattened the city and plowed the leveled ground with salt. Carthago was truly delenda, and it hasn’t been heard from since. More recently, when white Americans and Australians wanted to Manifest their Destiny over their respective continents, they mostly massacred the aboriginal peoples, occasionally deigning to miscegenate with them. The Chinese are using equally Effective tactics in Tibet today. In geopolitics, possession-by-domination is nine-tenths of the law; demography is political destiny. In the meantime, after 213 years of attempted subjugation, the Russians are still Ineffective in Chechnya. Vladimir Putin might be asking himself, â€Å"WWSD† —What Would Stalin Do? And the answer to that question might well be: total wipeout, by any WMD necessary. Note to other countries dealing with uppity populations: it’s genocide, but it’s been proven Effective. 4. Got allies? You’ll need some. The Venetian Republic lasted for a thousand years because the doges were wily enough to use mercenaries and surrogates in their endless wars with their fellow Italians, then Byzantines, then Ottoman Turks. For their part, the British didn’t succeed in taking down Louis XIV, Napoleon, the Kaiser, and Hitler all by themselves. For centuries, London built balance-of-power coalitions that enabled Albion to preserve its sea power, while not getting bogged down in losing ground wars. Similarly, when the U.S. has had allies—from World War I to Gulf War I to Kosovo to Afghanistan—the fighting has generally been Effective. But America’s more unilateral wars, such as Vietnam and Gulf War II, have been Ineffective. Having allies helps in other ways, too—especially if you have an ogre for an ally. The American occupation of Germany and Japan was eased by the menacing specter of the Soviets, just across the Elbe and the East Sea. The message was clear: if the surrendered Germans and Japanese ever became too troublesome, the Americans would exit and the Red Army would enter. No wonder we were so Effective. In the case of occupied Iraq today, suppose Turkey or Iran had invaded the country at the same time as American forces. By now the American sector might well seem like paradise compared to the Turkish or Iranian sector. Plus those occupiers would be no-nonsense in their â€Å"pacification†Ã¢â‚¬â€see Habit #3, above. 5. Be realistic. Politics is the art of the possible, said Bismarck. In the same vein, the Effective Imperialist doesn’t over-promise. In 2003, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace did a study of the 16 major â€Å"nation-building† efforts conducted by the U.S. and found that just four—Germany, Japan, Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989—had been Effective. The other 12, stretched from Haiti to Nicaragua to South Vietnam, were Ineffective. The basic lesson is that culture matters most. The Germans, for example, proved capable of utter barbarism under Nazi rule, but after having lost eight million in the war—see Habit #3 again—they were ready, post-1945, to change their ways and resume being a â€Å"normal† European country again. So Germany proved peaceful and prosperous, just like its neighbors; the death of Hitler helped restore the nation to the generally upward trend line of its neighborhood. It was good news that the Germans blended back into their environment, but it was also not surprising—Europe is a civilization. Arab Islam is a civilization, too. And it’s not surprising that Iraq seems to be reverting to its neighborhood trend line, which, of course, is not auspicious for American dreams of a â€Å"democratic transformation† of Iraq. To put it another way, Islam is a tough nut to crack. Nowhere in the world, except maybe Attica prison, does a white minority rule successfully over a Muslim majority, which leads us to the Sixth Habit of Effective Imperialists. 6. Leave quickly—and set up a puppet government. In July 1958, President Dwight Eisenhower ordered 14,000 U.S. Marines to go ashore in Lebanon to prop up the U.S.-backed government. Three months later, having accomplished that mission, they all pulled out; exactly one American was killed by hostile fire. By contrast, when President Ronald Reagan ordered the Marines back into Lebanon in August 1982, he kept them there for 18 months—and 254 Leathernecks lost their lives amidst growing resistance. Today, we have been in Afghanistan for almost three years, and in Iraq for 18 months. It’s safe to say that we aren’t growing more popular in either place. Instead, the Effective Imperialist uses surrogates for long-term country-control. The Shah, for example, gave us 26 good years of sway in Iran, although admittedly the 25 years since his fall in 1979 have been disappointing. But the search for new tools—human tools—continues. And so on to Baghdad. In October 2002, the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported that Rep. Tom Lantos, ranking Democrat on the House International Affairs Committee, had soothed a visiting Israeli politician with these assurances about the future of Iraq: â€Å"My dear Collette, don’t worry. You won’t have any problem with Saddam. We’ll be rid of the bastard soon enough. And in his place we’ll install a pro-Western dictator, who will be good for you and good for us.† Enter Ahmad Chalabi. Exit Ahmad Chalabi. And while Chalabi did not meet expectations, Iyad Allawi is showing he’s tough—tough on press freedom at least. And while it might not be prudent to write a life-insurance policy for the new Iraqi strongman, it’s possible that he will survive and thrive. But whether or not Allawi makes it, Americans on the home front should develop a taste for hummus and biryani. Just as curry and couscous are national dishes of Britain and France today, thanks to the recasting of their populations as a byproduct of conquest, Americans, too, should prepare for demographic and culinary transition. Today, the difference between the colonizer and the colonized isn’t just firepower—it’s birthrates. One way or another, lots of Iraqis are going to end up in the U.S.; Allawi himself may live and die in his homeland, but lots of his friends and relatives will find new homes—next door to the late Shah’s kin and cronies, maybe in Beverly Hills. Of course, not every Iraqi coming to the American â€Å"mother country† will be carrying a suitcase stuffed with cash. Some will be carrying other things in their bags, which brings us to the seventh and last point in our Effectiveness tutorial. 7. Brace yourself for tragedy. It’s coming. At the height of Roman Imperial Effectiveness, the poet Juvenal wrote plangently, â€Å"The country weeps for its victories.† A study by the Cato Institute counted 98 wars and military campaigns waged by the British from 1800 to 1906. Kipling, the bard of imperialism, poeticized the fate of many of his countrymen: â€Å"When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains/And the women come out to cut up what remains/Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains/An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.† Sometimes, the tragedy comes later to the Imperial Country. After the fall of the Bastille in 1789, the young minds of Europe were aflame with thoughts of revolutionary restructuring. Nowhere was enthusiasm for the Aufklà ¤rung greater than among German intellectuals. As the historian Isaiah Berlin observed, â€Å"Almost without exception, they began by welcoming the French Revolution rapturously, planting trees of liberty and denouncing as obsolete and brutally oppressive the rule of the three hundred German princes.† But then the dialectical wheel turned, as the French overplayed their hand. â€Å"Horrified by the Terror and wounded by the national humiliation of Germany by the armies of Revolutionary France and, still more, those of Napoleon,† those same Germans, Berlin continued, â€Å"turned into patriots, reactionaries and romantic irrationalists.† One such was Beethoven. Living at the time in Vienna, the young composer intended to dedicate his Third Symphony to Napoleon, but after the French leader crowned himself emperor in 1804, he tore up the â€Å"Eroica† dedication. Less than a decade later, Beethoven composed a celebratory piece entitled â€Å"Wellington’s Victory.† And so the fervent Francophiles of not-yet-Germany were transformed into even more fervent Francophobes. Most likely, Napoleon went to his grave in 1821 without thinking much about the deep geysers of sentiment he had helped uncork. But the unifying Germans thought deeply about their humiliation and insult; for half a century they brooded and plotted. And then in 1870, 1914, and 1940, they crossed the Rhine, each time wreaking horrible vengeance and violence. In contemporary Iraq, our brave troops might be holding up well, but they aren’t just filling up future pages of glorious American military history. They are also unintentionally collaborating in the composition of future sagas of Sunni and Shia martyrdom. Today, the fighting in Iraq is asymmetrical: our F-16s, their AK-47s. But tomorrow, the asymmetrical action could shift to America: their WMD, our cities. That’s called â€Å"blowback,† and it’s a darn nuisance. To date, Americans have been Effective at spending money in Iraq, and little else. But it’s not too late to learn the Seven Habits of Imperial Effectiveness. If Americans are prepared to live—indeed, to die—by those Habits, we can look forward, at least, to pacifying Fallujah.