The
discourses surrounding colonialism have been actively examined by historians
and social scientists. Some, such as the Cambridge School, have adopted an
orthodox approach, viewing colonial history primarily from a European
perspective. In contrast, historians of the colonized have sought to move away
from a Eurocentric narrative, often neglecting the discursive and
non-discursive dimensions of colonialism. Foucault, through his concept of
“governmentality,” demonstrated how political rationalities of power
facilitated the acceptance of colonial transformations by the subjects
themselves.
A significant
focus of recent discussions on colonialism has been its exclusionary practices,
including the racial exclusion of the colonized from humanity and their
political marginalization through false liberalism. On one hand, critiques have
revealed how colonial textuality operated at the level of images and
narratives, distorting representations of the colonized and denying them
autonomy, voice, and agency. On the other hand, scholars have exposed the
hollowness of the colonizers’ professed liberal democratic principles,
demonstrating how colonial rule was legitimized through false representations
of humane and rational institutions governed by the rule of law.
James Scott's
work examines colonialism as a system that operates through inclusion and
exclusion, focusing on the political rationalities that enable colonial power
to function. He argues that colonial political rationality is defined by the
ways in which power is structured to produce specific effects of rule. Central
to this analysis are the targets of colonial power and the fields in which it
operates, which shaped the historically heterogeneous rationalities through
which political sovereignty under colonial rule was constructed and maintained.
Additionally, colonialism transformed traditional social systems into modern
structures, compelling people to adopt new practices. This raises critical
questions about how the notion of a ‘break’ from the past was conceptualized
and how new political rationalities reorganized social and political choices.
Partha
Chatterjee, in historicizing colonialism, distinguishes between colonial and
modern forms of power, arguing that colonialism was “little more than an
episode in Europe’s modern history.” His critique is directed at revisionist
historians, particularly the new Cambridge School. Chatterjee identifies two
key aspects of their arguments:
- A periodization that
distinguishes between the early and later phases of colonial rule, with a
transitional phase roughly between 1780 and 1830.
- The assignment of agency in the
establishment of the empire.
According to
the revisionist view, there was no fundamental rupture from the past; instead,
they emphasize an organic and internal relationship between colonial and
pre-colonial India, portraying Indians as active agents in their own history.
Chatterjee critiques this approach, arguing that it seeks to naturalize
colonialism as an intrinsic part of indigenous history. He maintains that
distinguishing between earlier and later colonial rule is crucial for
understanding the structures and projects of colonial power. For Chatterjee,
colonialism functioned on the principle of distinctiveness, primarily through
the "rule of colonial difference," with race serving as the key
signifier of this difference. However, Scott challenges this view, contending that
it was not race but religion that constituted the primary discursive framework
through which non-Europeans were conceptualized and represented.
Talal Asad
argues that modern power is not distinctive due to its relationship with
capitalism or social and institutional differentiation. Instead, its
distinctiveness lies in its point of application, which no longer relies on the
question of sovereignty. The Enlightenment encouraged individuals to move
beyond sovereignty and prejudice, embracing reason as the sole foundation for
their actions in the pursuit of emancipation from moral subjugation and
ignorance. However, this transformation could not be achieved merely by
altering false notions; rather, a systematic replacement of irrational beliefs
with rational and progressive ideas was necessary to uproot entrenched
practices and produce governing effects on conduct. Modern power, therefore,
seeks to organize and reorganize conditions in a manner that promotes
improvement.
Colonialism
cannot be understood as a single, uniform political rationality whose effects
can be assessed solely in terms of freedom, reason, and force. Instead,
colonial modernity must be seen as a discontinuity in the organization of
colonial rule, characterized by the emergence of a distinctive political
rationality—what can be termed "colonial governmentality." In this
framework, power is directed toward the destruction and reconstruction of
colonial spaces and bodies, shaping colonial conduct through governance.
The Sri
Lankan historical narrative, as recounted by both colonialist and nationalist
historians, unfolds in three key episodes. The first marks the transition from
the medieval to the modern period (1796–1802). The second begins with the
establishment of Sri Lanka as a Crown colony and the subsequent development of
colonial state apparatuses. Through the Colebrooke-Cameron Reforms, colonial
authorities introduced modern institutions, rational ideas, judicial and
legislative reforms, and capitalist agriculture, fundamentally transforming Sri
Lankan society. These progressive measures facilitated the shift from
mercantilism to governmentality. The reforms were strategically designed to
ensure public acceptance, enabling a break from traditional and superstitious
practices.
These reforms
also reorganized the conduct and habits of the subjects themselves. Colonial
power began to intervene at what Stokes calls the level of “society itself.”
The new form of political rationality relied on “public opinion,” and both
vernacular and general press were used to gauge public sentiment and shape
colonial governance. This approach benefited both the colonizers and the
colonized, as the press promoted the idea of good governance and made
participation a rational and legal means of exerting influence. Colebrooke
emphasized the state's responsibility for commercial strength and opposed
government monopolies under mercantilism, which he viewed as detrimental to
capitalism. He also objected to the system of rajkariya, which hindered
the development of a free labor market. The abolition of rajkariya
helped dismantle distinctions based on race and caste, paving the way for a
self-regulating society.
The
construction of colonial space to accommodate subjects and contain resistance
fundamentally altered the art of governance. While earlier governmental aims
were primarily directed toward maximizing social wealth, colonial
governmentality shifted the focus toward regulating the conditions of
social life. This shift sought to reduce the extractive nature of colonial rule
while enhancing its governing effects. However, David Scott does not account
for the various laws that restricted press freedom and civil liberties.
Moreover, his analysis remains primarily concerned with the existence of the
colonial government itself, paying little attention to the resistance movements
that actively opposed colonial rule.
Comments