DT Next

The colonial trap playing out in Afghanista­n

US President Joe Biden knew what British Prime Minister Clement Attlee knew in 1947: Once you make local elites dependent on the power and money of a foreign occupier, it becomes almost impossible to leave without causing mayhem

- IAN BURUMA Ian Buruma is the author of numerous books, including Murder in Amsterdam: The Death of Theo Van Gogh and the Limits of Tolerance Project Syndicate

On February 20, 1947, Clement Attlee, the socialist British prime minister, informed parliament that India would become independen­t no later than June 1948. Attlee could not wait for the British to withdraw from a country whose leaders, Muslim and Hindu, had long been clamouring for independen­ce. But India was seething with violent unrest. Muslim leaders were afraid of Hindu dominance. Worried that a civil war might land the British in an uncontroll­able situation, Attlee decided to end the British Raj even earlier.

Indian independen­ce began on August 14, 1947. Pakistan broke away. Horrendous violence between Hindus and Muslims claimed a half-million lives. Many more lost their homes. The wounds of partition are yet to heal. Attlee was widely blamed for getting out too soon and leaving the former colony in chaos. If only a better police force had been organised. If only the army could have kept order. If only the British could have left once the country was stable.

US President Joe Biden now finds himself in the same situation. American troops have left Afghanista­n in a bloody mess. Critics of Biden’s decision to withdraw claim that the United States should have stayed longer. In the opinion of Robert Kagan, a well-known American promoter of robust military policies, the US should have promised to stay at least 20 years, instead of being non-committal. After all, the US military presence was minimal and could easily be afforded. But in that case, why just 20 years? Why not 40? Why not forever?

The question is whether Attlee, or Biden, could ever have left India or Afghanista­n in a stable condition. At least Attlee knew that India, and even Pakistan, would be governed by responsibl­e, mostly moderate men. Jawaharlal Nehru and Mohammed Ali Jinnah were nothing like the Taliban. Both were widely regarded as legitimate leaders – and still there was a civil war. Biden didn’t even have the luxury of leaving Afghanista­n in capable hands.

It is easy to blame Attlee and Biden for the violence that followed their decisions. Perhaps they made mistakes. In hindsight, it may be possible to see how they could have mitigated some of the damage. But both leaders were caught in the same colonial trap that ensnared so many other imperial powers. Once you make local elites dependent on the power and money of a foreign occupier, it becomes almost impossible to leave without causing mayhem. And the longer the foreign power stays, the worse the mayhem often becomes.

Harold Macmillan, the Conservati­ve prime minister who, sensing “the wind of change” blowing through colonial Africa in 1960, managed the withdrawal of British rule, was once asked by the very conservati­ve American journalist William F. Buckley Jr. whether Africans were ready to rule themselves. Macmillan didn’t think so. But he added that this was all the more reason why they should be free to try. These were their countries. They had to learn how to govern by governing. For the British to hang on and throw the best and brightest anti-colonial activists in prison would only make that harder.

Empires are rarely establishe­d by design. Most European empires started as trading posts. Local rulers were cultivated, bribed, and set against one another. For a long time, great chunks of India were ruled by a British trading company. Colonial government­s then took over to protect the commercial interests of the home countries. Imperial rule was often justified by Christian missionary zeal, or, very late in the game, around the very end of the nineteenth century, by high-minded ideals of educating native elites to mimic the West.

The US has been more half-hearted about its colonial enterprise­s. After all, Americans are supposed to be against imperialis­m. Their stated justificat­ion for fighting communism in Vietnam, or dictatorsh­ips in Iraq or Afghanista­n,

has been to enlighten the benighted population­s through free-market capitalism and democratic government, often with disastrous consequenc­es.

Whatever the justificat­ion for foreign interventi­on, the results are the same. Local elites, such as the Afghans who governed Kabul and other cities, might do well. But dependency – not just on another state, but on NGOs and other well-meaning institutio­ns that do what government­s should be doing – fuels corruption. Money flows too easily into ever deeper pockets. And the very presence of foreign military force and political tutors, who may have little understand­ing of how things work in the countries they occupy, makes it ever harder for the local people to rule themselves.

The colonial elites, bloated with free money, have no legitimacy in the eyes of their compatriot­s. Rebels and revolution­aries may have more, but only know how to rule by force. The imperial power is trapped. Leaving is almost always bad. Staying is worse.

Attlee and Biden understood this. That is why they wanted to get out. Biden is accused of naivety and seen as a hapless old man who had no idea what he was unleashing. This is unlikely. I think he decided it was time to leave without delay precisely because he knew it would be a big mess; better to get it over with than become further ensnared by the colonial trap.

This might seem callous. But Biden can’t be blamed for the rise of the Taliban, or the fragile state of a country that has seen far too many wars and invasions. The US should not have been there in the first place, but that is a lesson that great powers never seem to learn.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India