06.02.2025

Terror of colonialism

George Evans reviews Caroline Elkins Legacy of violence: a history of the British empire Vintage 2022, pp872, £16.99

Caroline Elkins had a book published in 2005 detailing the crushing of the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya by Britain (Britain’s Gulag: the brutal end of empire in Kenya). This was a little unpopular in some quarters at the time, but some of the Kenyan survivors took the British government to court and Elkins provided a lot of the backing. Her account in the book was thoroughly vindicated when the judge in this action demanded that the government release some records that had been kept secret for decades.

Legacy of violence gives a detailed picture, which stresses that the empire’s actions in Kenya were not only perfectly normal for British imperialism, but were the culmination of ‘lessons learned’ over a couple of centuries. She kicks off with the 18th century - not with America, but with India. An early tale is of the ‘Indian Mutiny’, whose suppression is notable for its bestiality - notoriously, mutineers being put in front of a cannon to be blown to pieces; lies - the gross exaggeration of the ‘Black hole of Calcutta’; and the worming out of responsibility - the trial of Warren Hastings, for instance.

Elkins gives an overarching view of imperial ideology over centuries: there was the early striving to ‘take Christianity to the heathen hordes’, especially in Africa, from where the bulk of the slaves were taken. Although young missionaries continued to pour into the empire, this became rather passé in the 19th century and the drive then was to ‘take civilisation to the ignorant’. This was aided by the fake theories of eugenics of the time: white people were clearly superior, as exemplified in Rudyard Kipling’s famous phrase about “the white man’s burden”.

The recent failed Tory leadership contender, Robert Jenrick, clearly thought that 19th century ideas and the gratitude owed to the empire were just the thing for Conservative Party members - not enough of them though. Certainly ‘a few bob’ could be made from slavery, looting, overwork and all the other ‘benefits of European civilisation’, but while this might be the main aim of some, for the ruling class there were more important interests at stake.

Chapter one is titled ‘Liberal imperialism’, and Elkins uses this phrase many times, and she says in this chapter:

The paradox between the lived imperial experience of the colonised and the laudatory claims of Britain’s civilising mission can be traced to the conjoined 19th-century birth of modern liberalism and imperialism. They shaped an era in which national interests were inextricable from the growth and spread of capitalism, and in which a dominant narrative of universal human emancipation, equality, rights and the civilising mission materialised simultaneously with an underside of repression, as expressed in evolutionary thought.

So lies and hypocrisy found a natural home in capitalist exploitation.

Elkins devotes many chapters to the development in the empire of the methods needed, or at least used, to maintain rule. From South Africa (the Boer wars), through Ireland, Palestine, India, Malaya, Cyprus plus plenty more - and then they were passed on to the new hegemon for use in Vietnam. They failed there too.

The British in South Africa were famous for the concentration camps, in which all, including women and children, were held without adequate food or sanitation and allowed to die in their thousands.

On to Ireland. The 1916 Easter Rising was crushed and the British government decided to reawaken it by executing its leaders. The usual imperialist format - kill the bastards and they will be so frightened that they obey - did not work, and so the Black and Tans paramilitaries were called in - 10,000 of them! This had the extra advantage of employing some soldiers returned from the front instead of them causing trouble at home as a result of being unemployed.

Black and Tans

Along with the Black and Tans, there was the Auxiliary Division of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Not as well known outside Ireland as the Black and Tans, they “consisted of 15 hundred ex-officers with wartime and imperial experience”, and were actually even worse. Elkins adds: “Legalising the paramilitary police force were nearly 70 regulations passed with the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act in August 1920.” The regulations were “reminiscent of legislation in India, and variations of it would be exported to other parts of the empire”. So, again, methods were learned and passed on, regardless of success or failure - the empire must be maintained. Law, never mind trials, could be scrapped and ‘due process’ avoided.

‘Regulations’ and vicious force were needed in Palestine. Land was bought up, Palestinians turfed off and the British tried to keep things calm(ish). The Palestinians were not really organised as a ‘nation’ - unlike the Zionists - but they did know when they were being shat on. This led, among other things, to the ‘Arab Revolt’ of 1937-39. Using lessons, and some personnel, from Ireland, this was put down with brutish violence.

Murder, torture, rape, summary executions, the burning of houses and destruction of villages - all took on a new lease of life in Palestine. Another aspect of the murderous assault on the Palestinians was the close collaboration of Zionists. They were happy to join the British in their repression of the ‘inferior’ folk who dared to challenge their ‘betters’. The Zionists no doubt learned a lot in this period, but unfortunately only showed their gratitude by blowing up some of their old mates in the King David Hotel in 1946. Any lessons learned have been developed and expanded to a horrific extent since.

Elkins devotes much space to India - the ‘big one’ perhaps (after all, Queen Victoria had been the empress there): it was the jewel in the crown. As readers will know, India won its independence in 1947, but, as Elkins chronicles, British imperialism tried to hang on by any means possible for as long as it could.

I think most comrades will be aware of the Bengali famine in 1942, in which two million died, much to the disinterest of Churchill - there were ‘more important’ priorities. But I was not aware of the Bengali famine of the late 18th century, in which “An estimated one-third of Bengal’s 30 million people died”. This “tragedy” led to a fall in the income of the East India Company, which had to be bailed out by the British government.

World War I had revealed the existing weaknesses of the imperial countries, as well as weakening them further - not least financially - and World War II continued both of these processes. Then Britain had stood ‘alone’ - apart from Australian, New Zealand and a few other Commonwealth forces (not least a couple of million from India).

Meanwhile Nehru, Ghandi and other Indian leaders spent much of the war in jail and were, not surprisingly, even more enthusiastic about independence when it was over. Britain tried to hang on, but to no avail; apart from anything else, British troops who had just fought a war were not keen on another one and Britain was broke - hegemony heading to the USA. At the same time Indian troops were not prepared to put up with much more.

So Lord Louis Mountbatten went to India to watch flags going up and down (while perhaps catching a whiff of smoke - see below) and Britain scrambled out, leaving behind a deadly shambles. Millions migrated from India to Pakistan and the other way round. Hundreds of thousands died, but that, of course, was not Britain’s concern.

Besides, Clement Attlee’s 1945-51 government had other worries. The war had left Britain heavily dependent on the US, but Britain was still a ‘great power’ and sterling was still a reserve currency - in the Commonwealth anyway. But it still needed to buy things from the Americans, and had some large debts to repay: ie, Britain needed dollars.

Elkins tells us that the biggest supply of dollars in the empire resulted from Malayan rubber. The last thing needed here, then, was a call for independence, which was put down to Chinese communists ‘causing trouble’ - and they clearly needed to be stopped.

So Attlee’s government - despite the introduction of the National Health Service and the welfare state at home - resorted, in Malaya, to the usual methods: rape, torture, murder, concentration camps, burning down villages, etc, etc. This policy continued until 1957.

But, unfortunately it overlapped with another problem - as they so often did. There was unrest in Kenya, as mentioned above. Kenya gave us that name for ‘black gangsters’: ‘Mau Mau’ - a bit like ‘terrorist’, but more menacing. We hear of such ‘terrorists’ all over the place now - not least the Palestinians (and, in some quarters, anyone who objects to their treatment in Britain, Germany, the US …).

There is a problem here, however: the actual terrorists are from the ruling class. In Kenya the gangsters were the British, not to mention their local allies. Over the centuries the British, as with all imperialists, learned to divide and rule. Some of ‘the natives’ can be found who, for a little bit of privilege, will collaborate in crushing the rest - a bit like capitalism in general, of course.

Running an empire requires a lot of paperwork (less so now, with computers?): there are orders, instructions, reports, accounts (financial and otherwise). Crops, goods, slaves, land - all have to be organised and records kept. Elkins points out how, on leaving a colony or some other possession, some records are left in place, some are taken back to the ‘homeland’, but a lot of them need to be burned. These are, after all, records of criminality - at least in the eyes of ‘prejudiced outsiders’.

Hence my reference above, regarding India, to a ‘whiff of smoke’. I have run through, briefly, Ireland, Palestine, India, Malaya and Kenya. There were plenty more, of course, and they all produced vast amounts of paperwork that needed burning, and there was a constant stream of public schoolboys to produce yet more.

Elkins has plunged into the surviving records, in some cases using the law to gain access, and she has provided a lot - an awful lot - of detail. The book has nearly 900 pages, but 88 of those carry the endnotes and 48 the bibliography. The latter refers to papers, articles, reports of speeches and lots of books. The books refer to the whole history, but also cover the words of victims and perpetrators. All in all, this is a meticulous academic work written from a highly moral viewpoint.

Familiar names

Elkins gives us lots of names. Some that comrades will be familiar with include Winston Churchill (from journalist to prime minister), Orde Wingate and Frank Kitson. There are, of course, many more. There are those who cut their teeth in, say, Ireland, before moving on to the likes of Palestine. There is a continuity of personnel who learn their trade in one battle before moving on to another, gradually climbing the ladder of ‘expertise’ and experience.

The ‘expertise’ tends to relate to the methods of inflicting pain and terror on Britain’s colonial subjects - ‘the natives’. So another round of rape, torture, mass killings, concentration camps, imprisonment and so on. None of which seem to work, in the long run - even when applied by the new hegemon, the USA.

This is a book worth reading for comrades. I thought I knew a fair bit about the history of the British empire, but I clearly had quite a few gaps and the detail contained in this book adds to the horror. A welcome wider readership might put a bit of a damper on, for instance, the last night of the proms, held in September, where we had yet another rendition of the pro-colonialist ‘anthem’:

Land of hope and glory, mother of the free,
How shall we extol thee, who are born of thee?
Wider still and wider shall thy bounds be set;
God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet!

Incredibly delusional - and a bit more knowledge could be beneficial.

Under capitalism the ‘legacy of violence’ continues; the global working class needs to end it.