Critique of colonialism

just once it does exist, sedulousness must keep creating new contains in sound out to perpetuate its testify existence. Gandhi said that the British wanted to replace the entire gentleman's gentleman into a market for their own goods. The British had achieved such(prenominal) a high level of industrialization in such a short time that the rest of the world was unable to keep up and was, therefore, a perfect reference point of new consumers of the goods produced by British application. But they could only grass their goods if there was a need, or at least a perceived need, for these goods elsewhere. The only way the British could be authorized of creating such needs was by colonizing the rest of the world. Of course, in doing so, the British also gained access to re starts and, by distorting the local economies made the natal populations dependent on Britain's, and other nations', exports. If Indians were employed in industry and were not qualification their own framework then the cloth would have to be imported from Britain and the perceived need became real. But the need was real, as Gandhi perceived, only so long as one accepted the need for the occupations that were keeping people from making their own cloth. at once the need was removed by a return to homespun textiles, for example, the consumption of textiles imported from Britain was no need at all.

Thus "Gandhi ha[d] no doubts at all that the source of modern imperialism l[ay] specifically in the system of brotherly performance" adopted by the West (Chatt

erjee 159). Gandhi's solution to the problem of industrialism's allure was to look on machinery as an evil and to change moral values in such a way that people's perception of their social needs is changed. Once people perceive their needs as limited, then they atomic number 18 enabled to "set deliberate limits to social consumption" and this eliminates the need for the efficacy of industrialization (Chatterjee 159).

Yet Nandy argues that Indian culture has always protect itself against lastingnesss that are "proselytizing, hegemonistic and committed to some secular or nonsecular theories of social progress" by learning the ways of the outside force "provided such learning is paying" (Nandy 104).

This seems to be the position advocated by Gandhi's adversaries who believed in taking what they could out of an outside force such as the British colonizers and putting it to use in their own way. Paradoxically, it is also the source of Gandhi's ideas since, it must be remembered, this attitude was ground on learning from outside forces "provided such learning is pro enclotheable" (Nandy 104). Gandhi sincerely believed that the lessons about progress that the West had to offer were not at all profitable to Indians. The acceptance of industrialism and the notion of scientific progress in Indian society would not, in Gandhi's estimation, fit the Indian tradition of learning and adapting what was profitable, it would be a declension to the "proselytizing, hegemonistic and secular" ideal embodied by the British and their front man in India. Gandhi believed that colonialism was an evil because it distorted human relations -- among classes, mingled with town and country, between rich and poor -- that are unchanging when the colonial influence is absent. He appreciated the British learning at administration and was, therefore, willing that they should stay and continue in these functions. In this sense Gandhi was willing to learn what was profitable from the colonizers succession rejecting what wa
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!