I had ended the last piece on the note that one of the fundamental distinctions between the European colonizer and indigenous peoples who were colonized was the difference in their land ontologies. In the case of the former, his Christian Onto-epistemological and theological (OET) framework informed his land ontology whereas a spiritual land ethic, scholars believe, shaped the very OET of most indigenous societies. The nexus between the subject-object cartesian dualism of the colonizer’s OET and the Lockean position on ownership of land/creation of a proprietorial interest in land is not that difficult a connection to draw. In stark contrast, most indigenous societies, until afflicted by “modernity” owing to the European colonizer’s advent, shared a sacred and harmonious relationship with nature which was not seen merely as an object of conquest and possession. It is this distinction in attitudes that brings out in stark relief the devastating impact that universalizing Europeanism has had on nature across the world.
That the colonial attitude towards nature has a direct bearing on metrics of “development” is supported by several scholars of coloniality. A colonialized and hence homogenised approach to development has resulted in every society aspiring for the same way and quality of life regardless of its local conditions. Hypothetically speaking, it is as good or as bad as Uttarakhand, an eco-sensitive zone, aspiring for the same degree of road connectivity and “infrastructure” as Delhi notwithstanding the environmental impact of ceaseless “developmental” activity on its fragile ecological balance. Also, scholars have underscored the convenient categorization of former colonies as underdeveloped or developing countries while the former colonizers serve as benchmarks, the developed countries, whom the rest of the world, specifically the “Third World”, must catch up with. The ones who benefited from colonization became “donor countries” and the ones whose societies were destroyed became “recipient countries” with their arms outstretched for alms in the form of “development aid”.
Unfortunately, former colonies themselves are yet to wake up to the use of “development aid” by the West to coerce them into reshaping their consciousness to conform to “modernity” which has a bearing on political economy, culture, education and everything else that shapes the worldview of a people. In other words, “development” and “development aid” have been consciously employed as tools to further European coloniality in former colonies by keeping alive those colonial power structures and Statist institutions which prevent indigenous consciousness from being mainstreamed through the apparatus of the State. Unfortunately, a postcolonial approach, which is the conventional framework adopted in Bharat to dissect colonialism, has not enabled empowerment of indigeneity. Instead, it has reinforced coloniality through its selective approach to subalternity which has the effect of creating internal coloniality, instead of uprooting coloniality.
There is a decent chance that I might be told that two pieces ago I started this particular thread of discussion with a brief primer on the history of Section 295A of the IPC which penalizes “blasphemy”, and now I seem to be meandering in the direction of coloniality of development. I have a good reason for taking that discussion in this direction because the underlying object is to underscore the all-pervasive and omnipresent nature of coloniality. To use a pop culture reference, it’s like the Matrix. One just needs to become aware of it after which it is impossible to unsee it, especially in matters of political economy and law-making.
The larger point being made is that it makes very little sense to address such deep-seated issues of coloniality with a Band-Aid when perhaps a “hit reset” option is the better approach. Unfortunately, there is a long way to go in that direction given that awareness of the existence of coloniality is a relatively recent development on the global canvas and is certainly almost non-existent in Bharat’s national discourse. The Indian academia, in particular, continues to blithely and perhaps deliberately hug the outdated cactus called postcolonialism, and its cosy and equally colonial partner Marxism. One hopes that a dispensation which claims to fight for the indigenous perspective has the depth and vision needed to recognize the coloniality of existing structures, and has the will to go back to the drawing board to facilitate the re-emergence of the indigenous worldview starting with matters of political economy and law, which is bound to have a cascading effect on the society.
J. Sai Deepak is an Advocate practising as an arguing counsel before the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi.