Maintaining Power

Knowing only very little about the historical events that took place during the period of Imperialism, Levine's article was quite an informative read for me. What struck me was how easily the British initially managed to secure the "long-term loyalty ... of the [Indian] administrators" (69), despite the fact that they were a minority. One of the ways in which they did this was by 'allowing' the Indians/native culture and traditions to play a role/be a part of the administering of India- though significantly a limited one. Some of these examples include "reinvesting the Hindu Caste system with power" (72), "enforcing the caste system in courts," and allowing Indian princes to remain as local rulers. These measures made it seem as through the British were actually accommodating local traditions and customs instead of going against them, hence minimizing the totalitarian image of the British government.

This instantly reminded me of the recent move by our government to allow Singapore citizens to hold outdoor demonstrations without a permit, albeit only at the Speaker's Corner. At the surface level, it does seem as though the government has finally decided to loosen its foothold on political dissent, and many of the people interviewed by The Straits Times seemed to be really quite pleased about it. Yet, I guess this just another one of its ploy to strengthen its dominance. By creating a specific space or a 'playground' for opposing forces and ideologies to voice their dissent, the government is infact containing these opposing political groups and their voices in a space that appears to be relatively neutral to all Singaporeans, through a supposedly altruistic move (since this does not seem to benefit the government). In other words, this move that is widely perceived to be a 'relaxation of political control' is in fact, ironically strengthening the power of the government as it (a) makes the government seem very understanding, open to change etc, hence gaining the favor of the masses (b) contains any political dissent.

Although, these are pretty clever and cunning little ways of controlling huge groups of people, I can't help but wonder about its long-term effectiveness. As in Levine's readings, this move proves to be ultimately ineffectual, as the Indians do not stay contend for long and finally revolt against the British. As Fielding says in Passage to India, "Justice never satisfies them [the Indians], and that is why the British Empire rests on sand" (230)(mine's the penguin edition) In light of this, perhaps it is quite impossible to have an equal world, or "justice" anywhere, simple because people will not be contend with justice ?? Perhaps what people really want is to be IN power ... thus when the one in power falls, another will simply rise to take its place.