Violence

The problem I have with the advocacy of violence in decolonization is that there is something inherently primal, chaotic and mad in the use of force. This can be seen in the story by Cesaire, where the rebel describes the night where the slaves murdered their masters – “We were running like lunatics; fiery shots broke out…We were striking. Sweat and blood cooled us off. We were striking amidst the screams and the screams became more strident and a great clamor rose toward the east…” (Fanon 46) Also in Passage to India – the mob rise up against the English during the trial with a kind of irrational fervor, as they begin chanting “Esmiss Esmoor” – and after the trial they start a riot, “entirely desirous of [Major Callendar’s] blood, and the orderlies were mutinous and would not let him over the back wall…” (222)

If modernism is about consciousness, then violence as something senseless and totalizing seems to go against the principles of modernism, for violence also indicates a complete erasure of rationality and reason, and a perhaps a return to primeval chaos, to un-consciousness. Another disturbing thing is the necessity of annihilation in the practice of violence. Violence does not only destroy the colonizer, it also implies an annihilation of the colonized “self”, as how Fanon puts it, a cleansing force. “[Violence] rids the colonized of their inferiority complex, of their passive and despairing attitude.” (Fanon 51) But again, annihilation of “self” could be a destruction of consciousness and of ridding oneself of any sense of values and moral reasoning. The ironic twist, of course, is that violence is the language of colonialism. And if violence indicates an erasure of reason, then the entire colonial project of spreading reason and civilization collapses.

[Finally, when I think of Fanon’s argument that in decolonization, one must be “determined from the very start to smash every obstacle encountered”, I am reminded of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. It’s not exactly related to decolonization, but during this period, the Khmer Rouge were calling for complete change, abolishment of foreign influence, all cities were emptied and people moved to the countryside, all forms of traditional art were destroyed and replaced. It was basically, annihilation, and starting things from ground zero. The sense I get is that, to “smash every obstacle”, and to find ways and means of annihilating the colonized ruler, will only lead to massive and disastrous consequences, like that of Khmer. ]