History Of British India Preface Critique

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

This essay will look in depth at the criticisms of Edward Said’s Orientalism and the methods and techniques of Said as a basis to critically evaluate the preface (vii-xxvii) of James Mill’s book of The History of British India.

Reviews and reactions to and of Said's hypothesis, such as by the historian Bernard Lewis dispute that Said's explanations and descriptions contain many realistic, practical, procedural and theoretical abstract mistakes. Said glosses over the multiple legitimate, actual and valid offerings and assistance to the examination of Eastern civilization and society made by Westerners throughout the Enlightenment and Victorian eras. Said's presumption does not give explanation as to why the French and English followed and practised the learning of Islam in the Early Modern Period, in a lengthy time period ahead of them having any exercising of authority or hope of organisation and management in the Middle East. Opponents, have argued that Said mistreated and glossed over and relegated sidelined and demoted the offerings of Italian, Dutch, and principally the substantial and considerable involvement of German scholars (Said himself dealt with and recognized and accepted the scarcity and insufficiency of German scholarly research and study in the book's beginning). Lewis maintains, asserts and says that the research and study of these countries was more significant and vital to European Orientalism compared to the French or British, but the nations in subject also had no colonial schemes, plans and development in the Middle East (Dutch and Germans), or no association, link, relationship or correlation between their Orientalist investigative studies and their colonialism (Italians). Said's speculation and assumption also does not give explanation, give details or makes clear why much of Orientalist study did not do anything to progress the reason, roots and origins of imperialism [1] .

As Lewis raises, "What imperial purpose was served by deciphering the ancient Egyptian language, for example, and then restoring to the Egyptians knowledge of and pride in their forgotten, ancient past?" [2] .

Lewis debated and discussed that Orientalism arose from humanism (which can be defined as a multitude of reasoning’s and ethical understandings which highlight the worth and use of human beings, singularly and together, and mainly normally prefers individualistic thoughts and facts, over well established beliefs and theoretical standpoints), which was different, dissimilar and separate from Imperialist ideology, and sometimes in disagreement and conflict to it. Orientalist learning and teaching of Islam came to pass from the dismissal of religious beliefs and views, and was a vital and significant stimulation to discovery of different traditions, backgrounds, customs and ways of life. Lewis criticised as "intellectual protectionism" the fight that only those surrounded by and contained by a society could profitably, gainfully, helpfully and productively discuss it [3] .

In his response and reply to Lewis, Said settled that Lewis's unconstructive answer and reply must be positioned and located into its proper situation, circumstance and framework. Seeing as one of Said's major main, chief points of views and opinions is that Orientalism was used (knowingly and consciously or without knowing and unconsciously) as an mechanism of empire, he challenges argues and asserts that Lewis' assessment, evaluation and analysis of this notions and theories could scarcely be moderated in the unbiased, intellectual academic position character and orientation that Lewis aspired, aimed, intended and planned to portray himself, but must be comprehended in the appropriate, correct and good information and facts of what Said declared and alleged was Lewis' own (often covered and hidden) inclinations and predispositions, as showed by Lewis’ political arrangements and engagements and assertions statements and declarations.

Bryan Turner’s critical assessment and evaluation of Said’s work states that there were an array, diversity and variety of structures and types and customs of Orientalism. He is consequently critical of Said’s effort to try to put them all under the structure of the orientalist practice and belief. [4] Others have disputed that although many misrepresentations and dreams, hopes and desires definitely were real, the conception and perception and impression of "the Orient" as a pessimistic reflection picture and illustration of the West cannot be entirely completely and totally correct because approaches to individual cultures differed considerably.

As said by Naji Oueijan, Orientalism was evident in two actions: an authentic one driven by and encouraged by academics and researchers like Sir William Jones and bookish figures such as Samuel Johnson, William Beckford, and Lord Byron; and a artificial one stimulated by spiritual and political bookish misinformationists. [5] Alternative views and reviews and reactions and responses embrace that other traditions and customs are inevitably unavoidably recognized and known by their "otherness", since or else if not their individual characteristics would be hidden and unseen, and therefore consequently the most conspicuous differentiations are highlighted in the visual seeing apparatus, and narrative, of the foreigner [6] . John MacKenzie comments and remarks that the Western "supremacy and domination" critically evaluated and examined by Said has often been confronted and responded to, for example in the ‘Subaltern Studies’ body of narrative, which struggles and endeavours to give voice to forgotten about peoples. [7] Further disapproval includes the examination that the condemnations charged by Said at Orientalist intellectuals of being essentialist can in turn be imposed at him for the way in which he writes of the West as a whole accumulation and gathering, stereotyping and clicheing its characters qualities and features [8] .

In his volume and tome For Lust of Knowing, British historian Robert Irwin disapproves of what he argues and declares to be Said's proposal and hypothesis that during Europe’s history, "every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric." [9] Irwin points out that extensively before ideas and philosophies such as third-worldism and post-colonialism came into the academic circles and worlds, many Orientalists were dedicated, loyal and devoted supporters and promoters for Arab and Islamic political foundations.

Goldziher backed the Urabi rebellion and revolution against overseas rule of Egypt. Edward Granville Browne developed into a singular and individualistic advocate for Persian freedoms and independence throughout Iran’s political uprising and revolt in the early 20th century. Prince Leone Caetani, an Italian Islamicist, resisted and contested his country’s takeover of Libya, for which he was condemned and criticised as a "Turk." And Louis Massignon might maybe have been the initial and first original Frenchman to take up the Palestinian Arab aims and objectives [10] .

At the same time as admitting and recognising the great authority of Orientalism on postcolonial conjecture since 1978, George P. Landow discovers Said's research missing wanting and deficient. He reproaches and blames Said for paying no attention to the non-Arab Asian countries, non-Western imperialism, the occidentalist ideas that thrive, flourish and proliferate in the East towards the Western, and sexual category questions and concerns and subjects. Orientalism takes for granted that Western imperialism, Western emotional and mental protrusions, "and its harmful political consequences are something that only the West does to the East rather than something all societies do to one another." Landow also finds Orientalism's political focal point detrimental to students of narratives since it has led to the political study of literature to the detriment of and at the cost of philological, literary, and rhetorical issues [11] .

Landow points out that Said totally, wholly and entirely disregards and overlooks China, Japan, and South East Asia, in discussion and conversation of "the East," but then criticises the West’s standardisation of the East. In addition, Landow declares that Said in Orientalism unsuccessfully tried to confine the core and heart of the Middle East, not in the slightest by neglecting and forgetting essential and significant workings by Egyptian and Arabic academic researchers.

Additionally, to reduced awareness and understanding about the account of European and non-European imperialism, a further an extra and an added of Landow’s disparagements is that Said sees only the power and authority of the West on the East in colonialism. Landow argues that these authorities were not simply one-way, but cross-cultural, and that Said did not succeed to take into consideration to bear and to keep in mind the other people or issues, reasons, features and aspects inside the East.

He also criticises Said’s "theatrical spectacular allegation claim statement and declaration that no European or American don could `identify` the Orient." However, in his view what they have actually done adds up to acts of repression and subjugation [12] Furthermore, one of the chief assertions made by Landow is that Said did not allow the outlooks and observations of other intellectuals to feature in his analysis; therefore, he committed "the biggest largest greatest single individual scholarly educational mistake/misdemeanour sin" in Orientalism [13] 

Orientalism incorporated and integrated much criticism of historian Bernard Lewis, which Lewis sequentially answered. Said argued that Lewis treats Islam as a singular body without the distinction of its multiplicity, internal dynamics, and historical intricacies, and blamed him of "demagogy and downright ignorance." [14] 

An additional, new and different up to date modern contemporary critical appraisal and consideration of "Orientalism" and its treatment and response across different areas of study is given by Daniel Martin Varisco. By means of well thought-out well-judged criticism to resolve what has become an hostile debate, Varisco investigates and inspects the widespread and wide-ranging criticism of Said's methods and techniques, including criticism of his use of Foucault and Gramsci, and argues that the governmental affairs of contentious arguments needs to be updated to move educational conversation of existent traditions and customs in the region once fantasised as an "Orient" beyond the dual culpability and responsibility game. He concludes by stating that: The notion of Oriental homogeneity will exist as long as prejudice serves political ends, but to blame the sins of its current use on hegemonic intellectualism mires ongoing mitigation of bad and biased scholarship in an irresolvable polemic of blame. It is time to read beyond "Orientalism." [15] 

In his criticism of Orientalism, author Ibn Warraq protests Said's conviction faith and principle that all reality and fact was comparative and ambiguous and states that this destabilized, damaged and diluted Said’s trustworthiness, reliability, integrity, authority, standing and sincerity. [16] 

In The History of British India on page xiv Mill suggests that to gain knowledge and information about foreign exotic nations you can only do 3 things (by which to do so). Said would critique this by stating that it is not just about experiential learning. "..may attain more knowledge of India, in one year, in his closet in England, then he could obtain during the course of the longest life, by the use of his eyes and ears in India..." [17] This statement is highly loaded and racist but also emblematic of the mindset of the time period and age would be critiqued by Said because it suggesting that Western knowledge and information is complete even suggesting that you may as well not go off and explore and discover India in person (as books are all you’ll ever need!) as it will not teach you anything of value that you already did not know that the books did not already tell you. "...bias of the mind, and render the conception of the whole erroneous..." [18] stepping back from describing Indians as mentally inferior this also suggests to me what Said states about the misinformation and misconceptions of the fantasies of the Orient. Conceptions, impressions, anticipations and expectations of the Orient all differ according to Said and support by Mill who states, "...some things are affirmed by one, and denied by another..." [19] . "...In short, the whole field of legislation, the whole field of judication, the whole field of administration..." [20] Orientalism and Said point out that this is precisely the problem and issue is that this knowledge and information was used to demean and degrade and cliché and stereotype the Orient (which included India). "...We do not, we cannot associate with the natives..." [21] This tell tale story from Lord William Betinck is symbolic of the relationship between European rule and its representations and is very telling in that most colonial imperial officials were ignorant of other countries traditions and customs and so on as support by Said, and they had absolutely no desire and motivation or want and need to progress and advance it further by assimilation, integration and cooperation and debates and discussions. "...their excessive ignorance of our characters and our almost ignorance of theirs..." [22] Said states that the West thought upon themselves as very much that it was their destiny and duty and right to civilise the uncivilised world and Said critiques this by stating that knowledge and information was more equalised between the East and the West. "...not because I vainly imagined my thoughts more valuable than those of all other men, but because the sincere and determined pursuit of the truth imposes this rigid law..." [23] Said stated that there was in the West a real need to consciously or unconsciously rationalise their behaviour towards the East in order to justify colonial imperial takeover but that a lot of Westerners believed that they were superior to the inferior East. "...This is done, without glaring marks of inconsistency, by avoiding all close encounter with the subject, and keeping to vague and general phrases... reputation, not only of great talents..." Firstly subject suggests a thing to be studied and examined closely not a human or person at all. Said critiques this by stating that by never speaking to or even seeing Orientals they had no other choice but to resort to generalisations with subjective terminology and dubious methods and techniques, whereas, Mill sees no issue or problem with this as long as he makes a name for himself. "...inaccuracy in form rather than in substance..." Said would critique this by stating that inaccuracies, omissions and uncertainties were endemic in the knowledge of the authors of Orientalism of the West by rendering categorical judgements and views and opinions of the East as if it had singular qualities and features- neglecting the diversity, variety and complexity of the East’s interior, therefore, it could only ever be partial and incomplete knowledge and information according to Said.

In conclusion, upon reflection and evaluation, Said finds the applications and subsequent interpretations of the Orient to be incorrect, whereas, Mill, other the other hand, is aware to some certain extent the West’s knowledge and information is insufficient but he seems to give off the impression of indifference and irrelevance to this, the information and knowledge to him does not have to be even correct, as long as he gets a reward and gift and fame and international acclaim, then Mill is satisfied. For Said it is very much how the wide variety and diversity of projections and portrayals of the Orient are made sense of in perhaps unintended ways, but for Mill, especially and particularly, there is no room for debate and discussion and the circumstances and situations must be correct.