The History Of British India Volume One

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

This essay will look in depth at the criticisms of Edward Said’s Orientalism [1] 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. This essay is a commentary on Said’s Orientalism and Mill’s History of British India.

James Mill (in opposition to Said) said there was no room for discussion and that concretely using European literature was the only right way as a methodology. Mill in his approach uses second-hand knowledge but Said uses first-hand knowledge and experiential learning. But, Mill only wants a long lasting legacy and to him it was not about the specifics of the details, he had alternative interests in that for him all he wanted was fame and international acclaim. Mill is writing from a Christian missionary perspective in that it was the missionary’s duty to civilise the uncivilised world, he had no passion or desire to learn more and be educated. In fact he states that it is impossible to gain a full picture of India and you cannot get a complete first-hand account, and it is impossible to associate with local Indians, cannot observe their daily lives in their homes. Said states that Orientalists use all knowledge that is based on textual knowledge (which replaces direct observation (for example Lane (visited Egypt) disguised as a native and gained a better impression of Egypt- but he could not remain detached from the circumstances and situation (as he had a bride) [2] . Mill in his approach in contrast, is utilitarian and he takes a cold objective stance with distance and in his view the senses come from the text. Mill did clash with the imperial elite and he offers a structural critique of officials (of Said)... by further distancing yourself (and removing and detaching yourself) by viewing the text- then you’ve experienced it all- which is a critique of Said. Mill (as an Orientalist) believes that Orientalists are competitive and legitimately criticise and attack one another. Whereas, Said believes that Orientalists are all part of one structure in his philosophy and methodology (and is critiqued therefore for essentialising Western intellectual discourse). In Said’s approach and philosophy and methodology, Orientalism is a discursive formation then the creation/formation of hegemony (or total agreement) that needs to be in place, and Orientalism is a hegemony. Said stated that what they wanted/believed in was different. Mill is a humanist in his philosophy (like Said) and used a wide variety and diversity of sources to write his History of British India. In their approaches to history, Mill states his authority was that as a historian he had a position of power (even though he was prejudiced and biased), he proposed a thesis and then looked at the evidence to prove or disprove this (just like Said). To Said and Mill the West somewhat has all the power in some ways as it makes the judgements. In their approach to history Mill and Said are dissimilar. Mill’s text is political and for diplomatic use because it could be used in international relations and politics (by treating the East as a project for improvement). Said, on the other hand, as a humanist; (which can be described as a method which acknowledges the different disciplines influence on history and examining and balancing the interconnections of this on history as a practise); Said, who is working in an inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary way, looked for pure knowledge that does not link to policy. Mill is an imperial official and so his book is very much geared to what you need to rule India in supplying the History of British India. Said states that power is the trigger between pure and political knowledge but it can be argued and debated that this depends on the subject which determines how you interpret it. In his approach, Mill is writing for political society (using policy documents by the imperial/colonial apparatus of the state). Whereas, Said in his approach, is writing for wider and broader civic society (which still produces political knowledge and information); which is the more voluntary organisations such as charities, trade unions, universities, popular culture and so forth.

Whereas, Mill can be thought of as being dialectic in his approach to history and using this as his methodological philosophy (believing that history has an argument and a point, purpose and meaning and has to weigh up the positives and negatives and strengths and weaknesses and argues there is still different freedoms and options and open debates and discussions). Said, on the other hand, in this approach to history and his methodological philosophy is more harmonious and unanimous and believes everything is as it is and there is no room for flexibility and adaptability, as we are as historians only capable of seeing one point of view, in his opinion. John Mackenzie critiques Said from a historian’s and historical perspective on Said’s historical methods and techniques. Whereas, Mill, on the one hand (in his approach of comparing and contrasting the civilised and the uncivilised), can be critiqued as Whiggish historically (belief in advancement and progress as being the pinnacle of development in society); Said, is also critiqued by John Mackenzie as being utterly deterministic (like Tolstoy) and Whiggish (like Mill) in his oversimplifications and Mackenzie critiques this and states that The West’s relationship with the East was never as static and fixed as Said claims and assumes in his methodology and philosophy and approach, but it was a fluid and dyamic relationship which was dependant and subjective [3] . 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. [4] Further disapproval of Said by Mackenzie (from a historical perspective) 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 in a somewhat Whiggish approach by Said to history [5] .

The History of British India claims to be a study of India in which James Mill sets out to assail the account, narration, record, quality, temperament, personality, belief, faith, narrative, paintings, and rules of India, also making claims about the control of the Indian environment and atmosphere [6] . He also intended to place the assault on India within a wider hypothetical structure and support [7] . Mill goes on in this preface to say that his work is an "analytical or judicious history", including especially harsh attacks on Hindu customs and a "backward" culture which he claims to be notable only for false notions, lack of knowledge, and the maltreatment and exploitation of women [8] .

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 second-hand book 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..." [9] This statement is highly loaded and racist but also emblematic of the mindset of the time period and age and this approach 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..." [10] stepping back from describing Indians as mentally inferior this also suggests to me what Said states about the history of the Orient as full of misinformation and misconceptions of the fantasies of the Orient. Conceptions, impressions, anticipations and expectations of the Orient all differ according to Said and this is supported by Mill who states, "...some things are affirmed by one, and denied by another..." [11] . "...In short, the whole field of legislation, the whole field of judication, the whole field of administration..." [12] This approach to Orientalism was critiqued by Said who pointed out that this is precisely the problem and issue in 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..." [13] This tell tale story from Lord William Betinck tells of the approach to history of colonial and imperial officials and Orientalists and 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 supported 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..." [14] On their approach to history, Mill 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..." [15] 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..." [16] 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..." [17] In his approach to history, 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.