Indirect rule was a system of government that was developed in certain British colonial dependencies (particularly in parts of Africa and Asia). By this system, much of the day-to-day government of localities was left in the hands of traditional rulers (who in principle gained prestige and stability, albeit at the cost of a loss of autonomy), thus allowing a limited number of European colonial administrators to effectively oversee the government of large numbers of people spread over extensive areas.
Contents |
The ideological underpinnings, as well as the practical application of indirect rule in Kenyan colonialism is usually traced to the work of Frederick Lugard, the High Commissioner of the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria from 1899 to 1906. In the lands of the Sokoto Caliphate, conquered by the British Empire at the turn of the century, Lugard instituted a system whereby external, military, and tax control was operated by the British, while most every other aspect of life was left to local pre-colonial aristocracies who had sided with the British during their conquest. The theory behind this solution to a very practical problem of domination by a tiny group of foreigners of huge populations is laid out in Lugard's influential work, The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa.
The largest application of Indirect rule was in British Asia, in hundreds of pre-colonial states, first under the HEIC in the Indian subcontinent and Burma. These became the Indian Princely States. Subsequently it was applied in strategic regions on the route thereto, mainly coastal Persian Gulf states, and succeeding Crown Colonies and protectorates.
Typically a British Governor and council of advisors made laws for each colony, but local rulers loyal to the Governor kept some of their traditional authority. Indirect rule was particularly effective in enabling the British to exploit natural resources and raw materials of vast subordinate nations, and establishing bases for stationing military in strategic points throughout the globe.
While indirect rule was cheaper and easier for colonial powers, and in particular it required fewer administrators, it did have a number of problems. In many cases, colonial authorities empowered local leaders, such as in the case of the monarchy of Uganda. However, if no leader could be found (in the traditional Western sense of the term), the colonizers would simply elect their own local administrations[1]. This was the case in Kenya and Southern Nigeria, and these new leaders, often called "warrant chiefs", were not always supported by the local populace. Colonial elites also often elected local leaders with similar traits to their own, despite these traits not being suited to native leadership. Many were conservative elders, and thus indirect rule fostered a conservative outlook among the indigenous population, and marginalised the young intelligentsia. Written laws, which replaced oral laws, were less flexible to the changing social nature, old customs of retribution and justice were removed or banned, and the removal of more violent punishments in some areas led to an increase in crime. Furthermore, leaders empowered by the colonial governments were often not familiar with their new tasks, such as recruitment and tax.[2]
|
|
||||||||