1. Mon 3 Feb: Course intro & India and the Environmental History of Imperialism

Reply to Michael Deflorian’s reflection

For the sake of clarity I will follow the tripartite structure that Michael himself employs in his reflection. He addresses three crucial issues that emerge after reading Cederlöf’s text and are well worth of further scholarly attention and debate.
In the first paragraph the bureaucratic categorization of nature and people and possible further reflection of the bureaucratic practices employed in north-eastern Bengal by the EIC along foucauldian lines of thought are proposed; however, contrary to Michael I am not surprised that a foucauldian theoretical apparatus is missing in Cederlöf’s text, since I think that we have to keep in mind that we are dealing with a pioneering *historical* account that tackles massive amounts of legal texts. Of course, various approaches might be applied, among them a deconstructive approach to legal texts; but that is beyond the aim of Cederlöf’s text. Though, I agree that applying Foucault’s theory of governmentality might have merit, but on the other hand, I think we first have to question to what an extent the aim of a mercantile bureaucratic apparatus can be explained with the concept of governmentality, since the EIC could not really penetrate the social network through the land classification system and indeed it seemed as if they did not concern themselves much with that. In fact, the majority of population were excluded from the highly abstract revenue system, precisely because the EIC avoided getting too enmeshed in property rights, because that would inevitably bring the real, concrete governed bodies into play. Also, there was no homogenous tendency or goal of the bureaucratic governance, in contrast to modern modes of governing that aim to homogenize and disciplinize bodies.
In Michael’s second paragraph the blatant discrepancy between the land revenue system and the ecological conditions is criticized as being anthropocentric; I have to argue that this is a bit careless use of the word, since it probably has more to do with bureaucratic practices the officers were acquainted with. They were moulded to the geographical and ecological conditions of a temperate climate and also keep in mind the cadastral origin of European bureaucracy, which explains the seemingly arbitrary separation of forested land from cultivated land. Also, the original Chakrabarty’s quote might have been beneficient, since the jump from Stalin to Collingwood is not that self-evident and it also sounds like name-dropping. Why are these two figures influential and relevant to our subject?
Third paragraph questions the rigid view of natural phenomena serving as political borders; again such a maneuver seems completely out of place in a landscape that shifts drastically in a span of few months. The EIC officers’ frustration with landscape’s noncooperative traits truly is amusing and to know that their confused foot steps created a political reality and a modern valid border points makes me wonder what chaotic bifurcations in history are at work.
All in all, a good reflection that made me think and also come up with a few new ideas on my own. So, thank you Michael.

Reply to BERGLUND KRISTINA’s refection
Thank you very much for your reflection, it provides me a broad idea and another perspective to understand the relationship between the environment and social change.Also help me to understand Gunnel’s book.
In your refection , For The British East India Company in India in 18th and 19th century, you think that the British did not in fact “arrival” of India in the name of the state, but only as a businessman seeking trade opportunities. To certain extent I agree with this view. But I think there is another fact we need to discuss. For the British colonial expansion plans in 18th and 19th century, the British wanted to extend their territory to the whole world, as a strategic India and China were not be treated as fragment part. from Geographically view, At that time India including today’s India, Pakistan , Bangladesh and other now bordering India several small countries in South Asia. the guardian of the Indian Ocean to the Pacific traffic arteries is forefront of British aggression in Southeast Asia . East India Company was not just play the role of trade, of course trade was important for Britain , but in Asia, in the name of a business rather than in the name of the nation, it much more easier to promote the United Kingdom was accepted by those strong traditions Asian dynasty accepted. In the name of commerce and trade , everything is simplified as business activiates, or in the name of “commercial activity”, and will not involve sensitive national sovereignty. However, this is just the British occupation strategy in Asia, the East India Company essentially was the way British colonial ruled in Asia. A fact couldn’t be ignore is, the British War is a war between China and the East India Company .Those British troops were from India , not from the United Kingdom.

Response to Nisa’s Reflection

Your reflection is very thoughtful and helpful as it draws out clearly one of the key themes in the book in a very lucid way.

I have two thoughts which might contribute to taking your reflection further. The first is when you suggest that the British annexed land which was unassessed. I wonder, though, whether this slightly simplifies the argument which the book was trying to make in the sense that it was the lack of stable output / revenue from the land – assessed or unassessed – which undermined some of the British attempts to exert control. In this sense I think your discussion with Mikael is relevant, as it would seem to me to be useful to consider a Foucauldian element to the nature or absence of power in relation to the subjects discussed (Fiscal or otherwise) in the book. By which I mean that it seems important to understand further how the people in the region experienced the different types of power imposed upon them by different actors, and how this then relates back to the question of land annexation. What does it mean to say that the British annexed the land? How did that affect the experiences of those who lived on it if there were no taxes being levied?

The second area which your reflection illuminates is the overlap and interactions between bureaucracy and mercantilism, or ‘corporate bureaucracy’ as you put it. One thing which is discussed in the book is that the individual merchants continued to make themselves very rich – for example Lindsey through limestone. Gunnel emphasised this in her lecture. This might lead us to ask the question of why the same people were poor at governing and good at making money. I think this bears on your argument that the ‘corporate bureaucracy’ was dysfunctional because it had mercantile characteristics. It is an interesting feature of this argument that those same characteristics – when not applied to governance – were extremely succesful (in financial terms, for the British), while they failed to be so when attempting to govern. A clearer disaggregation of the mercantilism and the bureaucracy might help in this regard.

All in all a really helpful reflection which certainly made me understand the book better.

Reply to Sabbath Sunday

You cover the general parts about environmental history in the beginning of your reflection. I find it interesting that you include different environmental historians and perspectives; it gives a wider knowledge and understanding of the field. It´s good to reflect on Cedelöf´s book with other perspectives in mind to broaden the environmental discussion.

You cover the imperial expansion in both Cederlöf´s book and Worster & Crosby. The discussion about “duty” is interesting for our field. The imperial expansion covers travel routes with one aim; to find new land and new resources. The imperial reflection in regards of nature is very much relevant. Especially in regards of exploiting nature to gain capital and power. When reflecting on Cederlöf´s book, I think you make a good job in relating to Worster & Crosby. Especially when considering the discussion in terms of ecological imperialism. I also find the term “capitalist ecological revolution” interesting, that is something I will look into more.

In the end you summarize the climate cycle with it´s “harsh environmental condition”. It reflects on both the indigenous and the empire. Nature goes it´s on way. I think you have made a good reflection and an overall view of Gunnels book with relevant inputs from yourself and other sources.

Reply to HIRSCHSTEIN NICK’s Reflection by Yaqi Fu

Thanks very much for your thoughtful and broad reflection on both history and environmental sides.

In your reflection, first you wanted to figure out what is the main utility of history. From Gunnel’s book, you found the approach is looking history forwards, not backwards. I think this would be interesting if you can explain this “forwards thinking” idea further, because I did not fully notice this idea and from my experience, I am the person who always looks back from the long-standing Chinese history as well.

I find you tried to use history as a reference to overview the British colonial history in India. The comparison view between the British and Dutch is quite inspiring. I am also wondering how the British could learn effectively from the previous experience and what proportion of their policy-making were affected by history factors. I think the British had at least learned some valuable lessons from Dutch and they needed that, for colonial governance is more tricky than domestic issues.

The comparison between China and India in environmental issues is interesting and also needs to do cautiously. As you mentioned, China and India have quite a lot differences. In my mind, the differences are probably much larger. Huge population is one of the main reason that I can imagine causes many problems in the two countries. Besides that, what are the similarities that can effectively bridge the two countries? China and India have different culture, language, climate and history. The natural barriers between China and India really effectively separate the two countries, two cultural circles in history. Now they are still working or “working” in people’s mind. From my perspective, Chinese people know little about India, even less than the British.

I can imagine the monsoon in India changes the landscape obviously in different seasons. You wondered how much evidence on rapid environment changes in 1800, which I think is a very good question with great significance in understanding boundary vicissitude. The British rigid attitude is another thing that I did not pay much attention to. The resource insufficiency which is a rewarding question deserves to think twice. But sorry I am not able to say much about this.

Reply to Murag Ramsey’s reflection, Gunnel Cederlöf’s seminar, Feb 3 2014

You point ot how Cederlöf is “deconstructing the existing coherent narrative in colonial history”, which I would agree she is. Cederlöf is definitely trying to tell a new, and more complex narrative of early British colonialism in India. And I, just like you, have also too often made simplistic assumption about colonial histories and nation state’s interests.
What strikes me as interesting here is to ask where our simplistic narratives come from. It seems to me almost like there is this general idea of how colonialism happened, an an idea premised on a simplistic dischotomy of colonizer-colonized. Has colonialism ever been simple anywhere, any time? I doubt it.
In my current work of analyzing colonial discourses in Sweden, I recently came across an member of the Swedish parliament who sarcastically told a story of a “Columbus” discovering Sápmi, banishing the nature-loving natives, and stealing the resources. The MP told this narrative in an effort to convince the listeners that colonialism had not happened in Sweden, that it is ridiculous to call Sweden a colonial state. In other words: because Sweden’s history do not fit the preconcieved mold of colonial narratives, Sweden cannot be a colonial state. This goes to show how important our preconcieved ideas of something as complex as colonialism really is.
In conclusion, I would like to add that Cederlöf’s narrative actually has many things in common with Swedish colonialism, which basically began in the form of traders-turned-tax sheriffs to the state. I wonder if you, as a Canadian, can relate this “alternative” colonial narrative to your own country’s history as well?