This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright without restrictions for their published content in this journal. HSSR is a SHERPA ROMEO Green Journal.
BRITISH COLONIALISM AND THE INDIRECT RULE: A HIERARCHICAL ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE TO CONTROL THE UNRULY TRIBES
Corresponding Author(s) : Muhammad Kaleem
Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews,
Vol. 9 No. 3 (2021): May
Purpose: This paper intends to focus on elaborating on British colonialism and the types of indirect rule. The main purpose of the paper is to dig deep into the matter of how the British controlled the tribal societies and how far they were successful in controlling the tribal people. Indirect rule was designed to serve the interests of the British, whereas the tribes were left independent to deal with their internal affairs. It gives a detailed description of the British policy of controlling the tribes and answering the question of why the British opted for the indirect form of rule.
Method: The research work is qualitative and descriptive in which the already available information and facts about the contents are critically analyzed. Secondary sources such as books, research papers, journals, and online internet materials have been used to collect data related to this topic. The research work is analytical where qualitative techniques have been applied to investigate the major research question. The technique involves exploring different ideas and hypotheses related to ruling different colonies by the imperial administrators.
Main Findings: This study highlights that an indirect form of rule was the best strategy of the British colonial masters to control the unruly tribes. The hierarchical administrative structure which the British devised to control different areas of the world better served their interests where they rely on very few of their officers who controlled and administered the tribes. Another significant finding of the study is that the socio-political and economic underdevelopment in the post-colonial setup is because of the indirect form of rule which the British adopted during the colonization of the tribal regions.
Application of the Study: This study provides guidelines for further research to contemplate the links between indirect rule and the socio-political and economic underdevelopment in the post-colonial tribal areas of the world in general and in the erstwhile FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) of Pakistan in particular.
The Originality of the Study: The study elaborates the concept of colonialism and the indirect rule of the British colonial masters and further explains how the British served their interests. It also linked the colonial legacies that continued in the tribal areas, which hampered their progress and development.
Download CitationEndnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
Ahmad, S. A. (2013). The thistle and the drone. India: Harper Collins.
Bangash, S. (2016). The Frontier tribal belt: Genesis and purpose under the Raj. Pakistan: Oxford University Press, p.23.
Berman, B. J. (1974). Administration and politics in colonial Kenya. Michigan: Ann Arbon.
Gartrell, B. (1983). British administrators, colonial chiefs, and the comfort of tradition: An example from Uganda. African Studies Review, 26(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.2307/524608 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/524608
Gerth, H. H. & Mills, C. Wright. (1946). Translated and edited. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp., 77-128.
Gerring, J., Ziblatt, D., Gorp, J. V. & Arevalo, J. (2011). An institutional theory of direct and indirect rule. World Politics, 63(03), 377-433. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887111000104 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887111000104
Hobson, J. A. (1902). Imperialism: A Study. New York: James Pott & Co. Retrieved from https://oll.liberty fund. org/titl es/hobson-mperialism-a-study
Khapoya, V. B. (2013). The African experience: An introduction. New York: Routledge.
Lugard, F. D. (1965). The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa (5th Ed.). London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd.
Mamdani, M. (1996). Citizen and subject. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Maxon, R. M. (1994).East Africa: An introductory history(2nd Ed). Nairobi: East African Educational Publishers
Mazrui, A. A. (1969). European Exploration and Africa’s self-discovery. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 7 (4). 661-676. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X00018887 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X00018887
Naseemullah, A. (2014). Shades of sovereignty: Explaining political order and disorder in Pakistan’s North West. Studies in Comparative International Development, 49(4), 501-522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-014-9157-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-014-9157-z
Naseemullah, A. & Staniland, P. (2014). Indirect rule and varieties of governance. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 29(1), 13-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/go ve.12129 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12129
Nye, J, S., Jr. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs.
Perham, M. (2016). Frederick Lugard: British colonial administrator. In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Frederick-Lugard.
Robinson, F. (1974). Separatism among Indian Muslims: The politics of the United Provinces’ Muslims, 1860-1923. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Vail, L. (1989). The creation of tribalism in southern Africa. London Berkeley: Currey University of California Press. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft158004rs/
Young, C. (1976). The politics of cultural pluralism. USA: University of Wisconsin Press.