Notification texts go here Contact Us Buy Now!

THE IMPERIAL RAJ: COLONIZATION AND CHRISTIANIZATION

By: Wesley Jacob

PREFACE

The extent of the complicity of missionaries in the imperial project is complex and much debated. Colonial occupation of the world made political and territorial unification a possibility. India, by contrast was never a single political unit until the period of colonization, but a collection of hundreds of petty kingdoms, with diverse languages, multiple faiths and numerous ethnicities who were often at odds with each other. This made it difficult for local missionaries to cross boundaries and proclaim the new faith. Harriet Wilder, citing a village missionary tellingly overviews how the Divine hand still controlled Indian history.

For centuries, Hindu rule in India brought no blessing to the people, the village preacher said, and for that reason God willed that they should be supplanted by the Mohammadan  [sic] rulers  who are monotheists and…therefore better than the Hindus… When the Mohammadans were weighed in the balance and found wanting the British were sent by God so that they might present Christ and Him crucified to the people of this country.[1]

As the village preacher perceived, the British conquest of India came when India was already a subjugated country. The Hindu majority had been ruled by the Mughal Empire [2] from 1526. The juxtaposition of the Muslim minority rulers with the Hindu majority subjects had its many problems. While Hinduism was intrinsically polytheistic, as they worshiped idols and cows, the relatively new religion of Islam was monotheistic, and did not worship idols, and ate beef. The Mughal Empire was particularly weakened by the intolerant Aurangzeb[3], who even placed a tax on Hindus for their religion. This weakened national situation set the stage for the British conquest. The context was therefore conducive and ripe for the spread of the Gospel, as Wilder has graphically observed.

Among some possible reasons for the conquest of India by the British are, the decline of the Mughal rulers. The better technology of the British army. The Superior sea power, which not only enabled military strength, but also allowed the British economic resilience. And the esprit de corps among the British soldiers, a sense that destiny that  rewards the adventurous. India was the “Jewel in the Crown” of the stately British Empire [4]. As more countries came under British rule, the concept grew that the British were destined to rule by a moral superiority. The British Empire was the first genuinely global empire, an empire that ranged, at times, from the American colonies in the West, Australia, and New Zealand in the East, Canada and her dominions in the North and huge portions of Africa in the South, including Egypt and Rhodesia. These colossal lands, and many other smaller islands, were to be shaped, controlled, and brought under the dominion of a nation.

That the Imperial British Empire significantly kick-started the world into the modern era, and gave the world a unifying language is not really in dispute.                           However, the truth and the ugly reality behind the ever-polished and very-rarely challenged veneer of respectability of the British, and hence the Missionaries of the Empire in the Imperial project, is far from the rosy picture of a benign and benevolent undertaking, that an unlearned person might suppose. This paper therefore involves both a Historical and a Missional interpretation regarding the degree of the collusion of missionaries in the Imperial Project, attempting to trace the attitude of the people toward the Government and their attitude toward the Christian Mission.

THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF EMPIRE IN INDIA

British presence in India dates back to the early part of the seventeenth century. On 31 December 1600, Queen Elizabeth[5], the then monarch of the United Kingdom, agreed that a royal charter be given to a new trading company, "The Governor and Company of Merchants of London, Trading into the East Indies." Between 1601-1613, merchants of the East India Company[6] took twelve voyages to India, in 1609; William Hawkins arrived at the court of Jahangir to seek permission to establish a British presence in India but was rejected. Later Sir Thomas Roe, in 1617, was successful. Two years afterward, Roe gained Jahangir's permission to build a British factory in Surat, and in 1639, this was followed by the founding of Fort St. George, Madras.                                                                                                                In 1757, on account of the British victory at Plassey[7], where a military force led by Robert Clive[8] defeated the forces of the Nawab of Bengal, Siraj-ud-daulah[9], the East India Company found itself transformed from an association of traders to rulers exercising political sovereignty over a largely unknown land and people.[10] Less than ten years later, in 1765, the Company acquired the Diwani [11]of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. Warren Hastings[12] then consolidated British rule after initial military victories, which got rid of the Sovereignty of the Mughal Emperor. Hastings also made the British more acquainted with Indian history, culture, and social customs; but upon his return to England, he would be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. His numerous successors, though fired by the ambition to expand British territories in India, were also faced with the task of governance.

In a paradox that is so typical of God, the Lord used Governor-general William Bentinck (1828 to 1835) from the peripheries as a Key Leader to awaken elite Hindu minds regarding the stifling and oppressive effect traditional Hindu rituals. Certain Indian religious practices that the British found offensive were banned, such as Sati[13] in 1829. Systematic operations were undertaken against inherited Hindu practices that were obscene. Under Bentinck, Company employees were encouraged to dissociate themselves from Hindu ceremonies and involvement in the administration of temples. Passive tolerance was shown publicly to native religions. A handbook of advice for young officers, published in 1833, suggested that they would have to show forbearance towards native religions even though they were unwholesome.[14] Systematic measures were also adopted to eradicate Thagi.[15]

In the 1840s and 1850s, under the Governor-generalship of Dalhousie and then Canning, more territories were absorbed into British India, either on the grounds that the native rulers were corrupt and indifferent about the welfare of their subjects, or that since the native ruler had failed to produce a biological male heir to the throne. Such was the fate of Sambalpur (1849), Baghat (1850), Jhansi (1853), Nagpur (1854), and Awadh [Oudh] (1856). In 1874 Benjiman Disraeli, ridiculously observed, "In olden days, and for a considerable time - indeed, until I would say the last ten years - the principle of our government of India, if I may venture to describe it in a sentence, was to respect Nationality." [16]

Shortly after the annexation of Awadh, the Sepoy Mutiny[17], more appropriately described as The First War of Independence[18] of 1857-58, broke out. Within the space of a few weeks large territories in the Gangetic plains fell to the mutineers. The Indians understood that they could not be held in submission forever. Delhi was recaptured by British troops in late 1857, the Emperor Bahadur Shah, last of the Mughals, was put on trial for sedition and convicted, and by mid-1858 the Resistance had been entirely crushed. The East India Company was then annulled.

India became a Crown colony, governed directly by Parliament. Responsibility for Indian affairs fell upon a member of the British cabinet, the Secretary of State for India, while in India itself the man at the helm of affairs would continue to be the Governor-General, or the Viceroy of India. The proclamation of Queen Victoria ushered in the final phase of the British Raj. The Queen pledged to work for the welfare of her Indian subjects. In 1885 the Indian National Congress, was founded in order that educated Indians might gain a voice in the governance of their own country.

A SURVEY OF MISSIONARY UNDERTAKING DURING THE RAJ

Among the multiplicity of motives that underlay the British penetration into India such as commerce and security, for the Missionaries the spiritual welfare of the people was chief. India was opened for missionary activity. Home-based mission Modalities consolidated Christian mission expansion through their respective Soladities by providing both endurance and durability. Though they served quite efficiently as a supply structure, they could do little to check and balance, power hunger missionary imperialists. The BBC documentary Missionaries succinctly sums up the paradox: “Britain was in the process of transplanting a religious ideology throughout her empire in which the majority of those at home had already ceased to believe”.[19]

The contributions of the Serampore Trio, Carey, Marshman, and Ward, of the late eighteenth century -- provided enough inspiration for future generations. The missionary impact on India through publishing, schools, orphanages, vocational institutions, dispensaries, and hospitals was unmistakable. Though education was predominantly left to the charge of Indians who imparted instruction in the vernaculars, in 1813, the British became convinced to awaken the Indians by exposing them to British literary traditions. William Bentinck, the governor-general from 1828 to 1835, introduced the English language as the medium of instruction. English replaced Persian in public administration and education.

Missionaries built Primary Schools where initially the medium of instruction was the local language. Later High Schools introduced English as the language of instruction. As the British began building universities in India from 1857, several Indian leaders of that era, who were seen as the new elite supported the English language and were seen as the new elite. Many new English schools were established. India as a colony of Britain adopted English as the legal, financial, educational, and business language. High caste Indians, especially the Brahmans were used as mediators to help in the administration. This also created a Class who could think like the British, or as it was said then in Britain “Indians in blood and color but English in taste, in opinions and morals and intellect”[20]. The British also established in India universities based on British models with emphasis on the English language. Additionally, a few Indians got their education in British universities and there was a consequent increase in English-language journalism. Even after India’s independence, though it was supposed to terminate after 15 years of Independence. English remains the main language of India.

British intellectuals, including Christian missionaries, sought to bring Western cultural innovations to India. The Hindu English-educated minority spearheaded many social and religious reforms either in direct response to government policies or in reaction to them. Western-educated Hindu elite sought to rid Hinduism of its much-criticized social evils: idolatry, the caste system, child marriage, and Sati. Christian expansion in Tradition- fettered India provided a fresh and penetratingly contrasting understanding of the liberating power of the Gospel. Shackled Hinduism served to highlight the meaning of Life Christ freely gives. Issues of social emancipation were dealt with, such as Female Education, Widow Remarriage, the Age of Consent for Marriage, and more generally the Status of Women. For example, Religious, and social activist Ram Mohan Roy (1772-1833), who founded the Brahmo Samaj in 1828, displayed a readiness to synthesize themes taken from Christianity, and enhanced the possibility of effecting broad reforms of societal values or religious practices. These reform movements served as a catalyst to awaken the conventional Hindu mind. The movement saw the emergence of amazingly new and unexpected leadership patterns for ministerial training.

Missionaries translated the Bible into the vernaculars, taught company officials local languages, and, after 1813, gained permission to evangelize within the company's territories. Renewal and Expansion often began on the periphery of the days Ecclesiastical Structure. There were instances when entire groups of people embraced Christianity, such as the Nayars in the south or the Nagas in the northeast.

THE MAGNITUDE OF COLONIAL DOMINANCE IN INDIA: A CRITIQUE

India provided commercial reasons for establishing Imperial presence through the hugely rewarding spice trade. From the sixteenth century, European ships could make fortunes carrying exotic foodstuffs from India back to the cities and peoples of Europe. A combination of European rivalry and technical expertise over India made the extension of Imperial control possible and commercially desirable. The Dutch, Spanish, French, and Portuguese all strived with Britain for access to these rich commodities that could often fetch their weight in gold in the European market. Textiles, cotton, indigo, pepper, yarn, sugar, silk, tea, and opium would provide economic incentives for trade throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth and even up to the twentieth century. Control over the sources of these commodities and naval bases in Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta revealed that Imperial control was economically and strategically necessary. India was the most commercially successful area of Imperial endeavor[21].

The History of the Imperial Raj would be incomplete without mentioning the positive side. The 1850’s witnessed the introduction of the three "engines of social improvement". They were the railroads, the telegraph, and the uniform postal service, inaugurated during the tenure of Governor-general Dalhousie. The first railroad lines were built in 1850 from Howrah (Haora, across the Hughli River from Calcutta)[22]. This grew into a vast railway system, which more than anything else unified India. The three different presidency or regional postal systems merged in 1854 to facilitate uniform methods of communication at an all-India level. The structures of this remarkable Postal system, has survived until today. The increased ease of communication and the opening of highways and waterways networked and accelerated movement. The roads network of India. The transportation of raw materials and goods to and from the interior, and the exchange of commercial information. With the expansion of the government, larger numbers of Indians joined government service. Economic progress was made in the areas of communication, agriculture, and education. Schools, colleges and hospitals, roads, railways, and telegraph wires symbolized the irreversible march of progress. However, all these were not really meant for the welfare of India, but for the Empire to better administer the colonies. Edward Said in his book, Orientalism, historiographically explains how Colonialism was made possible, and sustained and strengthened, by technology as it was by the more obvious and brutal modes of conquest that first established power in India.[23] Though his argument regarding the economic logic of colonialism may be correct, I believe a distinction must be drawn between the Imperial project and the missionaries who came to India during that time period to avoid the danger of analyzing the British State as a monolithic. Though one is forced to wonder if the British left India with any understanding, any inkling of the greatness of the country they had lived with for two centuries.

Colonialism also brought serious negative consequences. Culturally, India underwent exacting abuse. The thousands of art treasures, the diamonds, the priceless statues, stolen, which now adorn the houses of the rich in England, or the Queen's private collections. That the British still do not feel the need to hand back these treasures to India is a shame. The ecological exploitation of India is also a fact: the tens of thousands of tigers needlessly shot, the great massacre of trees and forests. and the razing of old forts and houses. The British also neglected and even hindered the development of the fledgling Indian drug industry especially Ayurvedic and Unani enterprises who suffer from the lack of global publicity [24].

THE DIALECTIC OF IMPERIAL MISSION AND MISSIONARY IMPERIALISM

The history of India since 1600, as chronicled by the British, was a steady ascent from the depths of ignorance and backwardness towards the heights of peace and material progress. Yet, one wonders how Christian missionaries with deep convictions about personal worth could agree with such an Authoritarian Empire, which ultimately rested on force. Imperialism as defined in the Webster's dictionary is “the state policy, or practice of extending power and dominion of a nation, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas.”

Scholars like Brian Stanley, while providing an overview of missionary history, attempt to absolve missionaries from imperial complicity on the grounds that their motives were fundamentally distinct from imperialists like military officers, government officials, merchants and scholars.[25] I would argue that it is not a matter of motivation but of orientation, in that the person and not the system affected it. Stanley’s theory gives the impression that the ‘rest’ as he calls them, namely, military, government officials and the like, were not Christians, though many of them were indeed likely to have been practicing the faith. Therefore, I wonder, if they followed two different versions of the same faith: one altruistic, the other imperialistic. R.E. Frykenberg likewise argues that in India “[at] no time were the majority missionaries predisposed in favor of colonialism.”[26] Could he be implying that missionaries meekly followed the footsteps of the conquerors and that they could have regarded the imperial project, providential? Geoffrey Oddie reasons that with a “deeply Christian view of the world”, it is impossible for missionaries to have colluded with imperialist.[27] The question is, which ‘world’, whose ‘world’? The missionaries definitely had a “deeply Christian view” of their world – the civilized world of Europe. To them, the Orient was the ‘other’ world – unredeemed and unregenerate. That everything religious outside the Christian West needed to be resisted and overcome.

Colonialism and the Oriental “other”

Experts like Edward Said, on the other hand, assert that “one cannot be neutral about imperialism: either one is for it or against it.”[28] This is a comment on the neutral posture of political correctness of which missionaries were clearly guilty. Subaltern scholar Ranajit Guha maintains that missionaries were one of the “dominant foreign groups”, and that as such “were comprised of ‘British officials’ of the colonial state and foreign industrialist, merchants, financiers, planters, landlords and missionaries.”[29] These dominant foreign groups used the construct of the "White Man's Burden" to help justify their colonization of foreign lands. Missionaries patronized the religious cultures of India to their own peril, as did Thomas Macaulay, a member of the Supreme Council of India when he said “Who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia?”[30] Isaac Padinjarekuttu is clear that during the early decades of the nineteenth century, British imperial interests and missionaries, interests were identical.[31] Drawing from disciplines such as Politicals, Economics, and Theology, one can quite definitely explain how religious convictions of the British and their notions of Providence played an important part in their Colonial rule. The religious beliefs of imperialist Christians clearly shaped politics under the Raj.

The dualistic theological world-view of British missionaries, tended to see the world in terms of the Christian God in combat against the pagan gods. To the extent that it was this philosophical bent that persuaded Christian Missionaries to accommodate British Expansionism. In the words of David Ludden,

Equating non-European cultures with non-European religions thus became a fixed cognitive routine in scholarship and colonial policy. This enabled Europeans to justify imperial expansion in both religious and secular terms: for Christians, European imperialism saved souls, and for modernists, it brought progress into a world of backwardness and tradition.[32]

Samuel Huntington, who plays the Christian West against the Islamic, Sinic, and Indic civilizations, is forced to admit that, “The West, however, has never generated a major religion. The great religions of the world are all products of non-Western civilizations.”[33] It is therefore understandable why India was hesitant to accept a westernized gospel. Said and those who postulate missionary complicity in the imperial project use the scientific instrument of Orientalism[34] to demonstrates that Colonialism fabricated the "Oriental other" to legitimate the dominance of the “Western self”. Orientalism was the philosophy that fuelled by colonialism. It was driven by a twofold agenda: It "proved" the irrational, immoral, and backward nature of the Oriental (Eastern) world, and routinized the active, rational, moral, and realistic nature of the Occidental (Western) world. The logic of this understanding implied that it was natural and beneficial that the self (West) overcome the other (East) for the sake of humanity’s progressive evolution. Thus, this theory is integrally intertwined with power: to colonize, to dominate, to educate, and to control. Where the Occidental (Self) tames and names the unruly and unrulable Orient (Other).[35] The colonial construction, of the "Indian identity" was therefore a homogeneous, oriental identity, which "captured" varied and differentiated peoples. And by taming and naming the unruly and unrulable, it posited itself as the essence, which could bind India together. British rule was justified, in part, by the claims that the Indians required to be civilized, and that British rule would introduce in place of Oriental despotism a reliable system of justice, and the rule of law. In most cases, British Missionaries emphasized the Pilgrim Principle of Missions to the extent that it sometimes tended to overwhelm the Contextual Indigenous Principle. Perhaps based on the Imperial assumption that the Oriental, meant backward.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

It seems quiet plain that Mission Sodalities carried on their vocation with the implicit and tacit support of the ruling British Government in India which often brought the relationship of the two into question. Some historians like Frykenberg, Stanley and Oddie suspect that the missionary endeavor was significantly assisted by the relationship, while others like Said, Guha, and Huntington argue that the converse could well be true, Missionary activity was certainly inhibited to a considerable extent by its union to an admittedly Christian Government.

It is therefore impossible to divide the attitude of the people toward the Government from their attitude toward Christianity. What might otherwise be expected to have been a benefit, seemed to turn out to be harmful to the objectives and purpose of the missionaries. For several, particularly the upper classes, in refusing the idea of British rule in India, they rejected Christianity as well.


[1]  Harriet Wilder, A Century in the Madura Mission 1834-1934 (New York: Vantage Press, 1998), 40.

[2]  Babar, a descendent of the Genghiz Khan, came to India in 1526 at the request of an Indian governor to fight against Ibrahim Lodi, the last head of the Delhi Sultanate. Babar defeated Lodi at Panipat, and so came to establish the Mughal Empire in India. Babar ruled until 1530, and was succeeded by his son Humayun, who gave the empire its first distinctive features. But it is Humayun's son, Akbar the Great, who is conventionally described as the glory of the empire. Akbar reigned from 1556 to 1605, and extended his empire to Afghanistan in the west, and as far as the Godavari River in the south. Akbar, was a tolerant ruler, and started a new faith, Din-i-Ilahi, an attempt to blend Islam with Hinduism, Christianity, Jainism, and other faiths. He won over the Hindus by naming them to important military and civil positions, and by marrying a Hindu princess. Akbar was succeeded by his son Jahangir. In his reign (1605-1627), Jahangir consolidated the gains made by his father. Shortly after his death in October 1627, his son, Shah Jahan, succeeded to the throne. Shah Jahan’s chief legacy is the Taj Mahal. the controversial Aurangzeb his son saw further expansion in the early years of his long reign (1658-1707), but by the seventeenth century the empire was beginning to disintegrate. After Aurangzeb's death in 1707, many of his vassals established themselves as sovereign rulers, and began the period of "successor states".The Mughal Empire survived until 1857, but its rulers were, after 1803, pensioners of the East India Company. The last emperor, the senile Bahadur Shah Zafar, was put on trial for allegedly leading the rebels of the 1857 mutiny and for sedition.

[3]  Aurangzeb Alamgir’s ("World Conqueror"), reign of forty-nine years was characterized by vigorous military campaigns to extend the frontiers of the Mughal Empire. The common people were heavily taxed. His harsh treatment of Hindus, was the reversal of the liberal religious policies of his predecessors, particularly Akbar, have been cited as principal reasons for the disintegration of his empire from

Richard, John F. The Mughal Empire of the New Cambridge History of India. Vol. I, Part 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.246.

[4]  Appendix I gives a map depicting the British Empire’s global dominion. In terms of global territory, the British Empire; stretched from American to Australia, and New Zealand to Canada and Africa.

[5]  Queen Elizabeth and other British Heads of State and British Prime Ministers are given chronologically in Appendix IV

[6]  The East India Company, a merchandise Company, had the distinction of ruling an entire country. From when, Sir Roe gained for the British the right to establish a factory at Surat to the Gradually eclipsing of the Portuguese, a massive expansion of trading operations was established with numerous trading posts along the east and west coasts of India, around the three presidency towns of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. Despite their trade and revenue increase, the Company found itself burdened with military expenditures chiefly of the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, and its destruction seemed imminent. Major victories were achieved against Tipu Sultan of Mysore and the Marathas, and the conquest of the Sikhs in a series of Anglo- Sikh Wars led to British occupation over the entirety of India. Among the many Generals who engaged in the ruthless British territorial expansion were Robert Clive, Warren Hastings, Lord Wellesley, and Lord Dalhousie.

[7] The Battle of Plassey began on June 23, 1757 in a small village mango grove between Calcutta and Murshidabad. The outcome of the battle had been decided long before the soldiers came to the battlefield.The “battle” lasted no more than a few hours.

[10]  The paper includes appendices of Maps of British possessions of the Indian sub continent before and after 1947 Partition

[11] The right to collect revenues on behalf of the Mughal Emperor

[13] The deliberate burning of the wife in her husband’s funeral pyre based on Hindu Tradition.

[14]  Dennis Judd, The British Raj (Avon, England: Wayland Pub., 1972) 56.

[15]  The Hindu cult of assassin-priests who preyed on travelers.

[16]  James Lawrence, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (London: Abacus, 1998) 220.

[17]  On May 10, 1857, Indian soldiers of the British Indian Army, drawn mostly from Muslim units of Bengal, mutinied in Meerut, and plunged much of north and central India into a year-long insurrection against the British. The uprising that seriously threatened British rule in India was caused by the British blunder of using rifle cartridges that were allegedly greased with animal fat, which was offensive to the religious beliefs of Muslim and Hindu Sepoys. The rebellion fired the imagination of the nationalists for whom, the rebellion represented the first Indian attempt at gaining independence.

[18]  The Sepoy Mutiny has been called many names by historians, including the Sepoy Rebellion, the Great Mutiny, and the Revolt of 1857; many people in South Asia, however, prefer to call it India's first war of independence. The telling of History depends on, from which side one sees an event. The history of the Revolt of 1857 is, to this day, an ongoing battle between two competing narratives, the history belonging to the British that won the war, and the history claimed by the Indians who were defeated.

 

[19] Julian Pettifer and Richard Bradley, Missionaries, BBC TV Series (London: BBC Book, 1990) 216.

[20] Lawrence, the British Empire, 300.

 

[21] David Ludden, Making India Hindu: Religion, Community, and the Politics of Democracy New Delhi: Oxford UP, 1996) 48

[22] Dennis Judd, The British Raj (Avon, England: Wayland Pub., 1972) 148

[23] Said, Orientalism, Western Conceptions. 76-83.

[24]  Lawrence, James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. (London: Abacus, 1998), 220-300.

[25]  Brian Stanley, The Bible and the Flag: Protestant Missions and British Imperialism in the nineteenth and twentieth Centuries (Leicester: IVP-Apollos,1990), 40-62.

[26]  R. E. Frykenberg, A World History of Christianity, ed. Adrian Hastings (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999)183. That an American scholar should be commissioned to write on India for this particular resource in 1999, when eminent Indian Christian historians and missiologists could have been asked, is highly revealing and contributes to my thesis.

[27]  Geoffrey O. Oddie, Missionaries, Rebellion and Proto-Nationalism: James Long of Bengal 1814-87 (London: Curzon, 1999), 24-29.

[28]  Edward Said, Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient (London: Penguin, 1995), 25.

[29]  Ranajit Guha, Subaltern Studies (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1982), 8.

[30]  Arun Shourie, Missionaries in India : Continuities, Changes, Dilemmas (New Delhi: ASA,1994), 61.

[31]  Isaac Padinjarekuttu, The Missionary Movement of the 19th and 20th Centuries and Its encounters with India. (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang 1995), 58.

[32]  Ludden, Making India Hindu, 9.

[33]  Samuel Huntingdon, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.(London: Simon & Schuster,1997), 54.

[34]  Orientalism, for Said, was, and largely still is, a collection of ideas about the Orient written by Europeans for Europeans.

[35]  Said, Orientalism, 25-38.

Post a Comment

Oops!
It seems there is something wrong with your internet connection. Please connect to the internet and start browsing again.
Site is Blocked
Sorry! This site is not available in your country.
NextGen Digital Welcome to WhatsApp chat
Howdy! How can we help you today?
Type here...