The Empire's Best Trick Was Calling It Justice

No, this has nothing to do with Star Wars.

Author's Note:

Written in December 2020 for Making of the Modern World 14 -- same course series, now covering the modern era and its colonial entanglements. I was nineteen. The essay proposes a concept I called "media justice" — reform that exists primarily as narrative and documentation rather than genuine structural change — and uses the British Raj's intervention in Indian social life as its case study. Reading it now, the argument feels more urgent, not less. The question I close with — how many of today's "legitimate" actions are simply rewriting culture from a lens of superiority — is one I'm still sitting with.

Media Justice: The Westernization of Social Reform

Westernization is a complex concept. Although viewed more positively in modern society, especially in terms of accepting gender equality, varied sexuality, etc, it can also be seen as the root of many misconceptions about other nations. For example, the Imperialistic tendencies of the British nation, based on Westernization efforts, led to large-scale upheavals of culture, as well as the reinterpretation of history. History, an aptly chosen word (his story), is written by the victor, which is evidenced by numerous conquest-based cultural changes. Therefore, when looking at a former British dominion, such as India, many questions emerge about the effects of colonization on the current status quo. Thus, it must be determined whether or not British Imperialism provided “social justice” for Indians, or manipulated the culture in order to keep their control. The British Raj provided many surface - level changes to society that allowed for a larger range of female freedom, especially since India was still influenced by the controlling Mughal mindset, as well as provided written documentation on the rights of women. However, they also imposed Christianity, western mindsets, and different cultural norms in order to paint a degrading picture of the region, thereby promoting a false sense of White superiority. Therefore, even though they provided some social benefits, British Imperialists used the pretense of justice with regards to marriage structures and enlightenment in order to stifle native opposition and strengthen their hold over India.

First, the concept of British social justice must be analyzed as a counter to the thesis. This is because many current viewpoints believe that the Raj was not only effective, but justified in their actions to change Indian culture. It can be argued by the opposition that most women in “traditional Indian society” were “unaware of their basic rights” (Stanely and Kumari 109). Therefore, the Christian missionaries felt compelled to fix the “deplorable condition[s],” and aimed to both spread their beliefs as well as “give relief to the poor and needy Indian people” (Stanely and Kumari 109). The missionaries and imperialists were believed to be “saviors” of a sort, bringing both education and modernization to a backwards nation. 

The biggest social problem analyzed by British rulers was the treatment of women. A misconception perpetuated by the Raj was that all women were forced to commit sati, or die on their husband’s funeral pyre. In order to provide reformations, they passed the Sati Abolition Act of 1820, as well as the Widow Remarriage Act of 1856 so women were provided with the most basic rights of life and self-sustenance (Stanely and Kumari 109). These two laws are, in theory, quite positive, because they gave women the right to continue living after a spouse’s death as well as remarry instead of accepting widowhood. The Raj also passed the Married Women’s Property Act III (1874), which gave women the right to “possess and manage their own ‘handed property’ and estate” and were also legally the “guardians of their children” (Stanely and Kumari 110). They also had somewhat equal inheritance rights. These laws were supplemented by the increased “education” of women, and the indoctrination of western concepts into the “backwards” villages. Imperialism was thus a means to provide reform to those that did not know about the Western, enlightened, beliefs regarding women’s education and status in society. 

It is in response to this viewpoint that the term “media justice” is proposed. Essentially, it is justice in the eyes of documentation and “historical fact,” although history itself is simply a fragmented viewpoint. Media justice is an important distinction from true social justice, because it is based on stereotypes, generalizations, and perspectives rather than unbiased evidence.

The way in which the Crown came to power must be addressed. Colonial rule began through the “quasi-private entity, the East India Company,” in order to “reap the benefits of Imperialism” without creating a “fully functioning sovereign state” (Chitnis 1317). This is an interesting concept, because, contrary to a direct invasion, the British Empire slowly, underhandedly took control via “business-related” means. The Company claimed power by helping Kings defeat and replace many cruel and indifferent Mughal rulers, which actually won the favor of many natives (Chitnis 1317). In response to helping depose the Mughals, the East India Company was increasingly given control over the region. Eventually, they asserted their control enough to claim India under the British Empire. 

Since there seemed to be no clear reason to subjugate India, especially since it was already a strong trading partner, the Crown had to use the trend of Western enlightenment to their advantage. Britain legitimized their pseudo-invasion through the “self-proclaimed role of “civilizing” the natives;” they claimed to be “enlightening” Indians with modern beliefs (Chitnis 1317). By painting a picture of “legal and social” positivity, historians (who were mainly European) claimed that Imperialism was beneficial to India (Chitnis 1317). In reality, the British created long-lasting problems that have set back the country’s progress to this day. This exemplifies the way British Imperialists created social pretenses in order to justify expanding their Empire’s reach.  

The British viewed Indian society as being driven by religion, and stated that many customs, mostly in northern India, were “anti-woman and patriarchal” (Chitnis 1320). Ironically, there is no clear proof that the “customs and laws” the British Authorities used as a foundation were truly “religious in origin” or just simple customs that were forced to evolve religiously (Chitnis 132). By labeling the culture as anti-progressive, they were able to not only provide reasoning for Christian conversion, but were also given the means to change societal structures entirely. Therefore, Britain began reshaping “Indian family law within a Western model,” a contrary idea in itself (Chitnis 1323). For example, some of the “settled infallible principles of Hindu and Muslim family law” were created by English “translations” of religious texts, altered to favor both the “native elites” and British authorities (Chitnis 1324). The Raj created many of the concepts that “define” Indian culture today in order to create opportunities to assert their power.

While it is true that some smaller villages were less educated on gender rights and equality, many negative ideologies were exacerbated to stifle any opposition to Imperialism. The quality of women’s life was even rewritten to such a degree that eventually some false atrocities became the norm. Therefore, it is clear that Britain created many of the “barbarities of Indian family life,”  modifying the reality in order to provide room for “social reformations” (Chitnis 1324). This is a prime example of “media justice,” because it was of face-level value and not based entirely on fact. By obscuring reality, the Raj was able to continually strengthen their degree of power in India as well as justify their Imperialism to the Western world. 

Social Justice is a motivation in the modern world, but historically it was used by the West in order to legitimize Imperialism and cultural manipulation. Britain is a prime example of this. While the country, at first glance, appeared to come from a place of genuine reform, such as the implementation of laws that improve women’s rights, the truth of the matter is that the Raj created many of the so-called issues. By essentially establishing India as a backwards, religiously fanatic, and illiterate country that degraded women, it became a part of their “moral duty” to enlighten the nation. Thus it can clearly be seen that while there were some face-level efforts to modernize Indian society, the British Raj’s true motivation was stifling native opposition and increasing their power. Bringing this concept of “social justice through Westernization” to the present, ideas must be analyzed from a cultural perspective rather than a non-native viewpoint in order to truly bring reform where it is needed. The modern world claims to be truly justice-oriented, but society must question how many “legitimate” actions are actually rewriting culture from a lens of superiority, and will therefore be seen as injustices in the coming years. 

Works Cited:

Stanely, Samual, and Santosh Kumari. Position of Women in Colonial Era. Society of Education, India, Dec. 2010, soeagra.com/ijert/vol2/14.pdf. 

Varsha Chitnis & Danaya Wright, The Legacy of Colonialism: Law and Women's Rights in India”, 64 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1315 (2007), http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/174

Liddle, Joanna, and Rama Joshi. “Gender and Imperialism in British India.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 20, no. 43, 1985, pp. WS72–WS78. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4374973.