This essay will first outline Mill’s ideas on non-intervention, the colonial exception and how this relates to his ideas on individual liberty, before evaluating how these ideas contradict each other. Firstly, it will contend that his view that colonialism is nurturing the local people to prepare them for gaining individual liberty is inconsistent given the violent nature of British colonialism. Secondly, it will argue that Mill’s own arguments for non-intervention, in the case of a civilised nation, contradict the exception he makes for colonialism, before arguing, thirdly, that Mill’s view on colonialism was narrow minded, as by ignoring other cultures he was actually taking away those people’s individual liberty. This will lead to the conclusion that although Mill’s arguments have some merit, the exception he makes to allow colonialism does contradict his commitment to individual liberty. This essay will focus on the example of India due to Mill’s great connection to that specific colony through this career at the East India Company.
Before evaluating Mill’s argument that colonialism does not contradict his commitment to individual liberty, it is important to outline what Mill means by individual liberty, what his views on non-intervention are and why he believes intervention is acceptable in the case of colonialism. For Mill the idea of individual liberty is a person’s right not to be interfered with by others, even if it’s in their best interest, unless their actions affect another person; this is also known as the Harm Principle. (Mill 2011: 18) Mill clearly respects individual liberty with his view that foreigners should not intervene in other nations affairs, even when the native rulers are despotic. (Mill 2006: 252) He also argues that by not helping oppressed people you may limit their liberty in the short term, but not in the longer term. With foreign support, Mill argues that liberty will not be as permanent as liberty fought for by themselves, and it is only after an “arduous struggle” that people will have a strong enough love for liberty that it will last. (Mill 2006: 262). It should be noted that Mill would, however, advocate intervention in the case of foreign rule where even those “most attached to freedom” may still not have a chance against a more powerful foreign power controlling them. (Mill: 2006: 263) In this case Mill believes that the imbalance of power would need to be addressed to give the people a chance to gain their individual liberty through a fair struggle. (Mill 2006: 263). A further exception to the principle of non-intervention is his acceptance of colonialism in “uncivilised nations”. (Mill 2006: 259). By this Mill means those societies that he views as less developed than Britain. Mill argues that the people living in these nations are not capable of living by the Harm Principle and valuing individual liberty. This is because firstly, the Harm Principle depends on reciprocity and he believes that “barbarians”, the people of these “uncivilised” societies, are not capable of this (Mill 2006: 259). Secondly, they are not past a point in their development where they would not benefit from being conquered by foreigners. (Mill 2006: 259). Despite these things, however, Mill still only advocated for colonialism and governing these uncivilised people against their will where “the end” is the “improvement” of these people by pedagogical coercion. (Mill 2011:19) This means nurturing them to understand the rule of law and enforcing a British style education system and hence helping to prepare them for their struggle to gain self-rule and individual liberty.
However, the British imperialism that Mill defends is far from the imperialism advanced by most historians, as Britain was not nurturing societies to prepare them for self-rule and to adopt individual liberty. (Tunick 2006: 587) Although we cannot expect Mill to apply the norms of today, his ideas clearly lack a greater perspective as he didn’t consider that civilised people like the British might actually be barbaric, and capable of massacres and corruption. For example, the East India Company enforced obdurate monopolies over rice that led to a famine in 1770 that killed a third of the population of Bengal. (Ryan 2014: 1-14) Sullivan claims that Mill acknowledged the brutality of the British, but continued to maintain that their presence would still lead to a better civilisation that valued individual liberty. (Sullivan 1983: 611) However, this seems very unlikely as clearly the people were not being nurtured as he intended. Therefore, since the local people are not being improved to the extent that they are ready to adopt the principle of individual liberty and Mill believes intervention is unacceptable if it did not lead to the improvement of the local people, based on his own view he should disapprove of, rather than support, British colonialism.
It must also be highlighted that Mill does not consistently sustain his argument that colonialism leads to other societies valuing individual liberty. For example, in “Considerations on Representative Government” he merely talks of the prestige that colonialism brings to the colonising power and does not mention preparing the people for individual liberty through pedagogical coercion. (Mill 1963) (Ryan 2014: 11). It is possible that Mill’s opinions evolved over time to value the improvement of the local people, however this is unlikely given that “Considerations”, in which he talks of prestige, was published two years after “A Few Words on Non-Intervention” where he highlights how the colonised people must be improved. (Mill 2006: 259) His justification for colonialism in “Considerations” is therefore a great contradiction to his commitment to individual liberty. This suggests that his view that colonialism led to more individual liberty for the people was an idea rather than a definitive policy. (Isak 2007: 359-400).
Mill’s justification that colonialism will nurture the people to adopt the principle of individual liberty also contradicts all his arguments for non-intervention in the case of a civilised nation; that liberty must be gained through an arduous struggle and that aid by a foreign power to obtain liberty has negative long term affects. Firstly, it could be argued that if an arduous struggle is the only way people can gain liberty, then how are the British going to artificially prepare the people for liberty? Secondly, there were examples of arduous struggles against British rule in India and yet Mill still supported British control over these people. For example, the Sepoy Mutiny in India in 1857-59 involved the majority of the population. (Ryan 2014: 1-14) To add to this great contradiction, the same year (1859) as the mutiny Mill even wrote in “A Few Words on Non-Intervention” about how people must be given self-rule if they fight for it. (Mill 2006: 262) Although Mill may argue that these “barbarians” are not yet civilised enough to know that they want this freedom, Hamburger questions how Mill is to judge who is ready to decide their own governance through individual liberty? (Hamburger 1999 in Tunick 2006: 601). A further contradiction is Mill’s belief that it is unfair for a foreign power to prevent the people from overthrowing it and he even believes foreign oppression would warrant an invasion from another foreign power to correct the imbalance and create a fair struggle. (Mill 2006: 262) Tunick has tried to argue that there was greater corruption in India prior to British rule hence at least the British gave the people a chance of gaining liberty which they would not have had. (Tunick 2006: 601) However, this argument actually contradicts Mills belief that foreign intervention in this situation was unhealthy, as the State could easily become reliant on foreign support and this could lead to another civil war or oppressive government when the foreign power leaves. Hence, if foreign control could lead to this situation, this clearly would not give the people more liberty and this undermines Mills argument that the local people of India will one day have been pedagogically coerced enough to be able to take over from British rule.
Furthermore, through imposing British ideas of individual liberty on these “uncivilised” communities he is being narrow minded in assuming he knows what is best for these countries and is in fact taking away the liberty of these people to decide how they interact. This is because his arguments are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the culture of Asia and Africa, which put a greater emphasis on social obligation. (Doyle 2009: 365) What’s more, through Mill’s assumption that he can educate the Indians to want self-rule and individual liberty he is contradicting his own idea that the demand for change must come from within the country. Based on this argument surely the colonisers should have suggested the idea of individual liberty, instead of imposing it, so that the people were more likely to fight to maintain this liberty as they had chosen it themselves. Mill’s response to this would be that they are not yet capable of deciding this for themselves, but it could equally be argued that slaves can only learn to be free when they are given freedom. Hence in this case people can only learn self-rule through having it. Mill’s evidence that the British system was superior was that in Britain order and unity had been established, whereas Indian rule had failed. (Harris 1964: 201) This completely fails to acknowledge, however, that two different countries often require different methods of rule, hence British ideas would not necessarily work in a country with a different culture. This continues with the previously mentioned point that Mill’s views lack perspective and could easily be seen as an attempt by Britain to merely reshape the world in its own image, which would not be giving Indians individual liberty to choose how they govern.
Tunick claims, in response to this argument, that pedagogical coercion did not undermine Indian culture and merely established a rule of law in order to make the Indians into law abiding citizens that could have individual liberty. (Tunick 2006:586-611) He is still looking passed the fact, however, that the Indians may already have a law that they live by, which is just different to that which the British are proposing. Even if we accept Mill’s statement that pedagogical coercion is necessary in order to gain liberty in the long run and that this is not culturally biased, Souffrant argues that the measures that were deemed necessary to gain this ‘liberty’ were actually psychologically harming for the individual, and hence could not possibly gain the long term affect that Mill intended. (Souffrant 1995 in Tunick 2006: 596)
To conclude, taking into account the critiques that could be made against my argument, it would be fair to acknowledge that Mill did have good intentions in his view that colonialism would benefit the local people in helping them adopt the principle of individual liberty. However, he underestimated a number of factors that made his argument implausible. Not only was colonialism often violent and psychologically harming, but Mill’s lack of greater perspective prevented him from realising that India’s different culture meant that the same system as Britain’s may not be effective. Finally, his justification for colonialism based on giving the people individual liberty through pedagogical coercion is contrary to his arguments for non-intervention in civilised nations. These points thus highlight that Mill’s exception for colonialism does contradict his commitment to individual liberty.
25.2.2019