Monitor Article: Chogm: Reflecting on India’s past

Chogm: Reflecting on India’s past
Arthur George Kamya

In 1599, Queen Elizabeth I granted a royal charter to the East India Company (EIC), which ruled India until 1857, when Indian colonial administration was transferred to the British government in London. (Compare, the Imperial British East African Company, whose administration of Uganda was similarly terminated in the 1880s). Thereafter, for administrative purposes, India was divided into provinces (ruled directly by British governors) and princely states, presided over by Maharajas, Nawabs, and Nizams, absolute, hereditary rulers of their states (assisted by British Residents), save for certain enumerated spheres (defence and foreign affairs) for which British supremacy was recognised by treaty. Indian traditional rulers were renowned for their outrageously and outlandishly luxurious lifestyles. Some British Residents were not above collecting damaging information about the odd Maharaja to use as blackmail to achieve British interests.

This colonial template should be familiar to anyone knowledgeable about Ugandan history. Colonial Uganda was administered partly through traditional kings (assisted by British Residents), with the rest directly administered by the colonial administration. Traditional rulers such as the Kabaka of Buganda were under the illusion that their relationship with the colonial administration was anchored in certain treaties (1900 Agreement) which could be terminated to their advantage. Alas, we know little about the private lives and peccadilloes of our traditional rulers or their Residents. Did any of the Kabakas or Bakamas indulge in outrageous or outlandish or super-luxurious behaviour? Did any of the British Residents dabble in the black arts of blackmail against their princely charges? Can columnist Peter Mulira enlighten us?

Louis Mountbatten, India’s last Viceroy, arrived early in 1947 to lay the groundwork for Indian independence. His plan initially called for each of the princely states to choose either to join India/Pakistan or to become independent. The latter option was successfully resisted by the Indian nationalist parties (Congress Party of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel and the Muslim League of Muhammad Ali Jinna) as a route to balkanisation. The princes’ argument that the powers previously transferred to Britain by treaty should naturally revert to them was ignored by the British. Similarly, the princes’ threats to cancel agreements with the British permitting Indian railways, posts and telegraphs to pass through their lands came to naught. Ultimately, the princes agreed to give up their political power and accede to either India or Pakistan. In return, they were allowed to hold onto many of their titular and pecuniary emoluments, which they maintained until 1973 when most of such privileges were abolished by constitutional amendment.

All this similarly tracks Uganda’s history. The struggles and arguments between the Indian states and the colonial administration mirror similar arguments and struggles between the likes of Buganda and the central government (colonial or otherwise) that culminated in the Buganda crises of the 1950s, the exiling of the Kabaka, and ultimately the 1966 Crisis and the abolition of the kingdoms. To put in a good word for India, while it managed to keep its independence deal with the princes for 25 years, and only abolished princely privileges by legitimate constitutional amendment, Uganda only managed four years, and the abolition was extra-constitutional.

There is a lot which we owe to India and India’s independence leaders. It is to them that we owe the formation of a multiracial Commonwealth of monarchies and republics, the Non-Aligned Movement and the precedent of a written constitution with both enforceable and aspirational provisions (such as the Ugandan Constitution). The founders of India (Gandhi, Nehru and Patel) were exceptional men. Between them, Gandhi and Nehru spent 10 years each in British jails prior to 1947. (Were Uganda’s post-independence leaders so cavalier with democracy because they never paid a high personal price? Ironically, the only Ugandan independence agitator who paid dearly (exile) for his activism, Kabaka Muteesa II, fared least well in post-independence Uganda). All three of the Indian founding fathers were English-trained barristers. Could it be for this reason that they were very respectful of the democratic process, unlike our leaders (Milton Obote) whose professional training is, at best, unclear? While Uganda’s party of independence (UPC) owes to the corresponding Indian party its name (Congress) and party symbol (open palm hand), it owes little else to the hallowed Nehruvian Indian Congress party.

So, in this year of Uganda hosting Chogm, also an anniversary of the independence of the Commonwealth countries of India (1947) and Ghana (1957), can we spare a moment to reflect on that which we owe to these our pioneering peer Commonwealth nations?
The writer is a regular commentator on historical and contemporary events affecting Uganda.agkamya.blogspot.comagkamya@hotmail.com