Installation of Colonial Rule in North Africa (Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Mauritania)
Conquest and Colonial Rule
With the surging industrial revolution, entire continent was partitioned and colonised except Ethiopia and Liberia. During the 18th and 19th century, North Africa (beginning with Algeria) was colonized by France, the United Kingdom, Spain and Italy. It marked new by currents of trade, use of superior iron and steel metallurgy, advanced weapons creating disequilibria locally and the direct use of such weapons under European control. This phenomenon of colonisation is called the scramble for Africa
While the reasons behind the phenomenon are many, the important among the are emergence of new nation states like Germany and Italy with burgeoning military prowess and economic might.
It became an issue of national pride and international status for new states to own colonies, while old colonial powers keen to maintain their supremacy in colonial field. Public opinion also goaded the nation states to acquire colonies as matter of pride, Africa in general and North Africa in particular was the scene contest and international diplomacy.
Italians were particularly active in North and North east Africa to establish colonies. French being apprehensive of Italian strategic control of the Mediterranean occupied Tunisia.
Strategic reasons also influenced the British policy in the area. The opening of Suez Canal in 1869 became the important route between Britain and India. Britain always wished to retain a friendly regime in Egypt to keep the route safe!
Nationalist revolt in Egypt in 1881 led by Arabi Pasha against control of country’s finances by an European Commission. The British apprehensive of the former interfering in shipping in Suez Canal. British investments and trade were important enough to bring them against an upstart military and invaded Egypt in 1882.
Further, the British were worried at the growing influence of Russian Navy in Black sea. To counter that they developed the Egyptian port of Alexandria as a major base of Royal Navy .
British policy was also to sought to keep the banks of Nile free from the influence of other European powers.
British policy was also to sought to keep the banks of Nile free from the influence of other European powers led them to run an Egyptian government. This eventually led to British occupation of Sudan, Uganda and Kenya.
Public opinion as reflected in press, civil societies in colonial countries was also a contributory factor to colonisation of Africa in general and North Africa in particular. The tones of influential British newspapers such a Daily Mail, The Times etc., were imperialistic and articulated the expansion of its empire in Africa.
Availability of surplus capital in Europe, where investments were becoming less profitable during depression rears (1875-1900), looked forward to Africa for greater profit. Companies and capital vied for investments in Africa. They exerted pressure on government to colonise.
New military and medical technology made conquest of any non Western region easy and cheap.
Missionaries (keen to work under colonial government) too encouraged the establishment of colonies in Africa. Civilizing mission and anti slavery provided moral justification for political invasion. All these factors encouraged Europeans to colonise Africa.
Installation of Colonial Rule
Colonisation of Africa cannot be explained entirely in terms of European motives. African conditions too influenced the process such as political disunity small states or tribal units fighting among themselves unlike the vast Chinese empire.
They were even smaller than South American states and were easily manipulable, which increased European competition for colonies. Rivalries and divisions of various kinds: civil wars, trade conflicts, cultural fights. Europeans felt encouraged and took advantage of that following divide and rule. Coordinated resistance by Africans was out of question in the absence of common ideology, the African rulers followed their particular interests.
Although Islam might have provided a unifying fore in North Arica (in West African Savanna as well) but divisions within and between Islamic states based on regional animosities or rivalries among Islamic states divided them further than held them together.
African inferiority in military technology and the European superiority in it (the more accurate rifles, the decisive machine gun in particular: Gatling Gun in 1870s and Maxim gun in 1880s). Maxim gun could fire 11 shots per round for 2 or 3 minutes, became the standard machine gun.
Their effect proved devastating against African soldiers armed with spears, bows and arrows or the slow firing muzzle loading muskets. (10 times slow and 6 times less in range).
Europeans also had heavy artillery guns for storming defensive walls and breech loading rifles for rapid fires, and the steady supply of arms, ammunitions, spares and technical personnel on demand that the Africans lacked.
European armies had superior weapons, tactics or strategy, discipline and organizisation, which compensated their numerical inferiority. The differential in military power between the Africans and the Europeans would never again be so great as it was between 1880-1920. In contrast African armies were usually deficient in drill and training, and struck to their traditional tactics. Had few rifles or automatic rifles or machine guns or mountain guns.
The technology of administration was still another factor that made the conquest of Africa possible. Europeans had been strengthening their administration since 15th century, but during 1780s to 1880s new administrative techniques (bureaucratic civil service, responsive legislature and municipal services etc.) began to take hold in Europe. Systematic training schools or programmes in imperial administration introduced in England and France in 19th century. This enabled them to administer their overseas empires effectively such as Dutch in Indonesia, British raj in India, French in Africa and Indochina etc. Professionalization of officer crops led to a body of army officer cum-administrators serving colonial empires.
The growth of technology led to increased standard in life of the Europeans who considered themselves superior to others: Africans were treated inferior as slaves.
This was also reinforced in the 19th century racial theory rooted on evolutionary biology with humans at the top of living order and the Europeans at top of human order and black Africans at bottom current in Europe.
It was natural the higher white races with their superior intelligence and capabilities rule over the lower races. Many such pseudo scientific racist arguments were put out during 1840s and 1850s (its high tide being 1880-1920) and continued till first two decades of 20th century. Pseudo scientific and European power racism reinforced each other, with former influencing the colonial regimes were structured as the popular philosophy in office.
Another factor of European success was the European led armies of African soldiers, who were better able than European soldiers to live and survive in tropical conditions. It became far cheaper to have colonies in Africa than ever before and anywhere during period.
European concern with North Africa in early part of 19th century confined to Cairo, or Tunis. They considered Algiers, Tanger and Tripoli as weak nests of commerce raiders. In due course they penetrated rest of North Africa. The colonisation of North Africa needs to be understood against the following backdrop: decline of Ottoman Turkish Empire, great powers diplomacy and scramble to grab its territories, assertion of new nations of Europe in colonial space and scramble for Africa, surging industrialisation and availability of capital in Europe, migration of people and capital to Africa, the ongoing project of modernisation and opportunities it threw for Europeans having necessary skills there, etc.
Algeria: French attack on Algiers was merely to force a weak state to fall online without territorial occupation.
Occupation on debt question and on the overt issue of Dey of Algiers insulting French consul.
But once they acquired its territory they were tempted to keep it and the politics of French then made that possible. But the French conquest of Algeria was long drawn one: 1830-1872. During these decades the French carried out extensive military operations and also began to create piecemeal a series of policies that were to form an important precedent for French colonial rule over Africa. Algerians at times also collaborated with the new regime.
While French occupied Algeria in second half of 19th century, it gradually fell into the informal empire of the Europeans. This is a situation where the stronger state exercised more authority over the weaker one. Europeans preferred such informal control overseas to responsibility and cost of running a formal colony during 19th century. The term informal empire could cover a wide variety of circumstances from putting pressure on government to pass a favourable legislation to partial taking over of judicial system to manage whole government leaving only internal matter in local hands.
Egypt: In 19th century, Egypt passed through several phases. During the first half it enjoyed fruits of modernisation, like a strong army, under minimal European influence. It had French patronage but the French consul had nothing like French and British consuls had in Tripoli. Its slide to informal empire came only after the 1860s, though some of it can be traced back to Muhammad Ali’s failure to create a strong and balance economy. The new khedives Said (1854-63) and Isma’il (1863-79) pushed ahead the agenda of modernisation like building railways, canal works (Suez Canal work commissioned to a French engineering farm that was completed in 1869) and perennial agriculture more actively than before. Isma’il who was Europhile pushed on these fronts more arduously.
The Suez Canal by opening a short water route to Indian Ocean changed the strategic situation in eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea. British became particularly concerned in Egyptian affairs straddled as it was on water route to its Indian Empire. All these works were undertaken by khedives with borrowed money at high rates of interests and invested in unproductive ways, i.e., beautify Cairo like Napoleonic Paris. Its debt rose from 7 million pound in 1860 to 100 million pound in 1876 with annual interest accumulating to 5 million pound a year. It was not possible to service debts without raising taxes and increasing the exports. This created space for foreigners (Westerners) who starting from Ottoman days came to increasingly acquire commercial and legal or judicial privileges trying even the civil and criminal cases in consular courts at the cost of Egyptian courts. By 1870s, the number of foreigners (mostly from Europe) had increased to 2% of the total population. By this time another kind of pressure for informal empire was apparent. European creditors, the bankers in particular, appealed to their respective government for recovering their loans to the Egyptian government. In 1876, the khedive was forced to appoint four Europeans to posts of “Commissioners of the Debt.” with that Egypt was clearly within the informal empire of France and Britain, France as the senior partner.
Even though France and Britain were rivals for influence in Egypt and in the eastern Mediterranean general; the Egyptian debt then entered the broader framework of European international relations that centred on the problem of Ottoman weakness. This in turn led to a European diplomatic meeting, the Congress of Berlin in 1878, which led to division of territories of declining Ottoman empire among European powers. French received permission to occupy Tunisia (that happened in 1881). Egypt as an autonomous province of Ottoman empire came into picture. In 1878, they forced Khediv Isma’il to appoint one French and one British member to his cabinet, and the web of informal control over it became tighter. Such disguised foreign control and heavy debt payment proved unpopular, Isma’il reacted by dismissing foreign cabinet ministers. The foreign power reacted in turn by ordering Ima’il to dismiss himself, and the crisis deepened. Late in 1881, Egyptian troops led by Urabi Pasha seized power in Cairo as part of anti-foreign movement. Anglo French coalition were left with option of either intervention or loss of their informal control with all that implied for their strategic position at Suez Canal.
With French government being prevented from military intervention by its National Assembly, the British chose to act alone. In 1882, it sent Military expedition and won the decisive battle of battle of Tel-el-Kebir and came to control Egypt. It led to founding of an informal British Protectorate as it was keen to keep Suez Canal safe and at the same time avoid directly facing creditors in Europe and incur expenses of direct administration. Such protectorate lasted till 1914 under a variety of legal fictions under which Britain was in control of Egypt but under European pressure its freedom of action was severely limited.
Sudan: Then collapsed the secondary empire in the Nilotic Sudan through a series of military exercises: Anglo Egyptian forces crushing Mahadist invasion of Egypt at Battle of Tushaki in 1889, in 1891 an Anglo Egyptian expedition fron Suakin defeating Mahadist Governor Uthman Diqna, in 1893 the Mahadists were routed in Eritrea at Battle of Agordat by Italians and Italians captured Kassala. The defeat of Italy by Ethiopian forces in battle of Adowa in 1896 changed diplomatic situation and prompted the British to action via a vis Sudan to prevent its Mahdi Khalifa to invade Eritrea to take advantage of Italy’s defeat. They therefore launched an advance up the Nubian Nile to occupy the Mahdist armies and relieve the pressure on Italy. Once started the advance up the Nile built up on is own, with a popular demand to avenge the death of Gordon.
The Anglo Egyptian forces under Kitchener advanced up the Nile to province of Dongola in north Sudan. By September 1896, Mahadist forces were defeated in a series of actions and the whole of province was occupied. From March 1897 the British launched the full reconquest of Sudan in order to forestall the French who under Marchan set out to conquer southern Sudan from Brazzaville. Even Ethiopia also closed in, as it had secret understanding with French to partition southern Sudan. But Anglo Egyptian forces being the largest force and having won series of battles during 1898-9 (at Atbara, Omdurman and Umm Diwaykarat) claimed right to conquest.
By 1898, French had entered the picture, as they launched a small expedition intending to cross Africa from Congo to Ethiopia. By the time the British reached Khartoum, it had reached Fashoda, the former Egyptian post on the White Nile. It led to diplomatic crisis and nearly war between two colonial powers. After a brief threat of war between Britain and France over Fashoda, France backed down, mindful of British naval power in Europe. War was however avoided, but Britain concluded that Egypt would have to reannex the Nilotic Sudan in order to protect its strategic interest in the source of Nile water. The result for the Sudan was a second period of government from Cairo, this time by an Anglo Egyptian condominium that was to last until 1955, though ultimate power always lay with the British side of the partnership.
Installation of Colonial Rule: Tunisia and Morocco:
Tunisia: With a resurgent Turkish regime at Tripoli and the French in Algeria posing threat the position of Tunisia under a quasi independent bay became increasingly difficult after 1830s. Thus, they became tempted to modernise his forces but with the inherent risk of falling trap to informal empire in the process. To pay for it Tunisia government borrowed heavily at exorbitant rates from European bondholders and to pay them it had raise more taxes at home. To complicate matters a substantial number of French, Italian and Maltese settlers moved into Tunisia during second half of 19th century, like foreign immigrants to Egypt during the period. As in Egypt their presence brought more pressure from the French, Italian and the British consuls (as Maltese were British subjects) on Tunisia.
By 1850s, Tunisia could be counted as part of the French informal Empire and they had in fact planned a limited occupation in 1860s to reassure their control over it. British and Italian protests forced France to agree to turn Tunisian finances to an international commission. Since Tunisian economy recovered somewhat during 1870s, inauguration of French protectorate had to wait until a suitable reconfiguration of international relations at Congress of Berlin in 1878 removed the opposition and allowed France to invade Tunisia in 1881.
The Italian campaign against French interests after 1878 also quickly shot up passion in France that allowed it to take action in 1881. They intended to safeguard the eastern flank of Algeria against Italy that had many settlers in Tunisia. The excuse for action was provided by Tunisian raids on Muslim villages in Algeria. The meddling North African affairs by Bismarck who in order to keep French away from European affairs tipped latter about secret Italian plan to occupy Tunisia. British had bargained its occupation of Cyprus from Turkey with French activities in Mediterranean.
French occupation of Tunis in 1881 reflected two aspects of European imperialism in North Africa: economic penetration by bondholders paving way for political occupation, and it being a pawn in Great Power diplomacy in Europe. Tunisia’s confrontation with Europe was, in short, was very much like Egypt’s and the result was much the same except for the fact that French protectorate was overt, while the French control of Egypt remained a legal fiction.
Morocco: Morocco was in the meanwhile seized the other horn of the dilemma of modernisation. Given a choice between military modernisation at price of a large foreign debt, or military weakness with an old fashioned army Morocco stood for old ways. The policy worked reasonably well, in spite of military defeat at the hands of France during 1840s and again at the hands of Spain in the 1860s. International rivalries among the Europeans limited the demands any one of them could make on the sultan. Morocco was open to European economic penetration during the second half of 19th century but the penetration was relatively slow. By 1870, while Egypt had 100,000 resident foreigners and Tunisia had nearly 10,000, Morocco had only 1500. Sultan Mawlay Hassan (1873-95) was quite adept in maintaining balance of the old political system. He had a small force of European trained soldiers, but the mainstay of his army remained the old combination of slave soldiers and military levies from privileged tribes. With a more powerful force he would have been tempted to extend makhzen’s power over siba country; but lack of power reduced that and Hassan matched his revenue to expenses till end.
Morocco: Such comparatively happy situation may have come from luck as well as wisdom; Great Britain had the largest stake in Moroccan trade and acted as an informal protector of Moroccan interests against Spanish and French on the frontiers. After 1900, however the old balance broke down. A new sultan moved towards modernisation, which brought on a conservative revolt in the region east of Fez. That in turn prompted firmer action from France, which sidestepped British objections by promising Britain a free hand in Egypt. Spain was brought off with the promise of a Spanish influence in northern Morocco. By 1904, France had lent to Morocco large sums of money and had already taken over customs and postal services. The slide into informal empire had already begun, but Germany had to be bought off as well before France could formalise the protectorate. Earlier the puppet sultan (Mawly Abdul Aziz, 1894-1907 was incompetent and foolish) began to lose power internally and France had to bail him out with military and financial support or set him deposed by his enemies (Bu Himara and Ahmad al Raisuni). Morocco was in crisis in 1905-6). Algeris conference of 1906 that put France and Spain in charge of Moroccan policing in ports. Moroccan state bank was set up under French control. Finally in 1912, France and Spain divided Morocco into two zones of formal control, sultan continued as theoretical ruler under European protection.
The final failure stands in contrast to Morocco’s comparative success in keeping out the Europeans, but the Moroccan makhzen nonetheless held out longer than any other government in North Africa. Parts of bled es siba remained under French control until 1934, nearly last part of Africa to be conquered by the Europeans, and the Sherifan sultans continued as heads of state into 1990s. In spite of European pressures in the 19th and 20th centuries, the old institutions and loyalties were remarkably resilient.
Installation of Colonial Rule: Libya
The French occupation of Tunisia in 1881 initially tempted the Ottoman government to use Tripolitania as a base for a propaganda campaign against the French. It did not pick up despite a number of Tunisians moved into Ottoman controlled Libya believing that it is better ruled by Muslim foreigners than by Christian foreigners. Increasingly Italian economic penetration of Libya forced the Ottoman government to reconsider its attitude towards the French. A Turko French delegation began to look into frontier classes between French Tunisia and Libyan Tripolitania, which was finally settled in 1910.
Gradually the European great powers came to recognise the predominance of Italian interests in Libya. Germany recognized these interests in 1888; Britain, France and Austria followed the suit in 1902. Italy was only held back from formally occupying the area by the wish of Germany and Austria to maintain a decrepit Ottoman empire. During this period Italy embarked on a programme of consolidating its economic position in Libya. Italian medical services and a post office was opened in 1902 in Tripolitania, Branches of Bank of Rome in 1907 at Benghazi and 12 other towns, which financed Italian domination of Libya’s export trade in wool, cereals, esparto grass and ostrich feathers. But the Italians were unable to settle as farmers and traders in significant numbers because the Turks made it difficult for them to buy land.
Young Turk revolution in Turkey in 1908 led to complete ban on purchase of Libyan lands by Italians. Moreover, Young Turks began to reorganise the Turkish army. Italians thought they had to attack Libya before Turkey’s revival went too far making an invasion difficult or even dangerous. The renewed attempt in 1910 by the new governor, Ibrahim Pasha, to enforce the law against foreign land ownership and Italy's increasing suspicion of German’s friendship with Turkey were the immediate causes of Italian invasion. In October 1911 an Italian force of 34,000 men, 62 artillery guns and 145 warships moved into Libya. The opposing Turkish force was only 7,000 strong. Italians heavily outnumbered Turkish and applied naval blockade to prevent Turkish reinforcements reaching Libya. In the early stages of invasion Italians succeeded in capturing coastal towns of Tubruq, Benghazi, Tripoli, Darna and Khums.
Resistance to Colonial Rule
The scholars like Terrence Ranger, John Iliffe and others have classified the African resistance to colonialism as primary, secondary and modern mass nationalism.
Primary resistance took place before 1914 and were armed struggles against the establishment of colonial rule.
It is divided into initial primary resistance and post pacification revolts. The former were essentially local armed resistances under traditional politico military leadership.
The latter were rebellions against the immediate short term effects of the imposition of colonial rule.
They generally involved the masses cutting across ethnic boundaries under the new leadership. Important among them were millenarian priests and spirit mediums, welfare associations, trade unions, independent churches and elite organisations occurred between two world wars, and were local and peaceful.
Algerian resistance to French for example was endemic from beginning involving at times armed resistance by the existing political authorities, wider movements organised under religious leadership at the other. These were important during early 1830s and were superseded in the late 1830s and on to 1847 by a new and larger movement in western Algeria both anti French and pro Islam, and was revolutionary in its attempt to create a new state with a modern administration and army.
Abd al Qadir, son of the local head of the Qadiriya the most important among Muslim brotherhoods, was leader of the movement. His power centre was south of Oran that was little beyond the reach of French armies. His aim was to contain the French to the ports they controlled. He soon realised the need of a new political and military administrative order (that Muhammad Ali had created in Egypt) in the place of existing complex lineage institutions.
Up to 1840 the French did not go in all out war with him. He used the interregnum to organise and establish his authority. He used existing symbols of power by putting himself under the temporal and spiritual protection of the Sherifian Sultan of Morocco. He took himself the title of Amir al Mu’mini, commander of faithful, the title used by most religious revolutionaries south of Sahara. He set out to create a regular government administration that would combine some aspects of bureaucratic hierarchy with the existing lineage power structure. Core of his military power was a small standing army of 10,000 men trained by European advisers and equipped with modern weapons. His chief strategy was guerrilla tactics. At his heights he controlled 2 or 3rds of Algeria north of desert.
After 1841 the French followed a policy of outright conquest and direct confrontation with Abd al Qadir’s new order, which turned out to be harder than the French had expected.
To cut off supply routes French had to attach Morocco and by 1846 had deployed 110,000 (1 or 3rd of entire French troops) troupes in field.
Defeat of Abd al Qadir in 1847 did not mean end of resistance to French. They rule by compromising with local authority. Thus, their ability to enforce order varied as per time and space. Religious leaders continued organise sporadic revolts. The French garrison had face continuing rebellion almost every year from late 1840s through the 1850s.
Most serious of such revolts came in 1871 when revolted a whole Kabylia under Shaykh of the Rahmaniyya. He also managed to rally a number of other religious fraternities to his cause. Within a short time they captured the whole mountainous region from Algeris to some 200 miles along the coast and south to the edge of desert. They lacked training in arms and training, thus were swiftly suppressed by French, though it cost them 3000 men.
Resistance by natives apart, their main rivals for control over French Algeria were the European settlers who used to immigrate from 1830s onwards when the French administration made land available to them. Several among them also found economic opportunities in towns often in connection with administration or military. Half of the immigrants were from France, the rest from Malta, Baleatric Islands or Spanish mainland. By 1850s they were 130,000, by 19000 they were half a million constituting 13% of total population. Over time, they adopted French language an culture, and identified them as French. Unlike administrators or solders who looked forward to ultimate retirement in France, the immigrants took Algeria as their permanent home. By the end of 19th century more than half were Algeria born. They were set apart from the rest by their culture, religion n particular. They jealously guarded their privileges and became the cultural chauvinists of the most extreme kind, tending to see differences between their culture and that of Muslim Algerians as an innate “racial” inheritance.
Egyptians resisted to increasing economic penetration by Europeans and the rising demands of the European members of the Commission of Debt to repay European bondholders. They opposed the austerity measures like increasing taxes, retrenchments of civil servants and military officials. It led to first Egyptian nationalist revolution of 1881-2. It was inspired by the great scholar, Al Afghani, who taught at Cairo’s Al Azhar university and the man who led was his former student Colonel Ahmad Arabi of fellaheen (peasant) origin. Operating within framework of pan-Islamism he exhorted Muslims to unite in opposing Western political and religious encroachment and adopt Western technology to in order to withstand Western economic and political power. It was anti Turkish and anti European, and was supported by both liberal intellectuals and the fellaheen. Arabi carried out successful coup by surrounding Khedive’s palace and forced him to dismiss his ministers, restore the former strength of army, summon parliament and the Chamber of Notables. A new liberal Prime Minister was appointed. Egyptians were determined to face Anglo French joint action in 1882 and Arabi was made Minister of War. Anglo French simply reinforced the ranks of Egyptian nationalists and provoked anti European violence. There were spontaneous rioting and massacre of Europeans and native Christians. Arabi was blamed for this. Although it was put down by British overtly, the protests continued underground.
Moroccan resistance to its colonisation (consequent of Algeçiras Conference of 1906) took the form of a wave of anti European feeling and action, and nationalist revolt against sultan. Europeans were attacked, which led to retaliation by French in 1907 in the form of occupying Casablanca by massacring thousands of civilian Moroccans, Shawiyya and Wadja regions. French intervention led to further resistance to Sultan’s authority by Ba Himara and Raisuni. French aid to former led to political revolt in provinces, and a civil war broke out in 1907-8. Such religious leaders deposed Sultan Abdul Aziz who fled to Tangier and Abdul Hafiz (1907-13) became new fez. He by perforce accepted French occupation of Morocco.
French advance was also resisted by Sharada and Bann Mtir (north and south of Meknes) people in 1910 and proclaimed Mawlay al Zain as sultan of Meknes. With French intervention the sultan was captured and the rebels were defeated. In 1912 French marched into Fez and Sultan Hafiz surrendered without fight with the promise of not to depose his dynasty and French aid to him in case of need. Later the sultan joined Maghreb Unity, a secret pan Islamic organisation and tried to raise nationalist revolt in Morocco. Money, arms and advisers arrived for it resembling fairly a nation wide revolt. French forced the sultan to abdicate in 1913 and joined the earlier retired sultan at Tangier.
But there was determined resistance to French in south in 1912 led by Al Hidal, a Mauritanian leader, who declared jihad and occupied Marrakesh, the great city of southern Morocco. He pose a great threat by raising Islamic nationalist feeling of masses and the fierce desire of Berber communities of the Atlas to direct their own affairs independent of either central Moroccan or French control. But French overcame him by wining over the Berber Chiefs’ support by promising them autonomy in interior Morocco.
In 1909, the Spanish conquered northern Morocco and the extreme south known as Rio de Ore or Western Sahara. It also occupied Nador and Salwan and began developing communication there. But Spanish rule was mostly indirect when they attempted to make their rule strong and effective such attempts were resisted by a movement led by Karim of Rif Mountains after the First World War. Thus the resistance to colonisation in North Africa was consistent but sporadic.
Tunisian response reflected the divisions in North African society both between social classes and between rival Muslim groups. They reacted in a mild way. They urban aristocracy accepted the French rule out of self interests and kept many posts in the administration, as well as their lands. Moreover, the French were seen as allies against Tunisian masses. Even the Muslim reformers (disciples of Kharir al Din) accommodated themselves to French rule in the interests of modernisation, and accepted the French as allies of sufi orders. The docile Tunisian response was understandable as French did not create another Algeria in Tunisia and ruled through a Grand Tunisian Council and municipal institutions on which Tunisians as well as French were represented. In legal matters Muslim justice continued to be administered to most Tunisians. In any case, Tunisians were long used to alien and accepted French paternalism as they had tolerated Ottoman domination. There was armed resistance in 1881-2 in southern Tunisia which had been less effectively controlled by Ottomans, and therefore was less ready than the north to accept French hegemony. But they were defeated and many of them migrated paradoxically to Ottoman held Tripoli.
Libyans response were divided in their response to Italian invasion: some neutral, others joined Turkish out of pan Islamic feeling. Thus, Sanusiyya Brotherhood cooperated with Turks far more than they did in past. Resistance was ruthlessly suppressed. The worst incident was at the of Mechiya on the outskirts of Tripoli city. Reuter’s correspondent reported that parties of soldiers penetrated every portion of the Oasis, shooting indiscriminately all of whom they met without trial, without appeal. Over 4000 men, women and children died at Mechiya, including several hundred of men who took shelter in a mosque. It soon became clear to Italians that Libyan response to their invasion was going to prolong the war. Threats of attacks on Ottoman empire in the Aegean Sea forced the sultan to negotiate and in 1912 he gave Libya to Italy in Treaty of Ouchy.
The Sanusi of the desert, under the local leader Sayyid Ahmad Al-Sharif, took over the mantel of resistance from the Turks in 1912. When the Turks left Libya the Sanusi sensibly abandoned the failed Turkish tactis of pitched battles against superior Italian firepower and turned to guerrilla war in dessert at which they were adept. By 1915, Italy had withdrawn from the interior of country in order to concentrate her military attention on the First World War. Sanusi resistance continued till 1917 when Ttalians, defeatd by Austria in Europe, made a truce with the head of the order. The Sanusi were not effectively brought under Italian control until the offensive begun by Mussolini’s Fascist government in 1923.
During the interwar period the resistance to Europeans was not so, as French found in Riffian Republic in northern Morocco during Early 1920s and the Italians in Libya in 1930s but Africans were still outgunned.
But things changed during 1950 when the African rebels relying on steady supply of arms from Asia and Europe, and by adopting the guerrilla tactics could outsmart their mighty colonial masters. The territories that were cheaper to conquer became infinitely expensive to hold, as French found in Algeria during 1950s.
Colonial Administration and Economy
Four Theories of colonial rule emerged from 1900: Assimilation, Association, Direct Rule, & Indirect Rule. Assimilation was absorption of the African to European culture and acceptance of the African as partner in a government, business and missionary enterprise. It was followed for sometime in 19th century by French in Senegal, Portuguese in their colonies and the British in 19th century in its West African Colonies, Sierra Leone in particular. Association, also redefined as policy of paternalism, was adopted by the French outside Senegal where they did not accept assimilation nor did they wish to administer indirectly through traditional institutions.
They would be best administered by Europeans, but considerations of cost limited their numbers in colonies, thus Africans had to be used in administration and ‘associated’ with colonial rule. Practically, association resembled indirect rule as under both systems Europeans used traditional rulers in administration. But there were subtle but important differences. Europeans used indirect rule everywhere as part of a deliberate attempt to rule their African colonies through both local leaders and institutions. Association on the other hand was a reluctant recourse to use traditional rulers in the absence of enough Europeans and a Europeanised African elite, it involved use of African personnel rather than institutions.
Direct rule involved a vast population of European administrators to implement details of colonial policies and was rarely practised, not even in white settler colonies like Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and South Africa.
Indirect rule had practical advantages like lower salaries to indigenous staff and no need to learn local language and culture, also was a best way to natives for eventual self government. Africans could develop best under European tutelage. But in practice it buttressed conservative elements in traditional government. It was an alien system of government imposed on Africans. Even though traditional rulers ruled over people, but above them was a pyramid of European district, provincial or regional officials.
Traditional rulers suffered many limitations on their political and judicial powers. In other words, it refers to maintenance of ‘white prestige’ at all costs. It was suited to British worldwide imperial system. It was attempted everywhere in British ruled Africa, more particularly in the areas having centralised hierarchy in authority, like Egypt and Sudan in North Africa. French practised the same in Sahara desert lands of Maghreb and West Africa, from Morocco to Tunisia and from Mauritania to Chad. Indirect rule was based on the assumption that African societies were static with a fixed and unchanging system of government. They supported indirect rule as they believed Africans could progress slowly. They did not understand recent African history and did not realise that considerable adaptation and innovation had taken place in African government in many states in the immediate pre colonial period.
A major feature of French colonial administration was federalism, owing to its colonies being a continuous block of land. The concept of Overseas France (France d’ Outremer) and the desire by Paris to subordinate the colonies closely to metropolitan government made federation desirable. Like the Portuguese, the French colonies were regarded as an integral part of the home country. French had no plans of creation of self governing colonies. French colonies were regarded as administrative units rather than countries, and were federated with one another according to convenience of Paris. Thus, Mauritania was federated to French West Africa in 1904. Another was right to African representation in French National Assembly (given initially to Algerians and Senegalese) but no right to self government), which proved failure owing to no parity of representation in proportion to population and the strict qualification prescriptions allowed few Africans to vote and very few African delegates to sit in National Assembly as late as 1937 out of 15 million French West Africans only 80,500 allowed to vote as French citizens.
French colonial administration was also despotic in nature, as it ruled by decrees of French president. French assembly had right to pass laws for colonies but it rarely did so. Ministerial despotism was matched by the despotism of local administrators. All colonial law was administrative law. There was no legislative or statute law in French colonies. The chain of command was highly centralised. The French administrators had greater judicial powers than the British colonial officials. All criminal cases tried by them and customary law was ignored, except in civil cases. They made use of a decree (indigenat) of 1887 to arrest and punish African subjects (not citizens) without holding a trial.
Like British, the French ruled as far as possible through chiefs in rather different ways. Unlike the British, they eliminated traditional rulers who had more than purely local authority and who had resisted their penetration and replaced them by more pliant men. They abolished kingship as soon as the collaborators began to assert independent views. They opposed African kingship because kings were seen as obstacles to colonial despotism.
At canton or village level they used traditional political system , as it was considered less a threat than the kingship. But they used local authorities in such a way as to undermine their traditional authority with people. They were forced to become agents of colonialism and turned them against people. Local chiefs were used to collect taxes, control forced labour, ensure compulsory cultivation and recruit soldiers. They became colonial servants. Unlike British African chiefs, the French African chiefs could not try criminal cases or present grievances. They were poorly paid thus indulged in extortion and were forced to become tyrants as delay in depositing taxes or carrying out colonial orders led to their arrests, imprisonment and flogging. People therefore ceased to give their allegiance to traditional political rulers and turned instead to spiritual leaders in the community.
The British generally built their administration on indigenous institutions, through they were not always successful and were more responsive to local situations than the French. A study of British colonial administration reveals not only the strengths and weaknesses of indirect rule, but also the marked differences between the French and the British use of traditional African authorities. The French were more logical and consistent than the empirical and pragmatic British, but they were less successful in keeping their colonial subjects under control. There were more frequent armed rebellions in French colonies (French West Africa in particular) against the hated the hated indigenat and military recruitment. There were more frequent protest migrations from French to British colonies (from French to British West Africa) to escape the harsher French rule. The French reduced traditional slavery but introduced a new form of slavery (forced labour) on a massive scale, Forced labour was commonly used by French administrators. General Gallieni created villages de liberté in 1887, where free slaves were settled but they were made to work for the French administration and army. Forced labour was then extended from villages of liberty to all villages in French Africa.
Whatever the system adopted, the colonial powers wished their colonies be financially self reliant not become drain on mother country. In rare cases and in initial stages limited grants from colonial power might have been made. Elaborate tax system was devised to make colonies self sufficient. Taxation took two forms: labour and cash. In French colonies all Africans had 12 days of free labour. In addition there was also compulsory labour in return for a payment. Labour was mostly used on public works and agriculture production, at times for commercial companies. British also used forced labour as a form of taxation, but they never used compulsory labour for commercial companies nor for culture of crops. But the wages of forced labour was less than that of the volition labour. Among the various direct and indirect taxes introduced by colonial rulers, hut taxes and poll taxes were very popular. They justified taxation not only as a means to run administration but also for the economic development of colonies. In settlers colonies there were frequent demands for increase in taxation so that Africans would sell their labour to settlers in order to obtain money to pay taxes.
On the whole, before the First World War colonial administrators moved cautiously in the area of direct taxation, owing to fear of Armed African revolt against it. Britain for a example managed with indirect taxes. Whatever the form, the number of taxes went on increasing with time, as the colonial administrators needed officials (European or African) who had to be paid, housed, and given transport around the country. Taxes were also consumed by the military force. Taxes and custom duties were also needed to raise capital for development that the colonial governments deemed necessary such as roads, railways, harbours and bridges, etc. These very communications infrastructure ensured crops a route to market, which in turn brought about even more revenue for colonial administration.
Such European economic and financial penetration in states of North Africa ultimately led to their occupation by one or another of European power. Almost inevitably the impact of European occupation was felt in the economy of these countries. European rule was imposed on North Africa and it was integrated with a worldwide economic order. Resource endowments and worldwide markets for its minerals, technology and the size and importance of settler communities were the other determinants of colonial economic policy in the region. European capital was invested in the region and sectors that promised most attractive return. Settlers used to follow capital investment in technologically complex enterprises. Broadly the final outcome was peasant agriculture in African hands. European government investment was generally limited to infrastructure like roads, railroads, and port works. Private investment was largely by commercial farms dominating export of final products and the import of European goods. In agriculture sector government intention was European managed farms for export crops, smaller and less capitalised Africans producing food crops for local consumption.
Colonial Administration and Economy: Algeria
Before 1870s, the French rule in Algeria was not direct. They ruled by recognizing a local authority as bashaga (local lineage chiefs). Thus their ability to enforce their orders varied in time and space.
The two decades on either sides of 1870 was when the French Algeria crystallised into the political and social order that was to persist through the colonial period. On the question of who and in whose interest the government was run? During the early phase of colonial rule military officers were governing Muslim population and they continued to be so even in later phases, particularly in outlying districts. Spl officers called bureaux arabes or Arabic officers were staffed by men with Spl language training. They understood something of the needs of local population and sought to rule in their interests so that to some extent it mitigated the oppressive military rule. Although Algerians were not treated as equals but they came to believe that French had an obligation to rule Algeria well and in the interests of Algerians themselves. For sometime during 1860s the French government in Paris was almost brought around to this view.
The French administration also lumped Christians of all origins as a separate and legal group of French citizens. Where as non Christians were French subjects but not considered as French citizens. French citizens enjoyed equal rights under French law, and enjoyed many legal and constitutional rights as in France. French subjects by contrast came under Muslim law. Their personal and property rights depended on different set of rules, and they were subject to special and discriminatory laws and regulations specially created for them by the colonial government. For a time Algerian Jews were in a third religious category but in 1870 they were promoted from subjects to citizens. Inequality before law meant inequality in education, in civil rights and in economic opportunity.
Until 1860s, the army kept upper hand, with the settlers being increasingly resentful of it. With the foundation of Third Republic in 1870, the settlers won victory. In the name of democracy and republicanism the French citizens of Algeria received the right to elect their deputies to National Assembly in Paris, as Algeria was formally annexed to France. The officers of bureaux arabes were subordinated to the civilian government in each district, and the voice of settlers became more and more important in settling French policy. But as in South Africa, ‘victory for democracy” in this case was victory for a democracy confined to a small minority. This happened during the decades of 1870s and 1880s.
Although most of the settlers lived in towns, their main impact on economy of Algeria was through their control of land Algerians did much of agricultural work.
Up to 1851, the colonial government had redistributed some 1400 square miles, an area half of the size of Rhode Island. Half of such land had belonged to Regency government, but nearly a fifth had been grazing land held by nomadic or semi nomadic lineages who were forced to settle down as sedentary farmers. 15% of land was confiscated from government opponents like ‘Abd al-Qadir’s followers .
In the first phase, many of the settlers were given small plots and worked the land themselves, while some 36,000 Algerian families lost their land and had either to move away or to take work as landless farm workers.
After mid century, still more land changed hands. The French confiscated another section about Rhode Island in the wake of rebellion of 1871, and made it available to Europeans. Latter also bought and moved in large scale to agriculture, using dry farming techniques for grain production in more arid but tillable regions, or cultivating large vineyards where rainfall was adequate.
By end of century, a pattern of efficient, highly capitalised agriculture was beginning to emerge under European control, along side the less efficient, under-efficient agriculture still carried out on fragmented land holdings of Algerian farmers.
Until after the First World War Algeria relied on agriculture as the main stay of its economy. Two different streams began to evolve: European agriculture grew in terms of landholding and productivity, while Muslim agriculture contracted. The Muslim population in Algeria rose steadily during later part of 19th century. However, their holdings of cattle and sheep in 1900 were 75% of what they had been in 1865. There was also decline in Muslim cereal production as a result of loss of land. This in turn brought partial famines in of 1893 and 1897.
With the advent of European settlers and the loss of land, many Muslim farmers became share-croppers, who cultivated land owned by Europeans, and gave up a fifth of the produce in return. Others became agricultural labourers with no land at all. It has been estimated that by 1900 when Muslim made 90% of the population in Algeria, they owned only 37% of country’s wealth.
While Muslim sector in in agriculture declined, the European sector developed. There was great inflow of settlers between 1860 and 1900. Much of the best land was taken by settlers. There was a vast increase in the amount of productive land. The areas such as the Mitidja plain, near Algiers, which had been swampy and malarial, were developed. The European agriculture sector accounted for increase in cereal production by 520 million kilograms between 1850 and 1910. Vine growing on a large scale began in 1880 and the plantation growth of tobacco was also boosted.
But there were a number of warning signals. Despite the increase in European farming, food production failed to keep pace with population growth. The serious imbalance between Muslim and European agriculture grew rather than declined. There was almost no opportunity for the primitive Muslim system to evolve. The owners lacked the training and the capital to bring about change even had they wished to do so. Similar disparities were noted between settler agriculture and Muslim agriculture in Tunisia as well before the First World War. On the eve of independence in Algeria, European farmers produced 66% of all wheat, virtually all wine, and 84% of olive products.
Colonial Administration and Economy: Tunisia
At first the French occupation changed little in Tunisia. A protectorate was set up and the bey remained titular head of state. A French resident was imposed on the existing ottoman administration. Between 1882 and 1890 the government of Tunisia was gradually but surely Gallicized. In 1883, the Financial Commission of Control was brought towards an end. The French government paid off the debts of bondholders, and proceeded to reimburse itself by exploiting the country. French settlers began to arrive, as late as 1901 only 24000 Frenchmen were living in Tunisia. They were compelled to buy any land which they wished to farm. On the other, the settlers tended to be men with capital who were able to develop Tunisian agriculture. Thus, Tunisian wheat yields during early 1950s were three times as high on European as on African farms.
Colonial Administration and Economy: Morocco
Its formal occupation by French happened just before the First World War. Until then it was not part of French colonial empire. After occupation the French practised indirect rule in Morocco. Its Resident General, who administered Morocco from 1912 to 1925, exercised his power though the traditional rulers the tribal leaders and the leaders of local branches of Sufi orders. It remained largely an agricultural country dominated by the French.
Colonial Administration and Economy: In the Maghreb
Agriculture attracted a large population of European settlers in such countries. Some among them worked in their own land, but by inter war period they managed larger units. By 1934, 26, 000 land settlers in Algeria had average of 200 acres each while 400,000 Algerians had an average of 43 acres each. Settlers were 10% of its population in 1930. In Maghreb, as in South Africa, a combination of capital, technical knowledge and the best of land produced high yields on European owned farms and low yields where Africans farmed their own land. An inordinate share of gross territorial product was diverted to European settlers. In general, the Muslim population of colonised North Africa was unable to find employment in industry and mining in sufficient numbers to offset lack of opportunity in agriculture. Traditional crafts only occupied 50,000 town dwellers in Algeria in 1880, and about 25, 000 in Tunisia in 1910. In Morocco the number of was about 100,000 in 1910. But this was only a small proportion of total population. Heavy industry did not develop in the Maghreb until the First World War, and became significant after 1965.
Iron mining began in Algeria in 1880 and about one million tonnes per year was being produced by the First World War. Phosphate mining began in 1910. Iron production began in Tunisia in 1900 and lead in 1905. Morocco had no significant operations before the First World War. As with agriculture so with mining: European capital dominated the industry, and took most of the profits. The Muslim population provided a relatively poorly paid labour force. Nevertheless in the Maghrib, as in other parts of Africa, the developments in agriculture and mining, which primarily benefited Europeans, brought about the development of a communications infrastructure, and helped to integrate Africa more closely with the modern economy. But development in such sector such as railways was rudimentary in Maghreb and relatively more in Anglo Egyptian Sudan.
For North Africans, industrial Europe was a magnet of labour migration. Algerians were going to France as temporary migrants during inter war period, still more came from Maghreb after Second World War. The total rose from 40,000 in 1946 to nearly a quarter of million on the eve of the Algerian war of independence in 1954 to nearly a million in 1970. After the Algerian war of independence the number of Africans working in France was much greater than the number of Europeans still resident the Maghreb. North Africans became dependent on wage works in France. By 1954, the remittance by wage workers were equal to total wages paid by Algerian agriculture. So wages in France supported a quarter of Algerian population. French economy also became increasingly dependent on labour drawn from North Africa. Such migrants workers were discouraged from settling down permanently and owing to their low skills were forced to work in worst-paid jobs and their legal rights were limited but were not subject to full range of overt discrimination Africans had to face in South Africa. Most of them lived in slums of Paris or in bindovilles on outskirts of Algiers.
Colonial Administration and Economy: Egypt
Gradual European penetration into Egypt during the reigns of Muhammad Ali, Sa’id and Ismail led to establishment of Dual Control over it in 1876, the arrangement whereby the Ottoman sultan remained nominally the Suzerain of Egypt with Khedive nominally representative in Cairo, but the real rulers were European members of Commission of the Debt. In 1882, with the British victory an informal British Protectorate was set up to keep Suez Canal safe and to avoid the troubles and expenses of direct administration. Such protectorate lasted till 1914 under a variety of legal fictions under which Britain was in control of Egypt but under European pressure its freedom of action was severely limited.
In terms of pure economic growth Britain’s record in Egypt and Sudan was impressive. The two countries cashed on cotton boom of 1900-10, when cotton prices doubled. Sudan on the other hand was provided with a network of railways that was essential for the development of a big country.
Lord Cromer ruled Egypt as consul general from 1882-1907. He inherited a debt of 100 million Egyptian pounds and managed to service it. He abolished many unproductive taxes and use of whip for tax collection. New dams were built on the Nile and old ones repaired. Agricultural production, especially cotton, rose to record levels. Egypt enjoyed a period of unprecedented prosperity, as rising prices and a rapidly growing population were more than matched by a rise in real per capita income.
Cromer was a great reformer and was an imperialist. He abandoned Mehemet Ali’s plans to industrialise Egypt, and by his encouragement of cotton growing to bring revenue and raise income, he turned Egypt into a satellite of the Lancashire textile industry. He also encouraged the investment boom of 1900-14. Foreign capital poured into Egypt to such an extent that by 1914 as much as 92% of the capital of joint stock companies was foreign owned. It attracted very large foreign investment (out side South Africa) ₺11 sterling per capita in public sector and ₺8 sterling per capita in private sector. But, most of investments went into transportation and irrigation works, which could be handled by Egyptians without large scale immigration of immigrant skilled workers and most of foreign immigrants went into commerce and services. Egypt was once again in debt heavily to foreign businessmen. In his concern to reduce expenses, Cromer allowed almost no spending on education. He seriously weakened the state education system created by Ismail by abolishing free education and imposing high school fees.
Colonial Administration and Economy: Sudan
In Sudan, Britain built railways originally for the purposes of military re-conquest, but extended them for purposes of easier administration and economic growth. The railway from Egypt reached Khartoum in December 1899. In 1905, the capital was connected by rail to Red Sea coast. Railways penetrated south of Khartoum to Sennar on Blue Nile and westwards to El Obeid in 1911. New towns such as Khartoum North, Atbara, Port Sudan and Kosti grew up on railways.
Experimental cotton farming began in Sudan in the year of 1900. By 1905, nearly 24,000 acres were under cotton cultivation. Government gave land in lease to original owners in about blocks of forty acres. They were instructed to grow cotton on 1 or 4th of it and rest could go on fallow, food or fodder for animals. An experimental pump irrigation cotton scheme was successfully launched in Gezira plain south of Khartoum between 1911-14. Plans to dam the Blue Nile near Sennar were pushed ahead. By 1914, the British government had guaranteed a loan to the Sudan government and surveying was complete.
Dam work across Blue Nile at Sennar began in 1925 and on completion proved to be one of the successful colonial ventures on agriculture in Sudan. The dam and its extension canals had by 1929 brought irrigate area to half a million acres and by end of Second World War to a million of acres. By the time of its independence, the canal system supported half million people and provided nearly half the total value of Sudanese exports. The government allowed a private syndicate to take charge of transportation, ginning and marketing. From the export earning 40% went to government, 40% to tenants and 20% to the syndicate. Sudan, like Egypt had become a satellite of Lancashire. Diversification of economy was hardly considered by the British before 1914. Sudan paid high price for its undue dependence on a single export commodity (cotton) like Egypt. Recent studies show the flow of gross domestic product was unfair, and high level of planning distorted the economy that might have developed more equitably under a market-based system.
Colonial Administration and Economy: An Overview
There were regional variations in economic impact, both in its exploitative and growth side. Several areas, especially the interior parts, were left untouched by the new colonial economy. They remained firmly within the orbit of traditional low-productivity local economies for a long time after the establishment of colonial rule, and even throughout the colonial period. Such lack of development was not necessarily the same thing as exploitation. Modern development often went hand in hand with exploitation. Railways, for example, helped in economic growth as they made it easier to export cash crops and minerals and reduced transport costs. Yet the railways also assisted in exploitation because they allowed European cotton goods and iron tools to be sold in the interior much more cheaply than those of African manufacture, and many African craftsmen, especially weavers and blacksmiths, lost their livelihood. The colonial exploitation and control apart, there were a number of other factors that prevented industrialization Africa such as lack of local capital, skills, low purchasing power and poor infrastructure. Europeans were only keen in making profits. Once there was prospects of making profit they invested in Africa that led to its economic and industrial development after the First World War, when local economic factors led to such developments.
Colonial government did put in some money in infrastructure like roads and railways, ports and in irrigation schemes but overall investment flow was low. Private investment from overseas was weak. Bulk of private investment was in minerals and mineral associated industry. Agricultural investment was in northern and southern Africa. During colonial period the investors, private and public, placed funds in export sector that led to lopsided development centred on foreign trade. While the colonial governments focused on export crops and mines, European officials worked from Eurocentric point of view. They knew about Europe’s economic demands not about African economy. They invested to meet these demands, i.e., wine from Algeria, cotton from Egypt etc. Capital investment looked to profit making and rarely looked to local needs. They intended to maximise productivity and security of the economy in Europe not that that of Africa, on both private and public capitals invested there.
Post a Comment