IndexIntroductionBodyConclusionBibliographyIntroductionIn the year 1857, one of the most extraordinary indigenous revolts against the European empire occurred in India (Mantena, 2010). Over 130,000 native soldiers, known as Sepoys of the Bengal Army, rebelled against their British commanders and consequently created a change in the imperial administrative ideologies of the colonizers (Mantena, 2010). Therefore, this essay will aim to illustrate that the goals of the imperialists were actually those that constituted a political agenda. The aim will be to explain how the British Empire's ideological justifications would change to fit their imperial policies and rules, and how it was used as a disguise and tool in the service of colonial administrators. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay Body The uprising was due to long-standing grievances, such as the British colonial authority's contempt for the traditions and daily practices of the Indian people (Mamdani, 2012). However, the final spark that apparently led directly to the mutiny was due to the rumor that pig and cow fat was being used as a lubricant on recently introduced rifle cartridges, which was obviously an insult to the religious beliefs of the Indian people (Marshall , 2011). Furthermore, the “suddenness” and degree of antagonism shocked the British colonizers to the point of self-examination (Marshall, 2011). Thus, the Sepoy Mutiny encouraged the British to realize that the way they had governed for the last decade was not as effective, nor as welcomed as they had initially assumed (Mantena, 2010). During 1757 and 1857 more than half of the South Asian continent was placed under the authority of the British East India Company (Mamdani, 2012). During this century, British governing strategy was based on liberal ideology, an idea that justified imperial rule on the basis of morality (Kirkby, 2010). In explanation, British imperialists believed they had a “moral duty” as human beings to aid the advancement of less civilized subjects and to transform them according to British ideals of civilization (Kirkby, 2010). Therefore, imperial rule was justified by the notion of progress (Kirby, 2010). That said, the British Empire took it upon itself to transform the “barbaric” and “backward” Indians into a highly regulated and anglicized society (Bodine, 2015). Therefore, the liberal imperial mission of the British rulers, before the Sepoy Mutiny, was actually a civilizing mission, which was fulfilled by the governance strategy of direct rule (Bodine, 2015). Direct rule was achieved through the imposition of direct control. by the British Empire, mainly through state institutions and English laws (Kirby, 2010). The English achieved this through the abolition of the Mughal court and the disintegration of native institutions in order to discredit and replace Indian knowledge systems with “enlightened” English education systems (Bodine, 2015). Therefore, the imperial mission did not only aim to civilize the natives, but also included the project of assimilation (Mamdani, 2012). Therefore, British rulers hoped that by establishing their educational and legal systems, they would be able to transform the natives into what they considered civilized people and that the natives would eventually adopt Western culture (Mamdani, 2012). However As mentioned above, the practice of direct rule has not been as successful,as witnessed by the Sepoy Mutiny (Mamdani, 2012). As a result, British rulers were forced to question the legitimacy of their imperial ideology and, indeed, their governing strategy, which led to critical reassessment, inspired, in particular, by comparative jurists and the historian Sir Henry Maine (Lushaba , 2012). Maine's contribution to debates over imperial politics was particularly significant in reconstructing imperial governance and ideologies, as his writings became required reading for colonial administrators (Lushaba, 2012). Maine believed that existing knowledge about Indian societies at the time of the Sepoy Mutiny was inaccurate and largely lacking (Kirkby, 2010). He argued that direct government administrators failed to adequately know Native society and therefore had no real way to understand it, leading to a kind of “culture clash” (Kirkby, 2010). This “epistemological” failure is what Maine recognizes as part of the cause of the rebellion (Kirkby, 2010). Maine found that the inadequacy of knowledge was due to the fact that imperial rulers studied more urbanized Indians, rather than more rural and traditional ones (Lushaba, 2013). So, he instead began studying Indians in rural areas and his findings were what he began to associate with natives (Lushaba, 2012). In other words, in an attempt to recover the “true” idea of ​​the native, Maine has inadvertently illustrated a detailed representation of the native society, which has recently been defined as “traditional” society (Lushaba, 2013). Furthermore, traditional society was obviously more primitive than the society of urban areas and therefore still retained what were considered “primitive” characteristics, characteristics that were said to reflect ancient European societies (Kirkby, 2012). Therefore, according to Maine, traditional society was a remnant of ancient society in the contemporary world and needed to be governed and treated accordingly (Mantena, 2010). Indeed, Maine's work created a contrast between traditional society and modern European society, and Maine was convinced that the revolt was caused by the demise of traditional Indian society under the encroachment of Western modernity (Kennedy, 2013). Ergo, Maine believed that Indian society was not yet ready for modernity and therefore responded with mutiny (Kennedy, 2013). Furthermore, Maine believed that unlike modern society, traditional society was considered a non-progressive and uncivilized society. society bound by custom (Mantena, 2010). Kinship relationships were especially important in characterizing a traditional society because Maine viewed kinship as the central basis of primary political community (Mamdani, 2012). Furthermore, due to the communal aspect of kinship, traditional societies were said to be more corporate in nature, while modern societies were more individualistic (Mantena, 2010). However, the fact that traditional societies were organized through group relations also meant that there were no prospects for individual freedoms and rights because freedoms and rights were organized on the basis of families or groups, rather than individually, as in modern society (Mamdani, 2012). Therefore, kinship became a decisive characteristic in determining whether societies were traditional or modern and consequently whether they were progressive or non-progressive (Mantena, 2010). In addition to this, Maine also argued that since traditional society was tied to customs and religion, when other European societies began the process of codifying their laws, they did so in away that was civil or political, as well as universal and open to criticism, while the Indians compiled their codes at an earlier stage, when religion and customs were crucial in shaping the individual (Mamdani, 2012). As a result, the law of a traditional society was extremely strict (Mamdani, 2012). Therefore, Maine argued that the rigidity of the primitive and customary law of a traditional society continued to bind the society to the ways of ancient civilization and, therefore, they should not be governed by the same belief of sovereignty, as for the English, since that their laws and ways of life were different to “modern” British society (Lushaba, 2013). Therefore, the discoveries and definitions of traditional Maine society were actually what led to the recognition of the difference between modern society and traditional society (Mantena, 2010). Furthermore, imperial rulers were inclined to recognize that they would have to change their imperial policy of direct rule to accommodate Native people in a way that respected, understood, and preserved their traditional society, as conferred by Maine (Kirkby, 2012 ). Therefore, the description of traditional Maine society is ultimately what laid the foundation for indirect rule (Mamdani, 2012). Unlike direct rule which aimed to assimilate “barbarian” natives into Western culture and focused on the civilizing mission as an imperial ideology, indirect rule instead aimed to embrace native difference as custom (Mamdani, 2012). One of the ways in which the implementation of indirect rule occurred was through involving a change in language; instead of using words that perpetuated exclusion (such as “civil” and “uncivilized”), language shifted toward using words that emphasized inclusion (such as “cultural difference”) (Mamdani, 2012). Therefore, when put into practice, imperial rulers were able to accept the difference between traditional and modern societies as a cultural difference and not as an attestation of anti-colonial rebellion – in this sense Maine's work depoliticised the Sepoy Mutiny centralizing “society” and highlighting cultural difference as the cause of conflict (Kirkby, 2012). As a result, the apparent ambition of indirect rule has become the organization and management of that difference (Mamdani, 2012). Furthermore, law has been used as a tool in indirect government policies reproducing and managing difference in order to facilitate the reproduction of identities. of the natives (Mamdani, 2012). Thus, one of the goals of indirect rule was to regenerate Indian identities within the framework of what the colonizers defined as “natives,” thereby inadvertently creating a system of state-enforced discrimination and dividing natives into organized political minorities ( Mamdani, 2012). In further explanation, colonizers used Maine's work, particularly his notion of traditional societies organized in group relations and without the possibility of individual freedom, to justify their imperial ideologies (Mantena, 2010). They did so by institutionally labeling or “defining” the existing variety of groups in traditional societies and thereby determining their group action and group life (Mamdani, 2012). In other words, the idea that the conflict arose due to “cultural differences” and the fact that Maine considered traditional society to be a remnant of ancient society, as mentioned above, was distorted and used as an excuse by the colonizers to justify their imperial ideology that recognized the need to respect those cultural differences by using different laws that]