Photo: A soldier stands watch during Operation Panther's Claw in Afghanistan's Helmand province, Monday July 13, 2009. It is hoped that the operation will clear and secure the Malgir and Babaji areas of insurgents, in order to set the conditions for the forthcoming Afghan elections in August. Over 700 British troops are involved in the operation, intimately supported by 300 personnel from the Afghan National Security Force (AP Photo/Sergeant Dan Harmer, Royal Logistic Corps, MOD).

"Colonial conquest was not just the result of the power of superior arms, military organization, political power, or economic wealth -- as important at these things were. Colonialism was made possible, and then sustained and strengthened, as much by cultural technologies of rule as it was by the more obvious and brutal modes of conquest that first established power on foreign shores." -Nicholas B. Dirks

At the start of the conflict in Afghanistan, I believed that the farcical reliance on a "Loya Jirga" to legitimate a puppet government heralded the revival of a colonial project inherited from the Britons. The idea of a Loya Jirga reminded me of the Great Darbar that one of my maternal ancestors attended in Delhi. But perhaps I was wrong to imagine history repeating itself.

Unlike the Iraq War, the demand to gain a command of the language of command is weak. In fact, the entire cultural project of control, which is so essential to domination and subordination of foreign peoples, seems highly underdeveloped for such a prolonged conflict. Of course, there are well rehearsed talking points which circulate on the need to liberate women from their burqas, the imperative of brining modernity/development to this traditional society, and the revival of a colonial pseudo-anthropology on tribes, but these are half-hearted and generally lack the support of the academy.

Only the most gullible, provincial, and stupid of Westerners believe that their governments actually care about the welfare of women in foreign societies. One would only need to look at rates of reported rape in Western countries to question whether these governments even care about gender repression in their own societies. Moreover, the discourse of modernity generally rings hollow to an enemy and an occupied population that takes fierce pride in its customs and selectively appropriates what it deems valuable. An end to warfare is prioritized even higher than the promise of economic development amongst many (if not most) Afghanis. In any case, few in the West believe that after thirty years of constant war, Afghanistan will be a functional polity or economy by the end of the next decade. Finally, the academy (with a few notable exceptions) seems quite unwilling to participate in a revival of colonial anthropology to support Western governments. The military is certainly keen to collect statistics and develop classificatory schematics, but the academy remains reluctant. And without the academy, there is little chance that the military will develop a robust and sophisticated knowledge of the people it dominates.

Perhaps this will all change if the military phase seems to result in pacification of the rural areas. After all, it took decades for the original configuration of colonial power/knowledge to emerge in South Asia. But for now, the West seems exhausted with itself and its well rehearsed modes of domination. Perhaps this exhaustion is the fruit of the post-structuralist and deconstructionist revolutions in the academy. It is difficult to know at this point. But one thing is for sure: without a cultural technology of rule, a military occupation is unsustainable.

Labels: afghanistan, power/knowledge, south asia