Statecraft

The term “OKish” minimises the brutal conflicts and violence in many regions during decolonisation. It overlooks the experiences of those who lived through the upheaval, such as the bloody partition of India, the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya, and the Malayan Emergency.

“OKish” doesn’t account for the economic disruption and the social turmoil that many former colonies faced post-independence. The legacy of colonial economic policies had lasting impacts, often leaving countries with challenges such as poverty, inequality, and underdevelopment.

The effects of colonisation and the manner of decolonisation left deep psychological and cultural scars. Phrases like “OKish” do not capture the cultural dislocation, the identity crises, and the lasting interethnic conflicts that were, in part, a product of the arbitrary borders and social hierarchies established or exacerbated by colonial rule.

The use of such a term that implies a mild approval or acceptance glosses over the moral implications of colonialism, including the exploitation, subjugation, and dehumanisation of colonised peoples. It fails to acknowledge the sovereignty and right to self-determination of the colonised nations.

Saying the empire “went down OKish” removes agency from the colonised peoples, many of whom actively fought for and negotiated their independence. It wasn’t simply a matter of the British deciding to withdraw but rather a response to pressure from independence movements.

I reject assertions of selective memory or suggestions of a sanitised version of history that highlights less violent transitions while ignoring the instances where the end of British rule was accompanied by significant strife.

Saying “it went down OKish” lacks the necessary depth to accurately represent the historical reality of the empire’s dissolution and its enduring effects on the former colonies.

A peaceful withdrawal implies a process largely devoid of violence, where decolonisation is negotiated and implemented without significant armed resistance or warfare.

However, the historical record demonstrates that armed conflicts during the British decolonisation were not merely sporadic or minor skirmishes, but rather substantial engagements with lasting consequences, such as those in Kenya, Malaya, Cyprus, and the violent partition of India and Palestine. These were not peripheral events but central episodes in the history of British decolonisation.

The scale and intensity of conflicts in these key regions mean that the term ‘mostly peaceful’ is at best an oversimplification, if not a misrepresentation.

I invite you to challenge the narrative of a predominantly peaceful withdrawal by highlighting that violence was a defining feature of the period, not a mere footnote. It is not just the number of conflicts but their intensity and impact that weigh against the claim of a ‘mostly peaceful’ process.

Decolonisation was a complex tapestry of events, and its violent threads are too significant to be dismissed or understated.

Yeah. It had the details but I wish it had more. But overall it had all of the elements