Background
We are familiar with the concept of divide and rule. I wanted to explore the specific context of leveraging minority groups vs. the majority and I wanted reference to a wider array of examples than what I am familiar with (Muslims and Hindus in India). The prompts given to ChatGPT are in the first reply. Note that this was the Deep Research model that I was using.
Introduction
British colonial governance frequently employed a “divide and rule” strategy, wherein colonial authorities identified and co-opted a minority group (often ethnic or religious) to help manage and control a majority population. This tactic appeared in both settler colonies (with European settler minorities or other groups elevated over indigenous majorities) and non-settler colonies (where a local minority elite was empowered under colonial rule). Historians have noted that British imperial administrators deliberately fragmented colonial societies along ethnic lines as a means of sustaining imperial control through fragmentationojs.ahss.org.pk. The political and economic dimensions of this strategy can be observed across the British Empire, from 19th-century India and Africa to post-World War II colonies in Asia and Africa.
Divide-and-Rule in the 19th Century Empire
After the Indian Rebellion of 1857, British officials became acutely wary of unified opposition. Policy shifted toward exploiting communal and ethnic divisions. For instance, the British systematically incorporated religious and caste identities into governance – through censuses and legal categories – thereby dividing Indians by communityojs.ahss.org.pk. This deliberate fragmentation served to weaken nationalist unity and solidify colonial dominanceojs.ahss.org.pk. The partition of Bengal in 1905, separating largely Muslim Eastern Bengal from the Hindu-majority west, was ostensibly administrative but in reality aimed at splitting a growing anti-colonial movement along communal linesojs.ahss.org.pk. Likewise, the Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 introduced separate electorates for Muslims, Sikhs, and others, politicizing religious identities and embedding them in the colonial political frameworkojs.ahss.org.pk. While framed as minority protection, such measures in fact weakened broad anti-colonial solidarityojs.ahss.org.pk.
The British also favored certain minorities in colonial military and civil services for political ends. In India, the colonial army’s recruitment policies after 1857 were tailored to favor so-called “martial races” – communities like Sikhs, Gurkhas, and Punjabi Muslims deemed loyal or apolitical. This “martial races” theory, formally developed post-1857, led to favoring groups that had stayed loyal during the rebellionen.wikipedia.org. By recruiting heavily from these minority groups (often from regions with less education or nationalist fervor), the British created a military force less prone to unite with the majority’s grievancesen.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org. In Africa, similar patterns emerged. In Uganda, British authorities elevated the Baganda ethnic minority to serve as local administrators over other groups. The colonial government “propped up Baganda agents throughout the protectorate” as enforcers of British ruledhlurker.wordpress.com. As one historian put it, the Baganda became “the cruel arm of the British,” enforcing colonial order on rival peoplesdhlurker.wordpress.com. This generated deep resentments, but it secured British political control by preventing a unified resistance. In the Caribbean, after the abolition of slavery, the importation of indentured labor (e.g. Indians in Trinidad and Guyana) created new ethnic divisions. Colonial officials often played Indian and Afro-Caribbean communities against each other in labor and politics, entrenching a divided society that eased British economic management of the plantation colonies (an echo of divide-and-rule, albeit in a demographic engineering form).
20th Century and Postwar Examples
In the 20th century, as anti-colonial nationalism grew, the British continued to leverage minority collaborations. In Cyprus under British rule, the colonial authorities frequently stoked tensions between the Greek majority and Turkish minority. By encouraging the Turkish Cypriot minority to oppose Greek Cypriot nationalist demands, the British effectively neutralized a united front for independenceen.wikipedia.org. This policy of pitting communities against each other had long-term consequences: it deepened inter-ethnic animosity and contributed to the island’s postcolonial divisionen.wikipedia.org. In Ceylon (Sri Lanka), British colonial administration favored the Tamil minority (largely Hindu and mostly in the north) in education and civil service employment, leading to a disproportionately Tamil bureaucratic elite by independenceatlasinstitute.org. This was partly an economic choice – Tamils, especially from the Jaffna region, eagerly embraced English education – but it had political effects. The Sinhalese majority came to resent this perceived British-engineered advantage, which later fueled ethnic conflict. A 1956 Sinhala-Only language policy after independence directly attacked the legacy of Tamil over-representation in government, illustrating how colonial favoritism toward a minority sowed postcolonial strifeatlasinstitute.org.
Even in settler-dominated colonies, British rule rested on minority dominance. In Southern Rhodesia (modern Zimbabwe), for example, colonial policy explicitly empowered the small white settler community. As late as the 1950s, fewer than 5% of the population (Europeans) controlled the legislature and economy, with British approval – a “blatantly racialist policy” of minority rule over the African majoritymarxists.org. In Kenya, during the 1950s Mau Mau Emergency, the British colonial government enlisted loyalist African auxiliaries drawn largely from minority groups or splinter factions of the Kikuyu tribe to combat the predominantly Kikuyu insurgentscambridge.org. These “loyalist” collaborators were armed and given economic incentives (land, jobs) to support British forcescambridge.org. The effect was to turn African against African, undermining the Mau Mau rebellion by dividing the Kikuyu community and aligning other ethnic groups (such as the Embu and Meru) with colonial authorities. Economically, too, the British often tilted access to commerce or land toward certain groups. In colonial East Africa, Asians (especially Indians brought by the British for commerce and railways) formed an intermediate minority class that the British empowered in trade and administration. This created a profitable economic buffer between British capital and African peasants, but also fomented inter-ethnic economic jealousies that lasted into the postcolonial eramarxists.org.
Conclusion
Across both settler and non-settler colonial contexts, these examples support the proposition that British colonialism habitually governed through minority proxies. By allying with, and often privileging, a minority group – whether an ethnic subset of the colonized population or a settler oligarchy – the British crafted a political order that checked the majority and made rebellion more difficult. This strategy yielded short-term stability and facilitated economic extraction, as compliant minority partners helped administer colonies and suppress majority dissent. However, the legacy was deeply divisive: colonial policies amplified ethnic cleavagesen.wikipedia.orgojs.ahss.org.pk, and the “divide and rule”approach frequently carried over into postcolonial politicsen.wikipedia.orgdhlurker.wordpress.com, fueling communal conflicts and power struggles long after the end of British rule. The British Empire’s use of minority collaborators, therefore, stands as a central political and economic tool of imperial control – one whose repercussions are still evident in many former colonies’ social and political fault lines.
0 Comments
Recommended Comments
There are no comments to display.
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.