The First World War marked the turning point in the relationship between European colonialists and their subjects. Colonial troops fought side-by-side with the French and the British, which led to both a sense of camaraderie during the war, and a sense of betrayal afterwards.
“Feelings of nationalism turned into the drive for independence,” Olivier Litvine, director of the Alliance Française de Dhaka, told the Dhaka Tribune in a recent interview.
To examine this complicated history, Litvine is organising War & Colonies, an exhibition of 35 rare photographs of colonial involvement in the war, along with a two-day conference where historians from around the world will gather to share their research, and debate some still-controversial issues on identity and nationhood.
“There were many broken promises,” Litvine said, notably Britain’s promise of self-rule for India in exchange for their participation. One million Indian troops volunteered and served overseas during WWI, and of these, 74,187 Indian soldiers died and more than 67,000 were wounded. India Gate in New Delhi was built to commemorate these soldiers, but India was still denied self-rule.
The event is part of an international commemoration of the 100 year anniversary of the outbreak WWI. This is the largest centennial programme outside of France, where they are organising more than 1000 events in 2014.
Dhaka Tribune interviewed Olivier Litvine about this event, which he spent two years putting together.
What do you think viewers will respond to most?
The human element in the photographs is quite striking. To read about history is one thing, but to see their faces, their human faces, you cannot help but feel a connection. If I were a teacher, I would ask my students to pick out one and try to imagine what life was like for them.
How did soldiers from Bengal end up fighting for the French side, being under British rule at the time?
The British didn’t want to use Bangalis in their army because they said they found them too effeminate, and did not regard them as “a martial people.” Of course Bangalis were among the leaders of the 1857 uprising, so the British didn’t trust them.
France brought in colonial soliders because, in purely demographic terms, we were losing against Germany. The population of France is not very big. In fact there was a book written in 1910 called “La Force Noire” about the importance of colonial troops.
France used colonial soldiers as shock troops and elite units, especially the Moroccans. Not a single African soldier fought for the British side within Europe. Not so with France, as you can see from the pictures.
Indian labour units were brought in to man the munitions factories. They built the Nancy airfields, which still stand today.
Not many people know this, but the Grand Mosque of Paris was built in honour of the Muslim troops who fought in WWI.
What was the relationship between colonial and European soldiers?
I think there was mutual respect. The officers appreciated the bravery of their troops. And the soldiers – white, brown and black – realised they were all equally scared. It helped humanise them to one another. It materialised the notion of the ‘entire.’
Propaganda postcards were very popular in France at the time, and I have one that says something to the effect of: “The brave Indian soldiers have come to save us.”
But the war also undermined the white man, who had proved his barbarianism. He broke his promise of more autonomy for Algeria and India.
Was that the beginning of the end for colonialism?
Yes, and ironically, 1920 was also the height of colonialism for France and Britain, since the victorious allies divided Germany’s colonies among themselves. But people learned that they could not trust the colonial power anymore, who had just used and dropped them like a discarded garment. It hurt their sense of pride, and they could not look upon these white masters as benevolent anymore.
What are you expecting from the conference?
As for the debate I hope there is going to be some controversy, and not everyone will agree. Academics love to argue – in a polite and civilised way of course. This is one hundred years old so there is no real axe to grind. But for example, Gandhi, a symbol of peace, was a strong supporter of the war. What does that mean?
I was amazed at how enthusiatic the speakers were about coming to Dhaka for the event. They are curious to experience the city for themselves. It also speaks, I think, to the high quality of the programme.
Why is this exhibition important for Bangladeshis?
It’s important for people to know their own history. In Bangladesh we celebrate 1971, but of course this culture’s history is much older than that. With everything else that happened – WWII, Indian independence, partition – WWI gets overlooked. We wanted to bring it back to the collective memory.
