Colonial Humanism in the 1930s - French Cultural Studies

Transcription

FRC 17(2) Nicola Cooper
17/4/06
10:57
Page 1
French Cultural Studies
Colonial Humanism in the 1930s
The Case of Andrée Viollis
NICOLA COOPER
University of Bristol
Although a committed critic of colonial abuses and mismanagement,
Andrée Viollis should not be viewed as an anticolonialist. The
indigenous discontent she witnesses in India, Indochina and Tunisia
does not impel her to denounce colonialism itself, but rather convinces
her of the possibility of a reformed and humanitarian colonialism. This
article studies Viollis’s accounts of uprising in British India, the
aftermath of revolt and repression in Indochina, and the emergence of
Néo-destour in Tunisia. It examines comparisons she made between
British and French colonial systems and colonial management, and
investigates how the accession of the reformist Popular Front to
government altered her perception of the value of French colonial rule. It
traces the trajectory of the type of liberal, humanist colonial thought,
prevalent in France before the Second World War, which Andrée Viollis
embodied.
Keywords: colonial humanism, fascism, India, Indochina, inter-war,
Popular Front, Tunisia
Introduction
Investigative journalist, envoyée spéciale, war correspondent, novelist,
essayist, translator, militant and colonial critic – Andrée Jacquet de la
Verryère, alternatively known as Andrée Téry, but best known under the
pseudonym Andrée Viollis, was possibly the most famous female journalist
of the inter-war period in France. Beginning in 1899, her journalistic career
took Viollis to some of the most troubled arenas of the first half of the
twentieth century: the civil wars in Ireland and Spain, Soviet Russia and
Nazi Germany, border clashes between China and Japan, and revolts in
colonial India, Indochina and Tunisia.
French Cultural Studies, 17(2): 189–205 Copyright © SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)
http://frc.sagepub.com [200606] 10.1177/0957155806064441
190
17/4/06
10:57
Page 2
FRENCH CULTURAL STUDIES 17(2)
During the course of her career, Viollis wrote for La Fronde, La Raison,
L’Action (‘quotidienne anticléricale, républicaine, socialiste’, and organ of
the Association Nationale des Libres Penseurs de la France); and, having
acted as one of its front-line correspondents as a nurse during the First
World War, she began to write extensively for Le Petit Parisien, becoming
one of the its official envoyées spéciales in 1917. In February 1934 she
joined Chamson and Guéhenno as part of the management team of Vendredi,
a weekly literary, political and satirical revue which was viewed as
‘l’hebdomadaire du Front Populaire’.
Her political leanings, as her press affiliations suggest, were liberal and
leftist. At the beginning of her journalistic career she had taken a Dreyfusard
line in La Fronde under the pseudonym ‘une passante’; from 1902 she was
secretary-general of the Ligue française pour le Droit des femmes and
militated against clericalism as a hindrance to women’s emancipation; and
she was heavily involved in anti-fascist militancy in the 1930s. Close to a
loose and wide-ranging group of engagés, intellectuals and militants, Viollis
moved in the orbit of André Malraux and Francis Jourdain who both
prefaced her work; of Emmanuel Mounier and Esprit; and of a number of
communist sympathisers. She was active in the Ligue des droits de l’homme,
and numerous groups devoted to the defence of colonised peoples: the
Comité d’amnistie aux Indochinois, the Amis du peuple chinois, the Comité
de patronage du plan de réformes marocaines, and the Association pour la
défense et l’émancipation des peuples colonisés.
However engagée Viollis herself may have been in the defence of the
colonised, it would be a mistake to classify her as an anticolonialist.1
Throughout her work, Viollis demonstrates a clear commitment to that brand
of ‘humanisme colonial’ which was particular to a pre-Second World War
world. But although Viollis was passionately interested in the plight of the
colonised, her (often damning) critiques of the ways in which empire was
managed stop short of demanding an end to colonial rule. Though she was a
constant advocate of improved justice and increased equality for indigenous
peoples, that vision of equality was tempered by the belief that the majority
of colonised populations were simply not ‘mature’ enough for full
independence.
Viollis remarked in 1935: ‘Peu de problèmes, entre ceux que pose notre
époque, sont, en effet, plus graves, plus pressants, plus douloureux que ceux
de la colonisation’ (Viollis, 1935b: 8). It was this abiding concern over both
the national and global legacy of colonialism which propelled Viollis to
India, Indochina and Tunisia during the 1930s. In this article I propose to set
alongside one another Viollis’s accounts of uprising in British India, the
aftermath of revolt and repression in Indochina, and the emergence of Néodestour in Tunisia. What comparisons might she make between British and
French colonial systems and colonial management? How does the accession
of the reformist Popular Front to government alter her perception of the
17/4/06
10:57
Page 3
COOPER: COLONIAL HUMANISM IN THE 1930S
191
value of French colonial rule? In posing these questions, I am seeking to
trace the trajectory of the type of liberal, humanist colonial thought as
embodied by Andrée Viollis. Newly inspired by the value of colonial empire
and the loyalty of its inhabitants after the First World War, many in
metropolitan France foregrounded a sense of shared destiny and intimate
collaboration with grateful native populations in their views of empire.
While nationalist movements gathered strength and resolve throughout the
French empire during the inter-war years, it is against this backdrop of
metropolitan complacency that shock and disbelief emerged about the level
of indigenous discontent and also the failure of metropolitan colonial
policies. In the face of overwhelming evidence about the repressive character
of many colonial practices, there emerges a vision of a rehabilitated, reformed
and humanised colonialism which, in turn, is subsequently eclipsed by the
rising threat of fascism.
Comparative colonialisms
Viollis’s reports from India commenced in March 1930, just ahead of the
publication of the Simon Commission Report (June 1930), and the first
Round Table Conference (November 1930). She was sent by Le Petit Parisien
to cover Gandhi’s long march against the salt tax laws and the second great
non-violent campaign of civil disobedience to occur since the Great War. For
five months Viollis travelled around India, visiting both countryside regions
and large cities such as Bombay, Calcutta and Madras, to gauge the extent of
indigenous militancy and disaffection. She interviewed both Gandhi and
Lord Irwin, in addition to a significant number of political prisoners and
young activists.
Although Viollis is generally admiring of Britain’s perceived success as an
imperial nation, she places blame for the Indian troubles at the door of
Britain’s ‘orgueil impérialiste’ and its ‘maladresses’ and ‘erreurs’ (Viollis,
1930: 266). The ‘conflit tragique’ which Viollis witnesses between Britain
and India is imputed to ‘une Angleterre trop lente à comprendre et une Inde
trop lasse d’attendre’ (Viollis, 1930: 125). In response to the dismay of the
metropolitan British she encounters (‘Pourquoi cette ingratitude, et que
peuvent-ils nous reprocher?’: Viollis, 1930: 16), Viollis displays an admirable
clarity in her summary of factors which, since the First World War, had fed
and nourished nationalism throughout the colonial empires of the world:
Il y a d’abord la raison générale, lentement formée et développée par les
principes de liberté et d’égalité puisés à nos sources mêmes, puis soudain
mûrie par la guerre, enfin exaltée par les généreuses paroles du Président
Wilson. Raison qui pousse tous les peuples sujets vers l’indépendance et
le self-government. (Viollis, 1930: 16)
Given this inexorable drift towards colonial emancipation, Viollis’s conclusions
192
17/4/06
10:57
Page 4
about the situation in India are broadly pessimistic: to the question
‘l’Angleterre quittera-t-elle l’Inde?’, Viollis responds: ‘quoiqu’on en pense et
où qu’on se tourne, la même conclusion s’impose: par la violence ou par la
non-violence, subitement ou peu à peu, dans six mois, un an, dix ans, vingt
peut-être, l’Angleterre perdra l’Inde’ (Viollis, 1930: 266). She not only
believes that Britain will lose India, but she also predicts that loss as
heralding a generalised diminution of European influence and increased
global instability. This does not, however, prevent Viollis from hankering
after a compromise position, even if its realisation is doubtful:
Il y faudrait un de ces généreux élans qui emportent parfois l’Angleterre,
ce changement de cœur dont parlait Gandhi. Si, enfin éclairée, elle
accordait, de son plein gré, ce statut de dominion que réclament si
obstinément, si unanimement les délégués de l’Inde, si elle ajoutait à ce
don quelques phrases de confiance et d’amitié; si de leur côté les Indiens,
renonçant à leur rêve d’indépendance, s’engagaient à jouer loyalement
leur rôle dans le commonwealth britannique, peut-être une ère de paix et
de féconde collaboration s’ouvrirait-elle pour les deux pays.
Qui sait? L’Inde est la terre des miracles. (Viollis, 1930: 270)
Viollis thus envisages the renewal of the colonial relationship in a revised
form. The ideal of continued collaboration mooted here by Viollis is, as we
shall see, one which she finds difficult to relinquish.
These broadly accurate analyses pointing to the inevitable demise of
colonial rule do not, however, seem to affect Viollis’s views of France’s
empire. On her way to Indochina, Viollis recalls visiting the French Indian
territories of Chandernagor and Mahé during her peregrinations around India.
The following recollections provide her most overtly expressed comparison
between French and British colonial rule:
Après six semaines d’auto dans le sud de l’Inde britannique, à travers un
millier de misérables villages, peuplés de paysans nus, invraisemblablement
maigres, aux grands yeux fiévreux, j’avais eu l’heureuse surprise de
trouver les indigènes de notre toute petite colonie, bien vêtus, bien
nourris, l’air satisfait; de voir aussi des enfants sortant de l’école, des
livres sous le bras. Nul ne songeait à la révolte. ‘Pourquoi marcher avec
Gandhi? Répondaient les habitants à nos boys. Nous, citoyens français,
nous voter, nous contents’ . . . Preuve que notre ancienne méthode coloniale
de coopération et d’égalité n’était pas si mauvaise. (Viollis, 1935a: 6)
The compelling portrait of the gradual and inevitable disintegration of the
Anglo-Indian colonial relationship which Viollis draws throughout L’Inde
contre les Anglais thus seems not to have impinged upon her comparative view
of the positive benefits of French colonialism. The simplistic contrast between
the damning portrayal of Indian poverty and misery and the condescending
picture of ‘happy natives’ in the French possessions alerts us to the notion that
Viollis retains a strong sense of exception coloniale française.
17/4/06
10:57
Page 5
193
It is to be expected that Viollis uncover similarities between the demands
of Indian, Indochinese and Tunisian nationalists, and that their grievances
echo each other. She hears similar complaints concerning unequal access to
education, posts and salaries, and the lack of meritocracy apparent in both
systems. Viollis consistently emphasises the human aspect of these grievances:
instances in which the indigenous populations have been viewed with
disdain, subject to humiliations, and treated as inferiors. What distinguishes
the British from the French colonial experience, however, is the degree of
sheer hatred expressed towards the British colonial authorities. ‘Je hais le
gouvernement britannique et j’entends le combattre sans trêve’, Gandhi inform s
Viollis during their interview (Viollis, 1930: 75). On the other hand, Viollis’s
informants and interlocutors throughout the French empire are, according to
her comments, all greatly enamoured of France, its civilisation, its culture,
its people. Although at times smugly satisfied that their French colonial
counterparts do not express such vitriol as the British colonial subjects, Viollis
is nonetheless shocked at the strength of feeling expressed by the indigenous
populations of India: ‘Je fus stupéfaite de l’amertume et de l’audace de leurs
récriminations’ (Viollis, 1930: 134). What further distinguishes the French from
the British experience is, according to Viollis, ‘la question de peau’ (Viollis,
1930: 130). Viollis quotes an unnamed ‘friend’ who had studied in Britain,
who notes: ‘pour le plus vulgaire de ces Britanniques, nos savants, nos
penseurs, nos grands poètes restent des “hommes de couleur”’ (Viollis, 1930:
130). Although she is later to encounter similar occurrences of racist behaviour
on the part of patronising French Europeans in parts of the French empire,
Viollis herself is ever insisting upon the similarities between French and
indigenous populations, ever pointing up the fraternal bonds between
colonised and coloniser. This leads relatively frequently to rather facile
statements and commentaries which might themselves be viewed as
condescending at best, racist at worst. For instance, listening to the response
of an informant who is patiently explaining to her the appeal of Néo-destour
to the Tunisians, Viollis eschews any political or ideological commentary,
preferring instead to remark: ‘J’écoutai longtemps, en un silence attristé,
cette voix passionnée, dont l’accent était si purement français que j’avais
peine à croire qu’il ne fût pas de chez nous’ (Viollis, 1939: 38). Similarly she
notes of Tunisians ‘au teint à peine bistré’ that they may well have appeared to
be French, were it not for their ‘fez à la mode égyptienne’ (Viollis, 1939: 15).
The ‘question de peau’, then, which Viollis viewed as poisoning the IndoBritish relationship, is just as present in the French colonies; it is simply
that Viollis seeks to attribute it differently. In Indochina she concludes that
a widespread and pernicious ‘manque d’égards’ towards the indigenous
populations on the part of many settlers has exacerbated indigenous feelings of
discontent.
As I have discussed elsewhere, the notion that the blame for much
indigenous disaffection could be placed at the door of incompetent and
194
17/4/06
10:57
Page 6
irresponsible ‘colons’ leads to Viollis’s belief that French colonial activity in
the colonies was of intrinsic value, but that its colonial heirs had betrayed it
(see Cooper, 2001; 2002). Recalling Gandhi’s desire for ‘un changement de
coeur’ (Viollis, 1935a: 36) on the part of the British, Viollis looks forward to a
rehabilitated French colonialism, which she will later applaud in Tunisia; it
is one in which ‘un esprit nouveau, un certain souffle d’humaine solidarité’
(Viollis, 1939: 74) will prevail, thus eradicating the damaging hierarchies
perpetuated by inferior French colonial personnel and reactionary settlers.
For Viollis, what she witnesses in the French possessions constitutes simply a
slippage from a colonial ideal which could be recuperated through reformist
management and the reinforcement of republican virtues in the colonies.
It is not without irony that L’Inde contre les Anglais should appear in
1930, as France was preparing for its great colonial exhibition at Vincennes.
The strong belief in the positive exception of the French colonial method
propagated on an international stage by the exhibition is echoed in Viollis’s
conclusion to her work on India.
Quand un peuple a pris conscience de la grandeur de son passé, de sa
personnalité, de ses ressources matérielles et morales, quand on a éveillé
en lui l’idée de ses droits et de ses possibilités futures, il faut que la
nation conquérante l’associe à sa fortune ou se résigne à le voir s’évader
. . . La France qui a naguère suivi, dans quelques-unes de ses colonies, une
politique de justice et d’humanité, et fait de ses sujets indigènes de libres
citoyens, doit à sa tradition de conduire l’Indochine, déjà soulevée et
cabrée, vers l’émancipation progressive et nécessaire. (Viollis, 1930: 267)
Trouble was indeed brewing throughout Indochina in the late 1920s and
early 1930s, and the extent and resolve of the Indian independence
movements should perhaps have alerted French commentators to the
pressing need to address indigenous nationalisms more seriously. Nonetheless,
Viollis seems re a s s u red, despite her experiences in India, that France’s
‘tradition’ will ensure a harmonious and collaborative meander towards
eventual autonomy. However, once ‘on the ground’ in Indochina and later in
Tunisia, Viollis is surprised (as were several other French commentators) by the
situations she encounters. (See Dorgelès, 1925; Durtain, 1930; Monet, 1930)
‘Pourquoi? Comment?’ she frequently asks. How could this be happening in
a French colony? ‘Je ne voulais, je ne pouvais y croire’ (Viollis, 1935a: 19).
In Indochina, economic hardship and recession, along with a lack of political
representation for the indigenous populations and unequal access to administrative posts, had gradually led to increasing discontent and dissatisfaction
amongst the Indochinese, which found expression in a series of revolts and
rebellions. Nationalist movements in Indochina were becoming more
organised; and the growing elite of French-educated Indochinese had begun
to turn the republic’s own legacy of revolutionary principles against F r a n c e
itself. Metropolitan complacency about the state of the Franco-Indochinese
17/4/06
10:57
Page 7
195
relationship was shattered by the Yen Bay uprising of 9–10 Febru a ry 1930. The
uprising occurred when the Vietnamese nationalist movement (VNQDD – Viet
Nam Quoc Dan Dang) attacked the French garrison post at Yen Bay. Joined by a
significant number of indigenous troops stationed there, they seized the arm s
depot and killed a number of French officers. Although the uprising was part of
a series of rebellions, demonstrations, attacks and protests, the fact that
numbers of French officers were killed called for a show of strength on the
part of the colonial authorities. Eighty-three indigenous ‘rebels’ were
sentenced to death, 13 of whom were guillotined in June 1930 after a
distinctly undemocratic trial. The French airforce pursued sympathisers into
the surrounding country, indiscriminately bombing assembled crowds and
‘suspect’ villages.
It was Louis Roubaud’s exposé of these events in Indochina which had
initially spurred Viollis to see for herself what had caused the FrancoIndochinese relationship to deteriorate so dramatically (see Roubaud, 1931).
Viollis visited Indochina during the last three months of 1931 as part of the
entourage of Paul Reynaud, then Minister for Colonies. Her first reports
appeared in the December 1933 edition of Esprit, which was entitled ‘Pour la
vérité en Extrême-Orient’. It featured Viollis’s ‘Quelques notes sur l’Indochine’,
which concentrates on the more horrific of the atrocities she witnessed in
Indochina, and which is effectively a condensed version of what appears later
in Indochine SOS. The latter gives more detailed accounts of both the trials and
the general situation in Indochina, and was published, as Malraux notes in his
preface to the work, ‘pour qu’on sache’. Viollis’s revelations marked the
beginning of a veritable campaign on the part of E s p r i t to raise awareness about
the injustices and repression suffered by the Indochinese at the hands of the
French colonial authorities. The journal published an appeal on behalf of the
Comité d’amnistie et de défense des Indochinois in January 1934;2 and in an
unsigned notice (one assumes Mounier’s pen) denounced the ‘répression
brutale’ and the ‘odieuses méthodes de colonisation’ witnessed in Indochina,
whilst concomitantly underscoring the need for reformed colonial practices
which reinforce republican values: ‘Faute d’une révision plus profonde du
principe colonial, un régime minimum de liberté d’opinion et d’égalité de droit
conduisant à une autonomie pro g ressive soit accordé au plus tôt aux colonies
protestataires’ (Esprit, 1934a: 720).
In November 1934, the case of Indochina was taken up again in Esprit,
where Viollis published a response to her critic Jalabert who had penned an
attack on her article entitled ‘Une campagne anticoloniale’ in Études of 5
October 1934. Her response is revealing in that it demonstrates that she
views colonial abuses carried out in the colonies as an attack on republican
values and principles:
Je ne considère nullement faire œuvre antifrançaise en révélant de
honteuses pratiques qui souillent l’honneur français, ni même œuvre
17/4/06
10:57
Page 8
196
anticoloniale en dénonçant des méthodes dont le moins qu’on puisse dire
c’est qu’elles sont dangereuses pour l’avenir de nos colonies: plus
dangereuses encore pour l’idée coloniale. (Viollis, 1934: 326)
However, throughout this media spat over Indochina, and again in Indochine
SOS, it is much more a question of rectifying these colonial abuses and
injustices than of denouncing colonial rule as repressive and inegalitarian in
and of itself. On the contrary, the allusion above to a desire to protect the
French colonial ideal suggests a tenacious faith and belief in the positive
attributes inherent in the latter. Although the extent of the colonial ‘problems’
is grave and wide-ranging – human rights abuses, a lack of justice, the torture
of political prisoners, the failure of the rice distribution networks, press
censorship, the effects of French control over opium and alcohol, the lack of
indigenous political representation, workers’ conditions – and indigenous
discontent seemingly widespread, the focus of these circumstantial issues
precludes the indictment of colonialism per se:
Je pus bientôt me convaincre … que la cause principale de ces troubles
réside d’une part dans la crise économique, la famine, l’excessif fardeau
des impôts; d’autre part, dans l’attitude prise par les autorités devant les
pacifiques cortèges de suppliants et les diverses manifestations d’un
peuple désespéré. (Viollis, 1935a: xiii)
What the above quotation of course implies is that should the attitude of the
colonial authorities change considerably, then the principal cause of the
‘troubles’ would recede. A new political dawn, therefore, should have put an
end to this ‘incroyable négligence’ (Viollis, 1935a: 128).
The Popular Front and colonial humanism
Viollis had the opportunity to measure the impact and effects of purportedly
transformed and humanised colonial practices when she visited Tunisia in
1938, by which point the Popular Front had been in power for two years.
Chafer and Sackur note that, as the Third Republic’s first left-wing government,
the Popular Front could be expected to mark a significant turning-point,
with the importance of the colonial lobby declining, while that of the
political left, trade unions, colonial reformers and left-wing intellectuals was
increasing (Chafer and Sackur, 1999: 16). There was certainly an aspiration
to implement a programme of colonial reform. A number of reformist
individuals were charged with overseeing colonial policy, amongst them the
Colonial Minister, Marius Moutet, the former liberal governor of Algeria,
Maurice Viollette, and Pierre Viénot, an independent socialist who was
appointed Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Affairs Ministry. Moutet
aspired to a ‘colonisation altruïste’, and called an imperial conference of
governors-general in November 1936 to discuss a programme of economic
and social reform for the colonies. The conference did put forward some
17/4/06
10:57
Page 9
197
innovative proposals: the indigenisation of certain posts within the colonial
administration, and an emphasis on investment in agriculture which would
bring immediate benefits to the rural poor.3 At the outset of its brief period in
power, the Popular Front generated passionate hope in the colonies.
Bourguiba, for instance, was initially convinced that:
les partis de gauche qui forment le Front Populaire . . . auront à cœur
d’aborder le problème fondamental des rapports franco-tunisiens, de
réviser les méthodes et les doctrines à la lumière des faits, en un mot de
concilier les aspirations du peuple tunisien avec les intérêts de la
puissance protectrice. (cited in Chaibi, 1985: 549)
Indeed, in Tunisia, the immediate result of the Popular Front’s accession to
government had been the replacement of the reactionary resident-general
Peyrouton with the liberal-minded Armand Guillon. Peyrouton had been
responsible for the repression of the nationalist and working-class movements:
the closure of trade-union branches, the expulsion of nationalist leaders, and
the suspension of critical press. Guillon’s arrival was therefore perceived to
herald a new era of pro g ressive reform. He lifted Peyrouton’s repressive
measures and restored rights to association and expression. On 14 July 1936, in
recognition of this initial re f o rmist impetus, there was a mass demonstration in
favour of the Popular Front. A meeting between trade unions and employers’
representatives led to the signing of the ‘Kasbah Accords’ on 20 July 1936,
whereby three decrees of the Matignon legislation referring to wage
increases, paid holidays and eight-hour working days became applicable in
Tunisia.
Unsurprisingly, given her political affiliations, Viollis was keen to
emphasise the difference in colonial practice engendered by the coming to
power of the Popular Front.
Il y a quelques années dejà, le malaise tunisien tenait la vedette. Sous la
dictature de M. Peyrouton, il y eut des soulèvements, des expulsions, des
exils. Puis, au printemps de 1936, après l’arrivée du nouveau résident M.
Armand Guillon, et surtout après l’avènement de la politique de
clémence et d’humaine compréhension, suivit une période de calme
relatif et d’espoir. (Viollis, 1939: 12)
While the official colonial policy of the Popular Front had a limited impact
on the social and economic structure of the protectorate, the effect at
grassroots level was much more pronounced. Colas notes that the political
liberalisation introduced by resident-general Guillon had the effect of
stimulating the open expression of social and political militancy (Colas,
1999: 98). Indeed, Viollis arrived in Tunisia in the wake of the April riots
which had followed the arrest of Néo-destour activist Ali al-Balhawan. A
decision by police to fire on demonstrators had left 112 dead. In the light of
her criticisms of the severity of repression in Indochina only a few years
198
17/4/06
10:57
Page 10
previously, one might have expected Viollis to express outrage over this new
act of colonial abuse. However, despite this death-toll, and in spite of the
seemingly widespread popularity of the Néo-destour movement, Viollis
remained convinced that the advent of the Popular Front heralded in the
colonies ‘un esprit nouveau, un certain souffle d’humaine solidarité, chassant
les anciens miasmes de tyrannie et d’arbitraire cruauté’ (Viollis, 1939: 74). It
is worth quoting Viollis at length here, in order to evaluate quite how she
arrives at this somewhat surprising evaluation:
Oh! Certes, il y eut des arrestations hâtives, parfois injustifiées, trop
souvent brutales, des perquisitions inutiles et maladroites, des brimades,
des vexations . .. En tenant compte de ces réserves, je tiens a déclarer que
si les événements de Tunisie ont, une fois de plus, et tragiquement,
souligné l’importance qu’il y aurait a résoudre, sans délai, ces problèmes
de la colonisation qui se posent partout avec tant de poignante urgence,
ils ont également démontré qu’il y a quelque chose de changé dans la
façon dont on les considère et les traite. Une étape a été franchie vers
plus de compréhension mutuelle et d’humanité . . . Si la répression fut
dure, on ne peut toutefois la comparer aux horreurs dont je fus témoin, il
y a quelques années, aux Indes britanniques, mais surtout en Indochine.
Cette fois-ci, point de tortures, d’assassinats impunis, d’exécutions sans
jugement, de légionnaires lâchés sans contrôle dans des régions qu’ils
terrorisaient, de foules de suppliants désarmés, fauchés par la mitraille,
de villages écrasés sous les bombes. Ni de géôles infâmes où meurent et
pourissent sur place, enchaînés à leur bat-flanc, des accusés qui sont,
pour la plupart, des innocents. (Viollis, 1939: 73)
It is only with hindsight that Viollis allows herself to use such emotive
language in her (nonetheless still indirect) condemnation of colonial actions
in India and Indochina. The accumulative power of the list of atrocities,
which were this time avoided in Tunisia, is set against the far lesser charges
of clumsiness, haste and vexation. Past ‘horrors’ are juxtaposed against present
‘harshness’, thus diminishing the culpability of the incumbent colonial
authorities and evidencing the ‘change’ wrought by the policies and approach
of the Popular Front.
This favourable comparative perspective also allows Viollis to express
surprise over the popularity of the Néo-destour movement, for she claims
that throughout her travels around Tunisia, she has witnessed ‘aucune
manifestation hostile à la France . . . aucun signe de mécontentement’ (Viollis,
1939: 186) – this despite having interviewed Bourguiba, as well as a number
of informants who quite clearly articulated their desire to be free of the
French yoke. Her seeming disbelief before evidence of Tunisian discontent
with the new French regime comes to the fore in her questioning of her
interlocutors:
Je comprends que vous réclamiez des droits . . . mais pouvez-vous en
toute sincérité regretter le régime sous lequel vous viviez avant 1881? Je
17/4/06
10:57
Page 11
199
connais votre histoire: un souverain faible, dupé par ses favoris, des
impôts écrasants, le Trésor perpétuellement vide, la concussion établie,
reconnue, la misère du peuple. Est-ce vraiment le paradis perdu? (Viollis,
1939: 35)
The immediate possibility of political and economic independence from
France is dismissed through the suggestion of an inevitable return to past
failures. Viollis holds up perceived evidence of previous inability on the part
of Tunisians to manage their own society as a means of justifying continued
French colonial intervention in the protectorate.
Just as in Indochina, Viollis believes that the means through which the
situation in Tunisia is to be rectified is yet further reform. Such is her
profound faith in the left’s ability to instate a more equitable and just form of
colonial rule, that she once again envisages another series of measures which
would ‘parer au danger immédiat et préparer une collaboration et de
concorde’, demonstrating a continued belief in the transformatory benefits of
French colonial rule (Viollis, 1939: 196). Furthermore, Viollis’s view of the
‘troubles’ in Tunisia becomes less a question of legitimate nationalist demands
for autonomy and more one of conflicting metropolitan political ideologies.
She offsets any criticism of the Popular Front’s policy by inculpating
reactionary forces at work in Indochina.4 According to Viollis, if unrest has
surfaced under the governance of the reformist resident-general Guillon,
then it is because his liberal measures have been opposed and sabotaged by
the right-wing majority present amongst the settler population of Tunisia:
Faut-il incriminer M. Guillon pour ces lenteurs? Je ne veux point le
croire. Après le départ de M. Viénot, il y eut contre lui, de la part des colons,
des affairistes directement visés par quelques mesures et qui forment ici
la majorité des Français, une explosion de colère et de haine. Pas une des
paroles, pas un des gestes du résident qui ne fût violemment attaqué,
déformé, dans les feuilles de droite. (Viollis, 1939: 67–8)
Thus, as in Indochine SOS, Viollis’s criticisms of colonial management are
filtered through her own political affiliations and aspirations. The ‘fâcheux
esprit colonial’ she had unearthed in Indochina is also discernible in
Tunisia, and attributable to those settlers she now terms ‘prépondérants’.
Here she is essentially taking issue with the political leanings of the more
prosperous settlers, whom she accuses of leading ‘une campagne acharnée
contre les nouvelles conceptions coloniales inscrites au programme des
partis de gauche’ (Viollis, 1939: 141). Viollis questions the morality of their
motives and values – ‘ces premiers colons vinrent-ils s’installer en Tunisie
pour y accomplir une œuvre colonisatrice ou parce qu’ils pensaient y faire
plus rapidement des bénéfices plus appréciables? Est-ce par philanthropie
ou par intérêt?’ (Viollis, 1939: 139) – and distinguishes between these
‘grands colons’ and those ‘braves gens . . . parmi les petits et les moyens
[colons] . . . qui sont au fond de bons républicains’ (Viollis, 1939: 141). This
17/4/06
10:57
200
Page 12
line of argument, articulated through the prism of class, allows Viollis at
once to further reinforce her belief in the benefits of a new, left-leaning
colonial attitude abroad, precludes her from having to interrogate the very
basis of continued colonial rule, and emphasises the perceived advantages of
a truly republican colonialism.
Finally, Viollis remains unconvinced by both the demands and the
methods of the Néo-destouriens. Following her interview with an
imprisoned Bourguiba, she notes ‘par son impatience, ses attaques exagérées
ou injustifiées, ses inutiles et dangereuses violences, n’a-t-il pas compromis
cette nécessaire collaboration franco-tunisienne et fait reculer sa cause,
éloigné son but?’ (Viollis, 1939: 89).
As in India and Indochina, the ideal of continued collaboration features
prominently in Viollis’s view of the situation in Tunisia, and prevents her
from relinquishing the belief in the benefits of continued colonial rule. For
Viollis, the Néo-destourien objective of emancipation and self-government is
compromised by the passionate excesses of its leaders, but more importantly
by the prevailing ‘immaturity’ of the majority of its population:
Pour la Tunisie, cette heure viendra. Toutefois, elle n’a pas encore sonné.
Les Tunisiens qui ne sont pas emportés par la passion et les dirigeants
destouriens eux-mêmes, quand ils se trouvent en tête-à-tête avec leur
conscience, doivent reconnaître que les masses indigènes ne sont pas en
ce moment assez évoluées pour l’indépendance, ni même pour une
autonomie contrôlée. (Viollis, 1939: 197)
Tunisia is simply not yet sufficiently ‘evolved’ for Viollis to contemplate
independence.
Fascism and colonialism
The issue of Tunisian autonomy became more acute than ever in the light of
the imperial ambitions of fascist Italy. Of the Néo-destouriens, Viollis remarks:
Ils savent, en outre, que si la France se retirait, l’Italie interviendrait
aussitôt, et, par le témoignage de centaines de mille de Tripolitains
réfugiés en Tunisie, ils n’ignorent point que la domination italienne leur
ferait amèrement regretter la domination française. (Viollis, 1939: 197)
Indeed, in the face of the growing fascist threat, even those in metropolitan
France who had hitherto been most implacably opposed to French colonialism,
notably the Communist Party, moderated their stance in the interests of
uniting republican forces in the fight against fascism. Nothing reminds us
quite so flagrantly of this fact as Thorez’s injunction of December 1937:
Si la question décisive du moment c’est la lutte victorieuse contre
le fascisme, l’intérêt des peuples coloniaux est dans leur union avec le
peuple de France et non dans une attitude qui pourrait favoriser les
17/4/06
10:57
Page 13
201
entreprises du fascisme et placer par exemple l’Algérie, la Tunisie, le
Maroc sous le joug de Mussolini et de Hitler. (Parti communiste
international, 1999)
Viollis herself was a committed anti-fascist, and had become a member of
the Comité de vigilance after the fascist league riots in 1934, joining the
Comité mondial des femmes contre le fascisme et la guerre later in the same
year. It is not surprising, therefore, to see Viollis’s fears and concerns over
both Italian imperial ambition and fascism recur insistently in her travelogue
of her time in Tunisia in 1938.
The fascist threat to Tunisia during this period was a very real one. In
1934 Tripolitania and Cyrenaica were united to form the colony of Libya.
Francoist troops occupied the Moroccan protectorate, and later offered a
Spanish entry into the Second World War if Hitler allowed Spain to take
control of French North African possessions. In 1936 Hitler had supported
Spain by supplying planes to airlift Francoist troops from Morocco to
mainland Spain. In the same year, Italy seized Ethiopia. The long-standing
Italian presence in Tunisia, and Il Duce’s barely concealed imperial
ambitions for the territory, made the fascist threat to French North Africa a
serious one.5
Viollis arrived in Tunisia in the summer of 1938, at the height of French
fears over Italian ambitions in North Africa. If French colonial rhetoric is
usually at its propagandist best when set in comparison against that of its
imperial rivals, Viollis’s portrayal of France in Tunisia is no exception: her
perception of the value of French colonialism is sharpened considerably by
the external threat posed by Italy in Tunisia. Graffiti slogans such as ‘Viva il
Duce! Viva il fascio! Eviva Italia . . . A bas Blum! Blum est un lâche!’ (Viollis,
1939: 17), confirm for her that:
Tunis enferme dans ses murs une ville, non seulement étrangère, qui a sa
langue, ses écoles, sa radio, ses chefs, ou plutôt un seul chef idolâtré, ses
intérêts, son idéal; mais une grande ville hostile à notre régime, à notre
esprit, et où, l’on se permet d’insulter le premier ministre de notre pays.
(Viollis, 1939: 17)
Accumulating evidence of fascist Italy’s ‘convoitise’ (Viollis, 1939: 91) provides
a justification for the continuance of French colonialism. Much as in the
justifications of colonialism which were prevalent during the period of
conquest, Viollis positions France as the ‘protector’ of weaker states which
might fall prey to the ambition, greed and cruelty of stronger nations. Viollis
is particularly put out by Mussolini’s anti-French propaganda, ‘sa façon de
laisser monter en épingle les défaillances et les échecs de notre politique
africaine’ (Viollis, 1939: 108), and Italian ‘manoeuvres’ using agents
provocateurs to ‘excite’ the indigenous people to rebellion and riot: ‘d’attiser
les rancoeurs, d’exciter les esprits et les coeurs, de guetter l’heure propice à
une intervention longuement espérée et minutieusement préparée’ (Viollis,
202
17/4/06
10:57
Page 14
1939: 113). She bemoans Italian interference in the protectorate, claiming
that the Italians are funding and encouraging indigenous people in their
charges against France in order to destabilise the French hold on Tunisia and
subsequently seize advantage and take possession. She was undoubtedly
correct in these assumptions, but it is interesting to note that the Italian
threat is used as a means of shoring up support for continued French
colonial rule. Viollis observes that one of the results of Italy’s imperial
claims was a return to Franco-Tunisian unity, remarking of the Tunisians:
‘Ces derniers, malgré doléances et rancœurs, comprirent ce qu’ils perdraient
avec la France. Car ils n’ignorent pas les méthodes coloniales de l’Italie et le
rôle qu’y jouent la terreur et l’extermination’ (Viollis, 1939: 8).
A greater repressive threat, it is suggested, softens indigenous hearts and
minds to the incumbent colonising power. To recapture this arabophone
audience and to counter the anti-French propaganda disseminated by the
popular Italian-controlled Radio Bari, a French counter-rhetoric is required.
Viollis quotes a French ‘personality’, who envisages disseminating the
following form of propaganda: ‘Sincère, mesurée, généreuse, elle doit s’efforcer
de révéler l’âme de notre pays telle qu’elle est ou devait être, et non pas telle
qu’elle se manifeste trop souvent en pays colonisé’ (Viollis, 1939: 121).
This allusion to France’s two very different ‘âmes’ is perhaps the clearest
acknowledgement of France’s continuing inability or unwillingness to extend
its supposedly universal values to the colonies. The perpetual anomaly of
attempting to marry republican values with colonial subjugation has masked
the ‘true face’ of France. It is still, however, too early for many critics to
contemplate the removal of that mask and to promote republican values by
extending liberty and equality to the colonies in the name of fraternity. The
fascist threat delays that process further still. For Viollis, as for many other
colonial critics in 1930s France, the international ultimately eclipses the
colonial: the riots and disturbances in Tunisia are due as much to the Italian
presence as the nationalist demands for increased autonomy; the minutiae of
the colonial ‘troubles’ disappear under the greater question of the ‘Italian
problem’. The result of international instability is colonial stasis:
Il serait donc sage et honnête de ne point faire aux Tunisiens de
promesses qui, ne pouvant être immédiatement tenues, justifieraient, par
l’espoir trompé, des impatiences et des révoltes. Et leur exposer
clairement que l’Italie, par l’agitation qu’elle excite et entretient si
perfidement, est la principale cause de ce délai forcé. (Viollis, 1939: 197)
Conclusion
The specious appearance of metropolitan/indigenous unity which had arisen
out of the demonstration of colonial loyalty during the First World War may
have allowed for a certain degree of complacency to colour metropolitan
17/4/06
10:57
Page 15
203
perceptions of the state of the French empire. Belief in the positive colonial
exception which France was perceived to embody was widely held, and
seemingly difficult to shake, given the shock and dismay with which news
of colonial injustice and repression was greeted in the 1930s.
Accumulating evidence of colonial abuses hastened a re-evaluation of
colonial relationships and practices in France and forced a reconceptualisation of the colonial project. Like many of her contemporaries, Andrée
Viollis believed that colonial rule needed to be humanised and colonial
exploitation ended. Much of the debate over colonialism in the 1930s was
articulated through a left/right axis. If colonial exploitation and abuses were
prevalent throughout the French empire, then blame could be placed at the
door of right-wing reactionaries. A left-wing colonialism, however, would be
generous, altruistic and reformist. The political possibility of improving
colonialism in this way became a reality under the Popular Front.
Although the accession of the left to power ushered in an emphasis on
social reform which was extended in a limited fashion to the overseas
territories, both domestic and international events conspired to bring an
early end to the Popular Front experiment. In any case, nationalist
movements in the colonies, which had increased in strength and stridency
through the 1920s and 1930s, had travelled psychologically too far along the
road towards independence to be derailed by mere promises of greater
justice and equality. Notwithstanding the rise of the fascist threat, which
dealt the severest blow to any prospect of dismantling the French empire,
very few in France were ready to contemplate full autonomy for the
indigenous populations.
On the contrary, rather than calling for an end to colonial rule, ‘humanist’
critics and intellectuals such as Viollis instead sought to revitalise and renew it.
They argued that French colonial practices should be imbued with the values
of the republic, and that this extension of a humanist republicanism to the
colonies would put an end to colonial abuses. It was therefore through closer
assimilation to the political values of what was perceived to be ‘true France’,
rather than through secession from the metropole, that the emancipation of the
indigenous populations would be achieved.
Notes
1. Biondi and Morin qualify Viollis as a ‘certain type’ of anticolonialist alongside Barbusse,
Challaye and Rolland, who shared a ‘vocation protestataire . . . et le sentiment d’appartenir
à une collectivité minoritaire libératrice’ (Biondi and Morin, 1992: 14).
2. It was founded on 9 March 1933 by Francis Jourdain, who wrote the preface to the second
edition of Indochine SOS, which appeared in 1949. Jourdain was a correspondent for La
Lutte and a member of the SFIO’s colonial committee. A further notice condemning René
Robin’s repressive actions in Indochina was published on behalf of the Comité in Esprit
(1934b).
17/4/06
10:57
Page 16
204
3. As Chafer and Sackur (1999: 1) note, the programme of the Popular Front as regards the
French empire was modest. It simply proposed a commission of enquiry into the political,
economic and cultural situation of the colonies. The commissions had barely had time to
report, and in the case of Indochina had not even started work, by the time the Popular
Front government fell.
4. Bourguiba had withdrawn his support for the Front Populaire, stating: ‘le gouvernement
actuel a montré par des actes précis sa volonté de revenir à la vieille erreur de la politique
de force et de contrainte condamnée par son prédecesseur . . . le parti s’estime fondé à retirer
dès maintenant au gouvernement actuel le préjugé favorable’ (Bourguiba, 1964: 153–4).
5. According to Viollis, in Tunis alone there were 65,000 Italians to 59,000 French.
References
Biondi, J.-P. and Morin, G. (1992) Les Anticolonialistes 1881–1962. Paris: Pluriel.
Bourguiba, H. (1964) La Tunisie et la France. Paris: René Julliard.
Chafer, T. and Sackur, A. (eds) (1999) French Colonial Empire and the Popular Front: Hope
and Disillusion. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Chaibi, M. (1985) ‘La Politique coloniale du Front populaire en Tunisie 1936–38: Essai
d’évaluation’, in Actes du 3ème séminaire sur l’histoire du mouvement national: les
mouvements politiques et sociaux dans la Tunisie des années 1930. Paris: Ministère de
l’Éducation.
Colas, A. (1999) ‘The Popular Front and Internationalism: The Tunisian Case in Comparative
Perspective’, in T. Chafer and A. Sackur, French Colonial Empire and the Popular Front:
Hope and Disillusion, pp. 88–108. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Cooper, N. (2001) France in Indochina: Colonial Encounters. Oxford and New York: Berg.
Cooper, N. (2002) ‘Investigating Indochina: Travel Writing and France’s Civilising Mission’, in
C. Burdett and D. Duncan (eds), Cultural Encounters: European Travel Writing in the
1930s, pp. 173–85. Oxford: Berghahn.
Dorgelès, R. (1925) Sur la route mandarine. Paris: Albin Michel.
Durtain, L. (1930) Dieux blancs, hommes jaunes. Paris: Gallimard.
Esprit (1934a) ‘Notre pétition pour l’Indochine’, no. 16: 719–20.
Esprit (1934b) ‘Pour la vérité en Indochine’, no. 20: 345–7.
Monet, P. (1930) Les Jauniers, histoire vraie. Paris: Gallimard.
Parti communiste international (1999) ‘Algérie, hier et aujourd’hui’, at http://perso.wanadoo.fr/
italian.left/FrenchPublications.htm (accessed November 2005).
Roubaud, L. (1931) Vietnam: la tragédie indochinoise. Paris: Valois.
Viollis, A. (1930) L’Inde contre les Anglais. Paris: Éditions des Portiques.
Viollis, A. (1933) ‘Quelques notes sur l’Indochine’, Esprit, December, no. 3: 401–48.
Viollis, A. (1934) ‘Pour la vérité en Indochine’, Esprit, November, no. 26: 326–9.
Viollis, A. (1935a) Indochine SOS. Paris: Gallimard.
Viollis, A. (1935b) ‘Le problème colonial’, Vendredi, 29 novembre, p. 8.
Viollis, A. (1939) Notre Tunisie. Paris: Gallimard.
Viollis’s bibliography
Criquet (roman) (1913) Paris: Calmann-Lévy.
Lord Northcliffe (1919) Paris: Grasset.
La Perdrix dorée (roman) (1925) Paris: Baudinière.
La Vraie Mme de La Fayette (1926) Paris: Bloud et Gay.
17/4/06
10:57
Page 17
205
Seule en Russie, de la Baltique à la Caspienne (1927) Paris: Gallimard.
Alsace et Lorraine au-dessus des passions (1928) Paris: Attinger.
Tourmente sur l’Afghanistan (1930) Paris: Librairie Valois.
L’Inde contre les Anglais (1930) Paris: Éditions des Portiques.
Changhaï et le destin de la Chine (1933) Paris: R.-A. Corrêa.
Le Japon intime (1934) Paris: F. Aubier.
Indochine SOS (1935) Paris: Gallimard.
Le Conflit sino-japonais (1938) Paris: Maupoint.
Notre Tunisie (1939) Paris: Gallimard.
Le Racisme hitlérien, machine de guerre contre la France (1944) Lyon: Éditions de la
clandestinité.
Le Secret de la reine Christine (1944) Lyon: Éditions Agence Gutenberg.
Puycerrampion (roman) (1947) Paris: Bibliothèque française.
L’Afrique du Sud, cette inconnue (1948) Paris: Hachette.
Nicola Cooper is a Senior Lecturer in French at the University of Bristol.
Address for correspondence: Department of French, University of Bristol, 17/19
Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1TE, UK [email: [email protected]]

Colonial Humanism in the 1930s - French Cultural Studies

Transcription

Documents pareils

OS019 - Fauteuil colonial tapissé

Nous vous offrons un rhum vanille

Service de Coopération et d`Action Culturelle

One More_folder_2015.indd

accessoires de bois traité / pressure-treated wood

À vos crayons! - Maple Ridge Secondary

israël-palestine : phenomene colonial

Volumen 2 Número 2 Bios Culley Carson-Grefe is

USA : Colonial Bank, plus gros établissement bancaire à faire faillite

Corinne FOUET MAKE UP ARTIST