(The Nationalist, 11 July 2003)
When Britain ruled India as the jewel in the imperial crown, one of the worries of its administrators was to maintain control. After all, India was many times the size and population of Britain, and thousands of miles away from reinforcements, especially in the days before the Suez Canal. They had received a severe shock in 1857, when a mutiny began in Delhi, spread, and led to the capture of much of northern India. It took four months of fighting to recapture lost territory.
Thereafter nervous colonial officials looked for ways to ensure there would be no repetition. How could they secure control without the expense of a large army? New technologies came to their rescue. The answer was to set up a railway system linking all parts of India, making it possible to move troops quickly from one area to another, should trouble break out. Alongside the railway lines would be a telegraph enabling rapid communication. It was done.
In order to make these systems pay, they were opened up to local traffic. Indians took to the train with delight. They travelled widely, and businessmen used the telegraph to promote trade. It looked like a win-win situation; everyone was happy.
But the more Indians travelled the more they saw things about British rule they disliked – racist attitudes, arrogance, ignorance, and the Indian cotton industry, to name one example, damaged in the interest of British manufactures. Gradually a sense of being Indian, not only Bengali, Punjabi or Tamil began to grow in them. An Indian national consciousness was an outgrowth of the railway system. And it was that sense of Indian nationality that led to the movement for Indian independence which came to fruition in 1947. The railway system, set up to ensure continued British control of India, contributed instead to its demise. An unintended consequence.
It’s not hard to find other examples: many revolutions end by replacing one tyranny with another; demands for new rights lead to bureaucracies to monitor them, with more State control at the expense of individuals. World War II, fought to prevent Hitler from controlling Europe, handed half of it to Stalin instead. Unintended consequences.
The US invaded Iraq and won an easy victory. But in the process the UN was humiliated, a rift opened up between the US and its NATO allies, and the EU was divided. Unintended consequences. Israel was delighted. But what if US public opinion should turn against Israel, or the day comes when the US, like every other great power, goes into decline, what friend will Israel then have? It has surrounded itself with enemies, and takes pleasure in kicking international public opinion in the shins. Unintended consequences?