Mill’s liberalism coexisted with a defense of colonial rule over ‘uncivilised’ peoples

Evidence

John Stuart Mill (1806–73) in the last chapter of Considerations on Representative Government (1861/2004) poses a critique of the colonial administration of the British empire. However, Mill’s criticism has to be seen in the context of his advocating “representative government” for the Americas and Australia for they are “composed of people of similar civilisation to the ruling country”, and “whose population”, he says, “is in a sufficiently advanced state”, compared to which “others, like India, are still at a great distance from that state”. Here, Mill argues, the coloniser must rule to introduce a higher form of civilisation. Ambedkar is alluding here to his contemporaries’ reverence for a complex figure who on the one hand championed the cause of individual freedom and liberty, and on the other, defended British imperialism by justifying the right of ‘civilised’ nations to rule over ‘barbarians’. — Ambedkar, B R, Annihilation of Caste_ The Annotated…, 1044

Categorization

• QUESTION: Worth chasing: does Ambedkar elsewhere draw the parallel between Mill’s justification of imperial tutelage and the caste Hindu claim to ‘guardianship’ over Untouchables?
• XREF: connects to: Liberalism’s colonial critique was selectively aimed at rivals, sparing free-trade Britain — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 248; British liberals infantilized Indians to justify denying them democratic rights