ŷ

Readers' Most Anticipated Books for Spring

Kevin's Reviews > Sea of Poppies

Sea of Poppies by Amitav Ghosh
Rate this book
Clear rating
1 of 5 stars2 of 5 stars3 of 5 stars4 of 5 stars5 of 5 stars

by
35434974
The Opium Trade triangle (Britain-India-China) comes to life:

Preamble:
--I’m perpetually buried in nonfiction tomes. For me to try a new fiction, let alone a new trilogy, requires an exceptional confluence of interests. In this case:
i) Opium Trade triangle:
--This trilogy’s setting is the infamous triangle (India farming opium, smuggled into China for the profit of British financiers) where Britain finally resolved its chronic trade deficits with Asia (China/India were centers of traded goods) by destroying their state markets to establish British Empire’s “free trade� global capitalism (which includes the “coolie� indentured labour market to replace the slave market, at least in British colonial plantations): Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World
ii) Global South perspectives:
--Having left China and been raised in Canada (another British conquest), historical perspectives are so skewed. Capitalism is conveniently seen as a domestic process (i.e. Britain’s Industrial Revolution; critiques are in this narrow context, ex. Charles Dickens) while slavery/settler colonialism/colonialism were separate processes (indeed, even contrary to capitalism): Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present
--Same goes for today, where the rich nations are “capitalist� but never the poor nations they extract from (despite the latter being the most open to “free trade�/“free market� with their minimal governments: The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions). Somehow there is no dependent relationships (imperialism). Socialism/communism is seen as the USSR which magically appeared and failed (never mind how they even survived multiple invasions and quickly became a superpower), so there is no alternative.
--The missing perspective here is colonization’s divide-and-rule and the thus the messy process of decolonization (The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World); instead of conveniently-ahistorical comparisons between Western colonial powers vs. countries decolonizing in the 20th century, consider the post-independence paths of India vs. China: Capitalism: A Ghost Story
iii) Opioids and society:
--What are the interactions of pain, relief, and addiction in the social context of history (ex. generational trauma/dislocation) and political economy (ex. boom/busts dislocating communities, from massive drug profits to rust belts/slums; advertising creating individualist consumer addiction, etc.)?
-Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs
-Lost Connections: Uncovering the Real Causes of Depression - and the Unexpected Solutions
-In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction
-"Heroin on Prescription", "Neuro-Realism", "The Least Surrogate Outcome", "The Stigma Gene", "Brain-Imaging Studies Report More Positive Findings Than Their Numbers Can Support. This Is Fishy" in I Think You'll Find It's a Bit More Complicated Than That.
iv) A story-teller to bring all this to life: my list here is the reverse of most fiction readers who come for the tapestry of characters and their personal relationships. Still, it was reading Ghosh in Will the Flower Slip Through the Asphalt: Writers Respond to Capitalist Climate Change that made me commit to this trilogy.

Highlights:
--It should be no surprise that my highlights are filled with glorious passages of British “free trade� “Enlightenment� (esp. evangelist opium trafficker Mr. Burnham) [bold emphases added]:
The suggestion startled Zachary: ‘D’you mean to use her [ship] as a slaver, sir? But have not your English laws outlawed that [slave] trade?�

‘That is true,� Mr Burnham nodded. ‘Yes indeed they have, Reid. It’s sad but true that there are many who’ll stop at nothing to halt the march of human freedom.� …] ‘Freedom, yes, exactly,� said Mr Burnham. ‘Isn’t that what the mastery of the white man means for the lesser races? As I see it, Reid, the Africa trade was the greatest exercise in freedom since God led the children of Israel out of Egypt. Consider, Reid, the situation of a so-called slave in the Carolinas � is he not more free than his brethren in Africa, groaning under the rule of some dark tyrant?� …] ‘And here you are carrying on like one of those Reformer fellows.� …] ‘Lucky thing that particular disease hasn’t taken hold in your parts yet. Last bastion of liberty, I always say � slavery’ll be safe in America for a while yet. Where else could I have found a vessel like this, so perfectly suited for its cargo?�

‘Do you mean slaves, sir?�

Mr Burnham winced. ‘Why no, Reid. Not slaves � coolies. Have you not heard it said that when God closes one door he opens another? When the doors of freedom were closed to the African, the Lord opened them to a tribe that was yet more needful of it � the Asiatick.� …] ‘A hold that was designed to carry slaves will serve just as well to carry coolies and convicts. Do you not think? We’ll put in a couple of heads and piss-dales, so the darkies needn’t always be fouling themselves. That should keep the inspectors happy.�

…]

‘But Mr Burnham! Are you saying the British Empire will go to war to force opium on China?�

This elicited an instantaneous response from Mr Burnham, who placed his wineglass forcefully on the table. ‘Evidently you have mistaken my meaning, Raja Neel Rattan,� he said. �The war, when it comes, will not be for opium. It will be for a principle: for freedom � for the freedom of trade and for the freedom of the Chinese people. Free Trade is a right conferred on Man by God, and its principles apply as much to opium as to any other article of trade. More so perhaps, since in its absence many millions of natives would be denied the lasting advantages of British influence.� [...]

‘For the simple reason, Reid,� said Mr Burnham patiently, ‘that British rule in India could not be sustained without opium � that is all there is to it, and let us not pretend otherwise. You are no doubt aware that in some years, the [East India] Company’s annual gains from opium are almost equal to the entire revenue of your own country, the United States? Do you imagine that British rule would be possible in this impoverished land if it were not for this source of wealth? And if we reflect on the benefits that British rule has conferred upon India, does it not follow that opium is this land’s greatest blessing? Does it not follow that it is our God-given duty to confer these benefits upon others?� [...]

‘Does it not trouble you, Mr Burnham, to invoke God in the service of opium?�

‘Not in the slightest,� said Mr Burnham, stroking his beard. ‘One of my countrymen has put the matter very simply: �Jesus Christ is Free Trade and Free Trade is Jesus Christ.� Truer words, I believe, were never spoken. If it is God’s will that opium be used as an instrument to open China to his teachings, then so be it. For myself, I confess I can see no reason why any Englishman should abet the Manchu tyrant in depriving the people of China of this miraculous substance.�

‘Do you mean opium?� [...]

‘I certainly do,� said Mr Burnham tartly. [...] ‘So you would do well to bear in mind that it would be well nigh impossible to practise modern medicine or surgery without such chemicals as morphine, codeine and narcotine � and these are but a few of the blessings derived from opium. [...] Why, one might even say that it is opium that has made this age of progress and industry possible: without it, the streets of London would be thronged with coughing, sleepless, incontinent multitudes. And if we consider all this, is it not apposite to ask if the Manchu tyrant has any right to deprive his helpless subjects of the advantages of progress? Do you think it pleases God to see us conspiring with that tyrant in depriving such a great number of people of this amazing gift?�

‘But Mr Burnham,� Neel persisted, ‘is it not true that there is a great deal of addiction and intoxication in China? Surely such afflictions are not pleasing to our Creator?�

This nettled Mr Burnham. ‘These ills you mention, sir,� he replied, ‘are merely aspects of the fallen nature of Man. Should you ever happen to walk through the rookeries of London, Raja Neel Rattan, you will see for yourself that there is as much addiction and intoxication in the gin shops of the Empire’s capital as there is in the dens of Canton [note: social history of addiction and social disruptions/alienation, ex. boom/bust’s rapid industrialization/capital flight]. Are we then to raze every tavern in the city? [...] No. Because the antidote for addiction lies not in bans enacted by Parliaments and emperors, but in the individual conscience � in every man’s awareness of his personal responsibility and his fear of God. As a Christian nation this is the single most important lesson we can offer to China [note the jump to individual consumerism, omitting social responsibility/regulation] � and I have no doubt that the message would be welcomed by the people of that unfortunate country, were they not prevented from hearing it by the cruel despot who holds sway over them. It is tyranny alone that is to blame for China’s degeneracy, sir. Merchants like myself are but the servants of Free Trade, which is as immutable as God’s commandments.� [...] ‘And I might add, in this regard, that I do not think it sits well on a Raja of Raskhali to moralize on the subject of opium. [...] Well, for the very good reason that everything you possess is paid for by opium. [...]'

‘But I would not go to war for it, sir,� Neel said, in a tone that matched Mr Burnham’s in its sharpness. ‘And I do not believe the Empire will either. You must not imagine that I am unaware of the part that Parliament plays in your country.�

‘Parliament?� Mr Burnham laughed. �Parliament will not know of the war until it is over. Be assured, sir, that if such matters were left to Parliament there would be no Empire.� [...]

‘Please do not speak to me, sir,� said Mr Burnham, in the chilly tone of a man who wishes to snub a name-dropper, ‘of Mr Hume and Mr Locke. For I would have you know that I have been acquainted with them since they served on the Bengal Board of Revenue. I too have read every word they’ve written � even their report on sanitation. And as for Mr Hobbes, why I do believe I dined with him at my club just the other day.� [British “Enlightenment�: David Hume, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes]

…]

The Captain …] continued: ‘…] For this you should know, gentlemen, that there is an unspoken pact between the white man and the natives who sustain his power in Hindoosthan � it is that in matters of marriage and procreation, like must be with like, and each must keep to their own. The day the natives lose faith in us, as the guarantors of the order of castes � that will be the day, gentlemen, that will doom our rule. This is the inviolable principle on which our authority is based � it is what makes our rule different from that of such degenerate and decayed peoples as the Spanish and Portuguese. Why, sir, if you wish to see what comes of miscegenation and mongrelism, you need only visit their possessions . . .�
39 likes ·  � flag

Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read Sea of Poppies.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

November 16, 2017 – Shelved
September 12, 2022 – Started Reading
October 9, 2022 – Finished Reading

Post a comment »
Comments Showing 1-3 of 3 (3 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Kevin (last edited Oct 21, 2022 11:50PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars
Oct 09, 2022 07:35PM

Kevin More quotes:
When Deeti was her daughter’s age, things were different: poppies had been a luxury then, grown in small clusters between the fields that bore the main winter crops � wheat, masoor dal and vegetables. Her mother would send some of her poppy seeds to the oil-press, and the rest she would keep for the house, some for replanting, and some to cook with meat and vegetables. As for the sap, it was sieved of impurities and left to dry, until the sun turned it into hard abkari afeem; at that time, no one thought of producing the wet, treacly chandu opium that was made and packaged in the English factory, to be sent across the sea in boats.

In the old days, farmers would keep a little of their home-made opium for their families, to be used during illnesses, or at harvests and weddings; the rest they would sell to the local nobility, or to pykari merchants from Patna. Back then, a few clumps of poppy were enough to provide for a household’s needs, leaving a little over, to be sold: no one was inclined to plant more because of all the work it took to grow poppies � fifteen ploughings of the land and every remaining clod to be broken by hand, with a dantoli; fences and bunds to be built; purchases of manure and constant watering; and after all that, the frenzy of the harvest, each bulb having to be individually nicked, drained and scraped. Such punishment was bearable when you had a patch or two of poppies � but what sane person would want to multiply these labours when there were better, more useful crops to grow, like wheat, dal, vegetables? But those toothsome winter crops were steadily shrinking in acreage: now the factory’s appetite for opium seemed never to be sated. Come the cold weather, the English sahibs would allow little else to be planted; their agents would go from home to home, forcing cash advances on the farmers, making them sign á contracts. It was impossible to say no to them: if you refused they would leave their silver hidden in your house, or throw it through a window. It was no use telling the white magistrate that you hadn’t accepted the money and your thumbprint was forged: he earned commissions on the opium and would never let you off. And, at the end of it, your earnings would come to no more than three-and-a-half sicca rupees, just about enough to pay off your advance.

…]

The knowledge that this was the last they would see of their homeland, created an atmosphere of truculence and uncertainty in which no provocation seemed too slight for a quarrel. Once fights broke out, they escalated at a pace that was bewildering to everyone, including the participants: in their villages they would have had relatives, friends, and neighbours to step between them, but here there were no elders to settle disputes, and no tribes of kinsfolk to hold a man back from going for another’s throat. Instead, there were trouble-makers like Jhugroo, always eager to set one man against another, friend against friend, caste against caste.



message 2: by John (new)
Oct 21, 2022 03:18PM

John Creative destruction in a nutshell...

"Why, one might even say that it is opium that has made this age of progress and industry possible: without it, the streets of London would be thronged with coughing, sleepless, incontinent multitudes. And if we consider all this, is it not apposite to ask if the Manchu tyrant has any right to deprive his helpless subjects of the advantages of progress?�"

"‘These ills you mention, sir,� he replied, ‘are merely aspects of the fallen nature of Man. Should you ever happen to walk through the rookeries of London, Raja Neel Rattan, you will see for yourself that there is as much addiction and intoxication in the gin shops of the Empire’s capital as there is in the dens of Canton"


message 3: by Kevin (new) - rated it 4 stars
Oct 22, 2022 01:45AM

Kevin John wrote: "Creative destruction in a nutshell...

"Why, one might even say that it is opium that has made this age of progress and industry possible: without it, the streets of London would be thronged with c..."

The passage that follows that is particularly interesting:
Are we then to raze every tavern in the city? [...] No. Because the antidote for addiction lies not in bans enacted by Parliaments and emperors, but in the individual conscience � in every man’s awareness of his personal responsibility and his fear of God. As a Christian nation this is the single most important lesson we can offer to China.
...As an exercise to break this down step by step:
1) Free market fundamentalists always want to frame a bi-polar world as free market vs. State. If anything goes wrong, it's the State's fault, and thus the solution must be "free market" (which means more power to capital)! How convenient!
2) The assumption is that human nature is to barter, thus if we are free to act we would magically create a "free market". This is meant to obscure capitalism's significance in history. While markets for traded goods have existed in many pre-capitalist societies, capitalism required several peculiar markets: labour/land/money/finance.
3) The history of how these peculiar markets were created and preserved to today is State force: law and order to enshrine/enforce capitalist property rights, i.e. courts/police/prisons/military.
4) The "State" is not homogeneous; it is an arena where contending social forces battle. "Deregulation" in what context? In the context of the peculiar markets, capitalists want to expanding property rights/markets, which require more laws (look at the "innovations" in financial markets/intellectual property rights!). The difference is these laws are written/enforced far from where sovereign democratic politics can intervene, ex. WTO, IMF, World Bank, Wall Street, etc.
5) Returning to the quote: the bi-polar options are "free trade" opium trafficking (with "personal responsibility") vs. State prohibition. Clearly the latter option is not ideal, as it does not resolve the root issue (why people are resorting to gin or opium) and can lead to a criminal market.
6) What is omitted is the social roots of addiction: dislocation. Why was there a boom in gin addiction in England? The "creative destruction" of capitalism's Industrial Revolution violently wiping away prior communities/social relations and forcing the dispossessed into rapid urbanization, into diseased slums and satanic mills. This is the peculiar labour market; this violent shepherding suddenly looks very different than the abstract "free market" of "supply meeting demand":
Why, one might even say that it is opium that has made this age of progress and industry possible: without it, the streets of London would be thronged with coughing, sleepless, incontinent multitudes.
7) Similarly, the opium trade was forced onto colonized India (a cash crop to enrich primarily British financiers) and China, to finally resolve Britain's chronic trade deficits with Asia. I've yet to unpack China's susceptibility to opium (ex. cultural changes from Ming to Qing dynasty), but I would still start with dislocation (growing British colonialism in neighboring India and the disruptions in trade (esp. profit-seeking colonialism) and of course subsequent Opium Wars.
8) I'm not quite ready to go as far as the revisionist history in "Narcotic Culture: A History of Drugs in China", which apparently proposes the real social crisis in China was actually later in 1880: British prohibition of opium. Now, this is post Opium Wars; I'm also focusing less on the drug opium itself, see Goldacre's "Heroin on Prescription" in I Think You'll Find It's a Bit More Complicated Than That, but I would still focus on the social dislocation of the wars/colonial trade. The book seems to claim that British prohibition forced a turn to heroin/morphine/cocaine etc. (I assume this includes the general critique of prohibition leading to criminal markets thus lethal doses/tainted substances etc.).


back to top