Why Foundational Scholarship Cannot Be Overlooked in Colonial and Post-Colonial Narratives

1598 Middleburg Bertius Maldives map

MC-OPED 003: In discussions involving colonial and post-colonial narratives, the works of figures such as Albert Grey, H.C.P. Bell, and Ibn Majid are foundational and cannot be set aside for the sake of colonial, post-colonial, or neo-colonial agendas. Their scholarship provides a bedrock of understanding that is crucial for illuminating pre-colonial and early colonial conditions, land ownership, and governance structures, particularly in regions like the Indian Ocean.

The significance of Ibn Majid, a renowned Arab navigator and cartographer of the 15th century, is profound. His ability to challenge the 'terra nullius' concept by demonstrating advanced indigenous knowledge and established networks in the Indian Ocean before extensive European intervention is a testament to his intellectual prowess. His works are invaluable for understanding pre-colonial maritime routes and knowledge systems, directly refuting the notion that these lands were 'empty' or 'undeveloped' before colonial expansion. Similarly, the meticulous documentation and research conducted by colonial-era British administrators and scholars, such as Albert Grey and H.C.P. Bell, provide primary or early secondary source material that can counter later colonial or neo-colonial claims.

The concept of 'terra nullius', a Latin term meaning 'nobody's land', was a cornerstone of colonial expansion. It was used to justify the annexation of lands deemed 'empty' or 'undeveloped' by European powers. However, the scholarship of Ibn Majid and the documentation by Grey and Bell provide evidence of pre-existing societies, sovereignty, and land use, thereby refuting such colonial claims. In cases related to the legacy of colonialism, particularly in regions such as the Indian Ocean, these historical scholars offer a crucial understanding that cannot be arbitrarily ignored or dismissed.
The danger of 'history shopping' – cherry-picking or discarding historical facts to suit a particular narrative that benefits colonial, post-colonial, or neo-colonial interests – is a serious issue that demands our attention. In legal cases, especially those involving decolonization and historical claims, omitting or discrediting established scholarship that contradicts a desired narrative would be a breach of duty to the court and to the truth. Lawyers must present the complete and accurate legal and factual picture to the court, not a deliberately skewed one. Disregarding foundational scholarship could be seen as failing in this duty, constituting a lack of due diligence or gross negligence, which may amount to misrepresentation and misconduct.

In conclusion, the argument is clear: in cases involving the legacy of colonialism, particularly in regions such as the Indian Ocean, certain historical scholars provide a foundation of understanding that cannot be overlooked. To do so, especially in a legal setting where facts are paramount, constitutes a serious professional failing that could indeed amount to misrepresentation and misconduct. Ensuring that legal narratives in international forums are based on a comprehensive and unbiased understanding of history, rather than being shaped by contemporary political or economic interests, is crucial for justice and accuracy. This thorough understanding, rooted in foundational scholarship, is not merely academic; it holds significant legal and political implications that can shape the course of decolonisation cases and historical claims.