![]() ![]() Resistance and collaboration were interchangeable strategies for the local people. Third, as long as imperial rule brought justice and stability, more people chose adaptation and collaboration rather than resistance, but the rulers’ distrust and misgivings sometimes alienated them. ![]() Empires used these small countries as pawns in certain situations, but could easily abandon them, giving priority to maintaining the international order of the great powers. ![]() Second, when their independence was threatened by a larger country, small countries often tried to enlist the help of another large country or empire by exploiting rivalries among them. In the short run, local actors were able to use the empire and even to twist it around their little fingers, but in the long run, their intentions backfired, and they were subjugated by the empire. First, in a situation of antagonism among local actors, the intention of one party to ally with a great power to defeat the adversary often led to imperial expansion. This paper tries to elucidate what imperial expansion, rule, and rivalry meant for the local people in Central Asia, a region famous for being the theater of the “Great Game.” It analyses historical events that occurred in various places such as Kazakhstan, West and East Turkestan, Pamirs, Hunza, and Kashmir, and makes a number of findings on the dynamics of center-periphery and metropolis-colony relationships. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |