The Indian Ocean - Michael Pearson [109]
If we take a very long-term view, can we say that the Portuguese opened the door for other Europeans to come in and change Asia profoundly? Were they harbingers of a future when most areas in Asia were colonised by Europeans powers, with very dramatic and deleterious consequences? Again this claim is difficult to sustain. As we have been pointing out, in many areas the Portuguese had no particular advantage over the Asian states and peoples with whom they had dealings. They were, if you like, as premodern or early modern as anyone else. Generally speaking, westerners had no superiority in any area at this time. This was obviously the case in terms of culture, society or religion, and it would be racist to say otherwise. However, this also applies in material matters, such as the production of goods, trade practices and technology. Inequality appeared only when western Europe industrialised, and for the first time we have a rich world and a poor world. This happened only from late in the eighteenth century. One consequence of industrialisation in the west was that they now had the technological capacity to take over large areas of Asia, and this is what happened. However, my argument is that the increasing economic and military power of the west led inevitably to their colonising Asia; this would have happened even if the Portuguese had not rounded the Cape in 1498. The Portuguese effort then must be seen as a tour de force, that is a prodigious effort which however had no flow on and no consequences – in short, a one-off achievement.
The reasons for this comparative failure have been much debated. Earlier British writers said it was hardly surprising that this happened, for the Portuguese were corrupt, inefficient, racially mixed, cruel, and Catholic! Of course this is nonsense. Several more cogent factors can be isolated. First is simply the vast and unachievable nature of their aims. They were trying to control a huge maritime space, as any glance at a map will make clear. The population of Portugal around 1600 was about 2,000,000, while Akbar ruled an empire of over 100,000,000. Some Mughal cities had populations of 500,000. Goa in 1600 totalled 60,000, of whom 1,500 were Portuguese and mestiços (people of mixed blood). In the last quarter of the sixteenth century there were about 14,000 to 16,000 Portuguese beyond the Cape of Good Hope. In short, one basic reason for the Portuguese failure was simply a lack of people.
This meant that they consistently had to take account of facts on the ground which constrained them very severely. For example, the King of Malindi was not always as loyal as they hoped, and he had to be allowed to continue his own trade with Gujarat, although this undermined Portuguese control in the south. On the East Africa coast the Portuguese always had to be concerned to conciliate local rulers, whether it be those in the immediate hinterland, or the far distant ruler of the Mutapa state, to whom the Portuguese paid the curva, or a form of tribute, in order to be allowed to trade in his territories.
Sometimes the Portuguese were hampered by their lack of knowledge, and new conditions which affected them. An example of each is gold, and disease, in both cases in relation to East Africa. As to the former, the Portuguese thought that gold on the plateau must come from great mines, just as silver came from Potosí. If they could find the mines they would be able to control them and monopolise gold exports. Dos Santos described well their disappointment once they realised the true situation:
When the Portuguese found themselves in the land of gold they thought that they would immediately