the imperial archive

I have been thinking about the relationship between Richard's The Imperial Archive and Rushdie's Midnight's Children. It is a little odd to be commenting on a piece that involves an analysis of Imperial Britain and comparing it to a narrative about a country transitioning from the rule of Imperial Britain to its own rule.

Here are some of the highlights from our discussion of Richards' piece:

• The British Empire created the most data-intensive empire in history through the unification of knowledge.
• Imperialism, then, becomes the control of knowledge.
• Knowledge is both positive and comprehensive for this system.
• Power draws its breath from knowledge (p. 8).
• Information and Imperialism are connected.

So what does this have to do with Rushdie?

Everything!

Rushdie's piece is written as a fictional memoir of the events surrounding India's separation from Imperial rule. Simply by writing this piece, Rushdie may be making the following comments concerning imperialism.

• The data-intensiveness of the unification of knowledge is flawed because it excludes.
• The control of knowledge only suggests that knowledge can be contained.
• Knowledge (positive and comprehensive) cannot take into account narrative.
• India/Rushdie, by creating knowledge in a way different from the imperial archive, gains power.
• Information and imperialism are connected. The story must be told.

Note the direct relationship between these points and Richards' points. Are these accurate?