Marx on the "Retribution" of Colonialism and Its Contemporary Implications

On July 25, 2018, Xi Jinping emphasized in his speech at the BRICS Business Forum: "Trade wars are inadvisable because there will be no winners. Economic hegemonism is even more unacceptable, as it will harm the common interests of the international community and ultimately backfire." [1]1 “Lifting a rock only to drop it on one’s own feet” (搬起石头砸自己的脚): A Chinese idiom meaning to suffer from one’s own actions, often used to describe self-inflicted harm or unintended negative consequences of one’s schemes.445 This is the advice of a 21st-century Marxist to those actors in international relations who have yet to abandon the old thinking of the law of the jungle and zero-sum games. Reviewing the history of Marxism, Marx in the 1850s, regarding the issue of British colonial rule in India, put forward the view of "retribution" [2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.334, offering a profound warning to the Western powers that practiced colonialism. In a series of articles such as "The Revolt in the Indian Army," "The Indian Revolt," "The Indian Question," and "Investigation of Tortures in India," based on the causes of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 and its impact on Britain, he borrowed the term "retribution" to apply the theory of causality from materialist dialectics to the critique of colonialism, revealing the historical destiny that colonialism would inevitably encounter anti-colonialism. Today, the United States and the West still adhere to colonialist thinking in their foreign relations, thereby creating a series of zero-sum games that "lift a rock only to drop it on their own feet," which not only damages or even infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of other countries but ultimately affects their own development. Therefore, at a time when the colonial system has long since collapsed but colonialist thinking has far from faded away, reviewing Marx's relevant discussions has important practical implications.

2018年7月25日，习近平在金砖国家工商论坛上的讲话中强调指出：“贸易战不可取，因为不会有赢家。经济霸权主义更要不得，因为这将损害国际社会共同利益，最终也将搬起石头砸自己的脚。”[1]445这是21世纪的马克思主义者给那些在国际交往中尚未摒弃丛林法则和零和博弈旧思维的行为主体的忠告。回顾马克思主义发展史，马克思曾在19世纪50年代针对英国殖民统治印度问题提出了“报应”[2]334的观点，给推行殖民主义的西方列强一个深刻的警告。他在《印度军队中的起义》《印度起义》《印度问题》《关于在印度实行刑讯的调查》等系列文章中，基于1857年印度起义爆发的原因及起义对英国造成的影响，借用“报应”一词将唯物辩证法中的因果关系理论用于对殖民主义批判中，揭示了殖民主义必将遭遇反殖民主义的历史命运。当今世界的美西方在对外交往中依然奉行殖民主义思维，从而制作了一系列“搬起石头砸自己的脚”的零和博弈游戏，不仅损害甚至侵犯了他国的正当权益，还最终影响了本国的发展。因此，在殖民主义体系虽早已崩溃但殖民主义思维远未消退的当下，回顾马克思的相关论述，有重要的现实启示。

I. The Concept of "Retribution" in the Context of Marx's Critique of Colonialism

一、马克思殖民主义批判语境中的“报应”概念

In May 1857, the Indian people launched a national uprising against British colonial rule. However, the uprising was not initiated by ordinary Indian residents, but by the sepoys, the Indian soldiers serving the British. Marx believed this was a kind of "retribution" for the British colonizers, because "the Indian revolt was not started by the ryots [peasants], who are tortured, insulted and stripped naked by the British, but by the sepoys, who are clothed, fed, tended, and pampered by the British." [2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.335 To this end, he pointed out: "There is something like retribution in human history. The law of historical retribution is that the tool of retribution is forged not by the oppressed, but by the oppressor himself." [2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.334 Thus, Marx proposed the concept of "retribution" within the discourse of the critique of colonialism.

1857年5月，印度人民掀起了反对英国殖民统治的民族大起义。然而，掀起起义的不是印度普通居民，而是被称作西帕依的印度土兵，即为英国人服务的印度土兵。马克思认为，这对于英国殖民者来说是一种“报应”，因为“发动印度起义的不是饱受英国人折磨、侮辱和洗劫的莱特，而是由英国人供给吃穿、受英国人豢养和宠爱的西帕依。”[2]335为此，他指出：“人类历史上存在着某种类似报应的东西。历史报应的规律就是，锻造报应的工具的，并不是被压迫者，而是压迫者自己。”[2]334由此，马克思提出了殖民主义批判话语中的“报应”概念。

"Retribution" means "karmic retribution." Mentioning this concept often associates it with religion, particularly the Buddhist concepts of karma and the cycle of cause and effect. In fact, the concept of "retribution" exists widely in various cultural forms, including the proletarian cultural form of Marxism. However, the connotation, especially the philosophical basis, of "retribution" differs, even being diametrically opposed, across different cultural forms. For instance, in religion, karmic retribution emphasizes "good deeds bring good rewards, evil deeds bring evil punishments," and the controller of retribution is usually an alien, mysterious force external to humans, hence behaviors like burning incense and worshipping Buddha to pray for blessings. Clearly, the theory of retribution in religion, as well as in Eastern and Western traditional cultures, although it reflects dialectics (the connection between karma and retribution, cause and effect), is based on idealism, subjectivizing and theologizing the connection between "cause" and "effect," embodying an ideology of "man proposes, God disposes." As Engels summarized: "All religion, however, is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men's minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces." [3]3 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2012, p. 334.334 Therefore, although this theory of retribution based on idealism can to a certain extent regulate and constrain human behavior, it is easily used by the exploiting class to enslave and control the exploited class, making them submit to the political rule of the exploiting class.

“报应”即“因果报应”，提到这一概念人们通常会将其与宗教联系起来，特别是会想到佛教中所讲的业因果报、因果轮回。实际上，“报应”这一概念广泛存在于各种文化形态中，其中，也存在于马克思主义这一无产阶级文化形态中。但是，在不同文化形态中“报应”的内涵特别是哲学基础不尽相同，甚至截然相反。如，在宗教中，因果报应讲求“善有善报，恶有恶报”，而掌控报应的通常是一种外化于人的异己的神秘力量，如此就有了烧香拜佛等祈福行为。很显然，宗教中的报应论，以及东西方传统文化中的报应论，虽然也体现辩证法（业和报、因和果之间有联系），却建立在唯心主义基础之上，把“因”和“果”之间的联系主观化、神学化，体现出一种“谋事在人，成事在神”的思想观念。诚如恩格斯总结指出的：“一切宗教都不过是支配着人们日常生活的外部力量在人们头脑中的幻想的反映，在这种反映中，人间的力量采取了超人间的力量的形式。”[3]334所以，这种建立在唯心主义基础之上的报应论虽然一定程度上能够规范和约束人的行为，却很容易被剥削阶级用来奴役和钳制被剥削阶级，使之顺从剥削阶级的政治统治。

The "retribution" in the Marxist context, however, is based on materialism and belongs to the category of materialist dialectics, reflecting the objective connection between cause and effect. According to materialist dialectics, cause and effect reflect the relationship of one thing leading to another; any cause necessarily leads to a certain effect, and any effect is necessarily caused by a certain cause. This causal relationship does not exist merely in the human mind but is an objective reality, independent of human will. However, this does not mean that humans are powerless in the face of causality. On the contrary, the theory of causality in materialist dialectics guides people in concrete practice to actively grasp the causal connections between things, strive to eliminate unfavorable causes, and steer the causal relationship in a direction conducive to human development, thereby achieving positive results. Of course, if an actor ignores the objectivity of causal relationships and acts against objective laws for immediate gain, it will inevitably lead to adverse results, i.e., "retribution," such as the oppression by the oppressor in class society leading to the resistance of the oppressed, or excessive human extraction from nature leading to nature's revenge. Thus, in the Marxist context, the controller of "retribution" is not an external mysterious force, but humans themselves, i.e., the acting subject.

马克思主义语境中的“报应”则建立在唯物主义基础之上，属于唯物辩证法的范畴，反映的是原因和结果之间的客观联系。根据唯物辩证法，原因和结果反映的是事物之间引起与被引起的关系，任何原因都必然引起一定的结果，同时任何结果都是由一定的原因引起的；这种因果关系不是存在于人的头脑之中，而是一种客观实在，不以人的意志为转移。但是，这并不意味着在因果关系面前，人是无能为力的。相反，唯物辩证法中的因果关系理论指导人们在具体的实践中，要积极主动地把握事物间的因果联系，努力消除不利的原因，使因果关系朝着有利于人的发展的方向运行，从而达成积极的结果。当然，如若行为主体无视因果关系的客观性，为眼前的利益而做出违背客观规律的行为，必然也会引起不良的结果即“报应”，诸如阶级社会中压迫者的压迫引起被压迫者的反抗，人对自然界的超负荷索取引起自然界的报复，等。由此可见，在马克思主义语境中，掌控“报应”的不是外化于人的神秘力量，而是人自身即行为主体。

Specifically, in the context of Marx's critique of colonialism, "retribution" refers to the colonizers' own colonialist actions brewing evil consequences for themselves. This is the application of the theory of causality from materialist dialectics to the analysis of colonialism. Here, the crimes committed by the colonizers in the process of conquering and ruling backward countries—such as burning, killing, looting, brutal oppression, forced destruction, and violent suppression—are the causes. To this end, in his critique of colonialism, Marx exposed how the Western powers pursuing colonial policies launched aggressive wars on "untenable pretexts," obtained various privileges through unequal treaties, forcibly destroyed the traditional civilizations of backward countries, and commonly used violence to collect taxes. For example, regarding British rule in India, Marx pointed out: "The British rulers of India are by no means the mild, generous, and irreproachable benefactors of the Indian people that they would like the world to believe." [2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.302 Marx also exposed that the British East India Company established a European-style despotism on top of the Asian-style despotism in India, and the combination of these two despotisms "was more terrible than any of the grim idols in the temple of Salsette." [4]4 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 1, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2012, p. 138.138 It was precisely these colonialist crimes that triggered various forms of resistance from the peoples of the invaded or colonized countries. Although the anti-aggression struggles of the peoples of various countries were the result of colonialism "getting what it deserved," for the Western powers pursuing colonial plunder policies, they were "evil consequences," the retribution for their policies of colonial plunder. But cause necessarily leads to effect. Not only did the Indian people erupt in a national uprising under British colonial rule, but during this period, the peoples of invaded countries such as China, Persia, and Turkey also launched anti-aggression struggles in their own ways. Marx and Engels also believed that regardless of the methods used in the anti-aggression struggles, they did not change their just nature of "defending the country and homeland." For instance, regarding the moral condemnation by mainstream British newspapers of the Chinese people's anti-aggression methods during the Second Opium War, Engels pointed out: "Let us not moralize like the sanctimonious British press about the terrible atrocities of the Chinese; it is better to recognize this as a war 'to defend the country and homeland,' a people's war for the survival of the Chinese nation." [2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.146 Besides encountering anti-aggression struggles, Marx also pointed out regarding the cotton crisis Britain faced in the early 1860s: "England is now suffering the retribution for her long and sinful administration of India" [5]5 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 15, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1963, p. 370.370, further exposing the evil consequences that the colonizers' own colonialist actions brewed for themselves.

具体到马克思殖民主义批判语境中的“报应”，是指殖民者的殖民主义行为给自己酿造了恶果。这是唯物辩证法中的因果关系理论在殖民主义分析中的运用。其中，殖民者在征服和统治落后国家的过程中犯下的烧杀抢掠、残酷压榨、强制破坏、暴力镇压等罪行是原因。为此，马克思在批判殖民主义的过程中，揭露推行殖民政策的西方列强以“站不住脚的借口”发动侵略战争，通过不平等条约谋取各种特权，强行破坏落后国家的传统文明，普遍使用暴力征税，等等。譬如，基于英国殖民者在印度的统治，马克思指出：“印度的英国统治者，决不像他们想让世人相信的那样，是印度人民的温和宽厚、无可指责的恩人。”[2]302马克思还揭露，不列颠东印度公司在印度的亚洲式专制的基础上又建立起欧洲式专制，这两种专制结合起来“要比萨尔赛达庙里任何狰狞的神像都更为可怕”[4]138。正是这些殖民主义罪行引发了被侵略抑或被殖民统治国家人民的各种反抗。各国人民的反侵略斗争虽说是殖民主义“罪有应得”的结果，但对于推行殖民掠夺政策的西方列强来说是“恶果”，是对它们推行殖民掠夺政策的报应。但原因必然引起结果，不仅印度人民在英国殖民统治下爆发了民族大起义，这一时期的中国、波斯、土耳其等被侵略国家的人民也以各自的方式开展反侵略的斗争。马克思、恩格斯还认为，不论反侵略斗争采用什么样的手段，都不改变其“保卫社稷和家园”的正义性，如，针对第二次鸦片战争时期英国主流报刊从道德方面对中国人反侵略手段的指责，恩格斯指出：“我们不要像道貌岸然的英国报刊那样从道德方面指责中国人的可怕暴行，最好承认这是‘保卫社稷和家园’的战争，一场维护中华民族生存的人民战争。”[2]146除了遭遇反侵略斗争外，马克思还针对英国在19世纪60年代初遭遇的棉花危机指出：“英国现在是在受着自己长期罪恶地治理印度的报应”[5]370，进一步揭露殖民者的殖民主义行为给自己酿造的恶果。

II. "Retribution" One: The Native Army Established by the British Indian Authorities Became the Core Force Resisting Colonial Rule

二、“报应”之一：英印当局建立的土著军队却成为反抗殖民统治的核心力量

The mutiny of the sepoys initiated the Great Indian Rebellion of 1857. The sepoys had received training from European instructors; they were tactically undoubtedly superior to India’s own armies and to ordinary insurgents, just as Engels stated: “the sepoys had already grasped some concepts of the scientific method of warfare.”[2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.495 This indicates that the sepoys not only launched the rebellion but were also more combat-effective than ordinary rebels. Hence, Marx pointed out: “At the same time as the British authorities established the native army, they also organized the first core force of resistance that the Indian people had never possessed before.”[2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.164 The sepoy rebellion was, for the British colonizers, no different from lifting a rock only to drop it on one’s own feet; this constituted one form of the “retribution” of colonialism.

西帕依的哗变开启了1857年的印度民族大起义。西帕依接受过欧洲教官的训练，他们在战术上无疑强于印度人自己的军队和一般的起义民众，诚如恩格斯所说的，“西帕依已经理解了科学作战方法的某些概念”[2]495。这表明，西帕依不仅发动了起义，且比一般的起义者更具有战斗力。由此，马克思指出：“英国当局建立土著军队的同时，也就组织了印度人民过去从未拥有过的第一支核心的反抗力量。”[2]164西帕依的起义，对英国殖民者来说无异于搬起石头砸自己的脚，这构成了殖民主义的“报应”之一。

A question that must first be clarified here is: why did the British colonizers establish the sepoys in India? This must be traced back to the history of the British East India Company. Marx pointed out that the East India Company was initially merely a commercial power.[4]4 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 1, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2012, p. 138.162 The East India Companies, whether Dutch, British, or French, were originally commercial organizations authorized by their respective governments to monopolize trade between their own countries and the Eastern states. After entering India, these companies first sought permission from the Indian kings to conduct trade and establish trading posts. The British East India Company, founded in 1600, was not permitted to establish a trading post in Surat in western India until 1613. To extract more wealth from India, the British East India Company continuously established new trading posts in various parts of India over the following fifty years; “by the mid-17th century, it had established a large number of trading posts in Gujarat, Bengal, Bihar, and the coasts of South India.”[6]6 The Sepoy Rebellion (1857-1858), also known as the Indian Rebellion of 1857 or the First War of Indian Independence, was a major uprising against British East India Company rule in India. The term “sepoy” refers to Indian soldiers employed by the Company.180 Nevertheless, at this time, the actions of the British East India Company had not yet caused substantial harm to the Indian people. Marx also pointed out: “At first, the East India Company merely wanted to establish resident trading posts for its agents and warehouses for its goods. To protect these trading posts and warehouses, the company built several fortresses.”[4]4 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 1, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2012, p. 138.164

这里有一个首先需要弄清楚的问题是，英国殖民者为何要在印度建立西帕依？这要从英国东印度公司的历史说起。马克思指出，东印度公司最初只是一个商业势力。[4]162东印度公司，不论是荷兰的、英国的还是法国的，最初都是各国政府授权成立的旨在垄断本国与东方国家之间贸易的一种商业组织。这些公司在进入印度后，首先谋求的是印度国王允许它们在印度经商和建立商馆。成立于1600年的英国东印度公司，直到1613年才被允许在印度西部的苏拉特设立商馆。为在印度攫取更多的财富，英国东印度公司在接下来的50年中不断地在印度各地设立新的商馆，“到17世纪中期已经在古吉拉特、孟加拉、比哈尔和南印海岸建立了一大批商馆”[6]180。尽管如此，此时的英国东印度公司的行为尚未对印度人造成实质性的伤害。马克思也指出：“东印度公司起初只是想为它的代理人建立驻外商馆，为它的货物建立堆栈。为了保护这些商馆和堆栈，公司建造了若干堡垒。”[4]164

However, the British objective in India went far beyond establishing trading posts. Establishing trading posts was merely the first step in the invasion of India by the Western powers represented by Britain. The British East India Company was nominally a commercial organization monopolizing Eastern trade, but in essence, it was a tool for British capitalists to plunder the social wealth of India and other Eastern countries. Therefore, the Company’s objective in India could not be satisfied with conducting normal trade under the consent of the Indian kings; this was merely the first stepping stone for the invaders to gain a foothold in India. Finding ways to extract the greatest wealth at the smallest cost was the ultimate goal of the British invaders in India. Consequently, compared with extracting Indian wealth through trade, direct exploitation of India was more conducive to squeezing out Indian wealth. Marx also pointed out: “Throughout the 18th century, the wealth flowing from India into Britain was obtained not mainly through relatively minor trade, but through the direct exploitation of India, by plundering huge fortunes there and then transporting them to Britain.”[4]4 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 1, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2012, p. 138.168 Thus, the East India Company gradually evolved from an initial commercial power into the military power that conquered India and the ruling power that governed India.

然而，英国人在印度的目标远不止于建立商馆。建立商馆仅仅是以英国为代表的西方列强入侵印度的第一步。英国东印度公司名义上是垄断东方贸易的商业组织，实质上却是英国资本家掠夺印度和东方其他国家社会财富的工具。所以，东印度公司在印度的目标不可能满足于在印度国王的同意下进行正常的贸易往来，这只不过是侵略者在印度立足的第一块敲门砖。想方设法以最小的成本攫取最大的财富才是英国侵略者在印度的最终目的。因此，与用贸易的方式攫取印度人的财富相比，对印度的直接剥削更有利于榨取印度人的财富。马克思也指出：“在整个18世纪期间，由印度流入英国的财富，已经主要不是通过比较次要的贸易，而是通过对印度的直接剥削，通过在那里掠夺巨额财富然后转运英国的办法弄到手的。”[4]168如此，东印度公司便由最初的商业势力逐渐演变为英国征服印度的军事势力和管理印度的统治势力。

To conquer and rule India, the British East India Company organized a native Indian army. Although the East India Company received substantial military support from the British government during the conquest of India, this support was disproportionate to the military force needed to conquer the entire Indian empire. It was precisely because of limited military strength that the East India Company initially occupied only a few areas of little value in India, as Marx pointed out: “Although as early as 1689 the Company wanted to acquire territories in India so that the income from those territories could become a source of its revenue, until 1744 it had only obtained a few areas of little value around Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta.”[4]4 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 1, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2012, p. 138.164 Therefore, to occupy more and more valuable territories and even conquer the whole of India, thereby satisfying the greed of British capitalists, the East India Company first needed to solve the problem of military force. In 1742, after the Frenchman Dupleix was appointed Governor-General of French India, he took advantage of India’s internal turmoil to actively intervene in the internal disputes of Indian princes on the one hand, and on the other hand to establish a force of Indian soldiers trained by European instructors, intending to use a two-pronged approach to control or conquer some small feudal states that had split off from within India and establish a French colonial empire in South India.[6]6 The Sepoy Rebellion (1857-1858), also known as the Indian Rebellion of 1857 or the First War of Indian Independence, was a major uprising against British East India Company rule in India. The term “sepoy” refers to Indian soldiers employed by the Company.210 Subsequently, the British imitated the French, also recruiting native soldiers in India, thereby forming a native army serving the British, i.e., the sepoy army. Thus, the sepoys gradually became a powerful tool for the British colonizers to conquer and rule India. By the eve of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the number of sepoys had already reached 200,000, while the British army in India numbered only 40,000. Marx said: “The sepoys became the police; 200 million native inhabitants were controlled by a 200,000-strong native army commanded by the British, and this native army was itself controlled by a British army of only 40,000 men.”[2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.164 Even during the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the East India Company, due to its own troop shortage, had to rely on non-mutinous sepoys to transport valuables. Marx pointed out: “The insufficiency of the British forces is further proved by the fact that, to transport valuables out of bases threatened by the rebellion, the British army could only use sepoys, who invariably mutinied halfway, absconding with the valuables entrusted to them.”[2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.187 It is evident that the British colonizers were extremely dependent on the sepoys during the conquest and rule of India, which was the main reason they spared no expense in having British instructors organize and train the sepoys and supply them with food and clothing.

为征服和统治印度，英国东印度公司组建了印度土著军队。尽管东印度公司在征服印度的过程中获得了英国政府军事上的大力支持，但这种支持与征服整个印度帝国所需要的军事力量不成正比。也正是由于军事力量有限，东印度公司在印度最初只占领了几块价值不大的地区，即马克思指出的：“尽管早在1689年公司就想在印度占据领地，使领地上的收入成为公司的一种财源，但是一直到1744年，它只在孟买、马德拉斯和加尔各答一带弄到几块价值不大的地区。”[4]164因此，要占据更多的、更有价值的领地乃至征服整个印度，从而满足英国资本家的贪欲，东印度公司首先需要解决的是军事力量问题。1742年，法国人杜布莱克斯被任命为法国在印度的治理总督后，趁印度内乱之际，一面积极插手印度王公的内争，一面建立一支由欧洲教官训练的印度土兵队伍，打算双管齐下，控制或征服印度内部分裂出来的一些小的封建国家，并在南印建立一个法国殖民帝国[6]210。随后，英国人效仿法国人，也在印度招募本土士兵，进而组建起为英国人服务的土著军队即西帕依军队。由此，西帕依逐渐成为英国殖民者征服和统治印度的有力工具。时至1857年印度起义前夕，西帕依的数量已经到达了20万，而在印度的英国军队仅有4万人。马克思说：“土兵变成了警察，2亿土著居民被英国人指挥的20万土著军队所控制，而土著军队又控制在仅有4万人的英国军队的手里。”[2]164即便是在1857年印度起义期间，东印度公司仍因自身兵力不足而不得不依靠未哗变的西帕依运送财物。马克思指出：“英军兵力确实不足，还可以从下面这件事实得到进一步证明：为了把财物从受起义威胁的基地运出来，英军只能靠西帕依来运送，而西帕依总是毫无例外地在半途起义，带着托付他们运送的财物逃之夭夭。”[2]187可见，英国殖民者在征服和统治印度过程中对西帕依有着极大的依赖性，这也是前者不惜用英国教官组织和训练后者并供给其吃穿的主要原因。

Although, based on the performance of the mutineers in the rebellion, Marx criticized the mutinous soldiers as a disorganized and undisciplined rabble, he nevertheless affirmed that the sepoys were superior to the Indian armies, calling them the most important force capable of becoming the Indian people’s resistance against foreign invasion. Marx said: “The Indian army, organized and trained by British instructors, is the necessary condition for India to liberate itself and no longer become booty whenever a foreign invader appears.”[4]4 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 1, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2012, p. 138.246 The sepoys, trained by European instructors, although still having a certain gap in command and tactics compared with real European soldiers, were nonetheless a well-trained insurgent force compared with the Indian armies and the spontaneously formed rebel forces of the Indian people, thereby enabling them to become the core force for the Indian people’s resistance against foreign invasion.

尽管基于哗变者在起义中的表现，马克思批评哗变的士兵是缺乏组织性和纪律性的乌合之众，却也肯定西帕依优越于印度人的军队，称其是能够成为印度人反抗外来侵略的最主要的力量。马克思说：“由不列颠的教官组织和训练出来的印度人军队，是印度自己解放自己和不再一遇到外国入侵者就成为战利品的必要条件。”[4]246经过欧洲教官训练的西帕依，尽管在指挥上和战术上与真正的欧洲士兵还有一定的差距，但是与印度军队以及印度人自发形成的起义军相比，却不失为一支训练有素的起义军，从而使其能够成为印度人民反抗外来侵略的核心力量。

However, the British colonizers regarded the sepoys merely as instruments for ruling India. Although the British colonizers provided the sepoys with food and clothing, the sepoys did not enjoy treatment equal to that of British soldiers in any respect, and even their most basic religious beliefs were not respected. For instance, even if a sepoy’s performance in the army surpassed that of a European officer, as an Indian he could only become a low-ranking officer, and European soldiers completely disregarded Indian officers, often flaunting their authority before them. Furthermore, the British colonizers disregarded the religious beliefs of Indians, forcing sepoys to do things that violated religious doctrines. The direct trigger of the 1857 Sepoy Rebellion was the British colonizers forcing native soldiers to use cartridges greased with cow and pig fat. India had since ancient times been a multi-ethnic country with a strong religious complex; by the mid-19th century, the vast majority of Indians were devout Hindus or Muslims. Hinduism developed from India’s traditional Brahmanism and inherited the Brahmanical tradition of cow worship; the mount of Shiva, one of the three major gods of Hinduism, is a bull. Therefore, Hindus do not kill cows or eat anything related to cows. Islam, brought to India by the Turks in the 13th century, particularly abhors pigs; Muslims consider everything associated with pigs to be unclean. Thus, faced with cartridges greased with cow and pig fat, the native soldiers were extremely repulsed, especially since using these cartridges required soldiers to bite off the casing with their teeth. After their protests proved ineffective, some sepoys rose up in mutiny, which further evolved into a national uprising. Marx also clearly pointed out in his articles on the Indian uprising: “The cause of the discontent which began to spread through the Bengal army four months ago was, it is said, the apprehension of the native soldiers that the government intended to interfere with their religion. A cartridge had been distributed, the paper of which was said to have been greased with cow and pig fat, and which had to be bitten off; this the native soldiers considered a violation of their religious precepts, and it therefore became the signal for local disturbances.” [2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.165

然而，英国殖民者仅仅把西帕依视为其统治印度的工具。尽管英国殖民者供给西帕依吃和穿，但西帕依在方方面面都享受不到与英国军人同等的待遇，甚至连最基本的宗教信仰都得不到尊重。如，即便西帕依在军队中的表现超过欧洲军官，作为印度人只能成为低级军官，且欧籍士兵根本不把印度藉的军官放在眼里，经常在他们面前耀武扬威。另外，英国殖民者还漠视印度人的宗教信仰，迫使西帕依做一些有违宗教教义的事情。1857年西帕依起义的直接导火索就是英国殖民者强迫土著士兵使用被涂了牛油和猪油的子弹。印度自古以来就是一个有着浓厚宗教情结的多民族国家，时至19世纪中叶，绝大多数印度人都是虔诚的印度教徒或穆斯林教徒。印度教是在印度传统的婆罗门教的基础上发展而来，继承了婆罗门教崇拜牛的传统，印度教三大神之一的湿婆神坐骑就是牛。所以，印度教徒不杀牛也不吃与牛有关的食物。由突厥人在13世纪带到印度的穆斯林教则特别忌讳猪，穆斯林教徒认为与猪相关的一切物品都是不洁之物。所以，面对被涂了牛油和猪油的子弹，土著士兵十分反感，尤其是使用这些子弹时还需要士兵们用嘴咬弹壳。在表示抗议无效后，部分西帕依起而发动哗变，并进一步演变为民族大起义。马克思也在关于印度起义的文章中明确指出：“四个月前不满情绪在孟加拉军队中开始蔓延的原因，据说是土著士兵担心政府要干涉他们的宗教信仰。当时曾分发一种子弹，据说弹壳纸被涂抹了牛油和猪油，它必须用嘴去咬，土著士兵认为这是违背他们教规的，因此这就成为地方性骚动的信号。”[2]165

Thus, the sepoy mutiny was entirely caused by the British colonizers treating the native army that served them in an unjust and even insulting manner. Of course, although the sepoys were employed by the British colonizers, they still felt emotionally inclined towards India and the Indian people. First, because the sepoy was a product of colonialism, the very existence of this identity represented a kind of humiliation; second, because the British Indian colonial authorities brutally exploited and oppressed the Indian people, including the sepoys’ families. Therefore, although the sepoys and the British colonizers ostensibly belonged to the same colonial ruling system, there was a profound internal contradiction between them. Once this contradiction was intensified, it would inevitably trigger a sepoy mutiny.

可见，西帕依哗变完全是由英国殖民者以不公正的甚至侮辱性的方式对待为他们服务的土著军队导致的。当然，尽管西帕依受雇于英国殖民者，他们在情感上仍倾向于印度和印度人民。一是因为西帕依是殖民主义产物，这一身份的存在就代表着一种屈辱；二是因为英印殖民当局残酷剥削和压榨印度人民，包括西帕依的家人。所以，西帕依与英国殖民者之间虽在表面上同属殖民统治系统，却有着深刻的内在矛盾，一旦矛盾被激化必然会引发西帕依的哗变。

III. “Retribution” Part Two: The “Atrocities” of the Sepoys Are a Concentrated Reflection of the British Colonizers’ Actions in India

三、“报应”之二：西帕依的“暴行”是对英国殖民者在印度所作所为的集中反映

The rebellious sepoys not only killed British officers and soldiers but also subjected the British colonizers they hated to terrible corporal punishment. In response, mainstream British newspapers such as *The Times* not only published articles harshly criticizing this but further exaggerated and sensationalized the sepoys’ “atrocities” to incite British hatred towards India. Marx pointed out: “The conduct of the sepoys, however infamous, is only a concentrated reflection of the conduct of the British themselves in India, not only during the period of the establishment of their Eastern empire, but even during the last ten years of their long domination. To characterize this domination, it is enough to state that torture has been an integral part of British financial policy.” [2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.334 This indicates that, in Marx’s view, the “atrocities” of the sepoys were entirely caused by the British colonizers and were a concentrated reflection of the various crimes committed by the British colonizers in India. For the British colonizers, this was a bitter fruit of their own making. Therefore, the “atrocities” of the sepoys constitute the second part of the “retribution” of colonialism.

起义的西帕依不仅杀死英国军官和士兵，还对他们痛恨的英国殖民者采用了可怕的体刑。对此，英国《泰晤士报》等主流报刊不仅刊文横加指责，还进一步渲染夸大西帕依的“暴行”，以煽动英国人民对印度的仇恨。马克思则指出：“西帕依的行为尽管声名狼藉，也只不过是集中反映了英国本身在印度的所作所为，不仅包括其建立东方帝国时期，甚至包括其长期统治的最近十年。为了说明这种统治的特点，只要指出刑讯是英国财政政策不可分割的一部分就够了。”[2]334这就表明，在马克思看来，西帕依的“暴行”完全由英国殖民者引起，是对英国殖民者在印度犯下的各种罪行的集中反映。对英国殖民者来说，这是它们自己酿造的苦果。所以，西帕依的“暴行”构成了殖民主义的“报应”之二。

In his series of articles such as “The Indian Revolt,” Marx enumerated the various crimes committed by the British colonizers in India. First, in the article “The Indian Question” of July 28, 1857, he exposed the forced annexation policy implemented by the British East India Company in India. To increase fiscal revenue, the East India Company, starting from 1848, adopted a new method of governance: squeezing out native princes to expand British territory. This method contradicted the long-standing principle of “divide and rule” previously implemented in India and thus met with strong opposition from the native princes. Nevertheless, backed by violence, the East India Company forcibly annexed the principalities of over a dozen independent Indian princes between 1848 and 1854. Second, in the article “Investigation into the Practice of Torture in India” of August 28, 1857, he exposed that the widespread use of torture had become a fiscal institution in British India. Ever since the East India Company embarked on the path of conquering India, naked plunder became its primary means of seizing Indian wealth. The most direct manifestation of this naked plunder was the imposition of an extremely high tax rate system in India. For Indian peasants and landlords still stuck in the patriarchal stage of small-scale production, this was utterly unaffordable, leading to various phenomena of tax resistance or tax delinquency. To force Indians to pay taxes, the supreme British Indian authorities condoned local tax collectors using various cruel tortures in the tax collection process. Third, in the article “The Indian Revolt” of September 4, 1857, he exposed the crimes of British officers who took pleasure in killing Indians. Marx said: “Even with regard to the present disaster, it would be a great mistake to suppose that all ‘atrocities’ were committed by the sepoys, while the British embodied all the innate goodness of mankind.” [2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.335 He exposed that a British officer loaded native soldiers from a regiment, who had been disarmed and stripped of their clothes and boots, onto a small boat and let it drift downstream on the Indus River. The Indus River current was very swift, and the small boat could capsize at any moment. However, this officer not only showed no sympathy but “gleefully anticipated that they would all be drowned in the rapids.” [2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.335 Another British officer, when speaking of hanging native Indians, said their amusement had begun. In short, for British officers who held the power of life and death over Indians, depriving Indians of their right to life in their “preferred” manner became a form of entertainment. Not only British officers, but British soldiers also acted like demons when dealing with natives. Since the British colonizers treated Indians with such cruelty, how could one expect the Indians to treat the British colonizers and their families in a civilized manner during the uprising? As Marx pointed out when exposing the British Indian authorities’ abuse of torture in India: “Since the English are capable of doing such things with cold-blooded cruelty, is it any wonder that the rebellious Indians, in the heat and fury of revolt and struggle, committed those so-called cruel atrocities?” [2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.307 The “English” here refers to the British colonizers who implemented colonial policies in India, not to English people in general; the term “English” in the following text has the same connotation.

马克思在《印度起义》等系列文章中列举了英国殖民者在印度犯下的各种罪行。一是在1857年7月28日的《印度问题》一文中揭露英国东印度公司在印度推行了强行兼并政策。为增加财政收入，东印度公司从1848年开始采取排挤土著王公来扩大英国地盘这一新的治理方法。这一方法与之前在印度长期推行的“分而治之”原则相逆，因而遭到了土著王公们的强烈反对。尽管如此，东印度公司还是以暴力为后盾，在1848年至1854年的几年间，强行吞并了印度十几个独立王公的公国。二是在1857年8月28日的《关于在印度实行刑讯的调查》一文中揭露普遍施用刑讯已成为英属印度的一种财政制度。自从东印度公司走上征服印度的道路后，赤裸裸的掠夺就成为了它攫取印度财富的首要方式。这种赤裸裸的掠夺最直接的表现便是在印度推行税率极高的税收制度。这对于还停留在宗法式小生产阶段的印度农民和地主来说，根本无力担负，于是出现了各种抗税或者拖税的现象。为强迫印度人缴税，英印最高当局纵容地方收税官在征税过程中使用各种残酷的刑讯。三是在1857年9月4日的《印度起义》一文中揭露英国军官以杀害印度人取乐的罪行。马克思说：“即使就目前这次灾难来说，如果认为一切‘暴行’都是西帕依干的，英国人则体现了人类的一切善良天性，那就大错特错了。”[2]335他揭露，一名英国军官将一个团中被解除武装并被剥去衣服和靴子的土著士兵装上小船，让小船漂向印度河下游。印度河水流十分湍急，小船随时都有可能侧翻。然而，这位军官不仅没有丝毫同情心，还“喜不自胜地预料他们全都会淹死在急流中”[2]335。还有英国军官在谈到绞死印度土著人时称他们的娱乐开始了。总之，对于掌控着印度人生杀予夺权的英国军官来说，以他们“偏爱”的方式剥夺印度人的生命权成为了一种娱乐。不仅英国军官如此，英国士兵在对付土著人时，也如恶魔一样。既然英国殖民者对待印度人的手段如此残忍，又如何指望印度人在起义中以文明的方式对待英国殖民者及其家属呢？正如马克思在揭露英印当局在印度滥用刑讯的行为时所指出的：“既然英国人能够冷酷无情地干这种事，那么就算是起义的印度人在起义和斗争的狂怒中犯下了那些所谓的残暴罪行，又有什么奇怪呢？”[2]307这里的“英国人”指在印度推行殖民政策的英国殖民者，而非指一般意义上的英国人，下文中的“英国人”也具有同样的内涵。

Marx held that the "atrocities" of the Sepoys were a concentrated reflection of the crimes Britain had committed in India, and that the mainstream British press had no reason to deliberately exaggerate or inflate the Sepoys' "atrocities."[2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.334 The mutinous Sepoys not only strove to kill the European officers who had subdued them, but also set fire to the barracks and killed every Englishman (colonists and their families) they could lay their hands on. In his article "The Revolt in the Indian Army" of June 30, 1857, Marx mentions in two places that the insurgents killed every Englishman they could capture. In addition, in his article "The Indian Revolt" of September 1, 1857, Marx mentions the fact that the insurgent army killed the families of captured British colonists. This occurred in a battle at Cawnpore, where, owing to the insurgents' overwhelming numerical superiority, the British forces, together with the wives and children of the infantrymen, were besieged. In the end, the British surrendered, and the insurgent leader Nana Sahib promised to let them sail down the Ganges to Allahabad. But no sooner had these people set out on the river than they came under attack from insurgents on the right bank; those who tried to flee to the opposite shore were all captured and killed, while the women and children were taken prisoner. Later, the British sent reinforcements to attack the insurgents, and Sahib, being outnumbered, retreated—but before retreating, he killed all the prisoners. Such "atrocities" as these committed by the Sepoys in the revolt were already shocking, yet they were further exaggerated and inflated by mainstream British newspapers such as The Times. An English clergyman residing in India published a letter in The Times claiming that the mutinous Sepoys had even cut off the noses and breasts of the Englishmen they had captured. To this Marx commented: "In short, the horrible tortures inflicted by the Sepoys naturally excite greater disgust among Europeans than the bombardment of the dwellings of the inhabitants of Canton by order of the President of the Manchester Peace Society, ... or the disgust excited by any of the 'humane' instruments of torture habitually used in English penitentiaries."[2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.337 The "bombardment of the dwellings of the inhabitants of Canton" mentioned here refers to the Second Opium War launched by the British aggressors. What Marx meant to express in this comment was that the mainstream press, serving as the mouthpiece of the British bourgeoisie, ought first to reflect on the various crimes Britain had committed in enslaving other nations, rather than one-sidedly playing up the "atrocities" of an enslaved people in their struggle against aggression. To this end, Marx said: "Cruelty, like every other thing, has its fashion, changing according to time and place."[2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.337 In the Western mainstream press, the cruelty of the British colonists was described as the martial valor of soldiers, while the cruelty of the Indian insurgents was not merely cruelty but was deliberately exaggerated.

马克思认为西帕依的“暴行”是对英国在印度犯下的罪行的集中反映，英国主流报刊没有理由故意渲染夸大西帕依的“暴行”[2]334。起义的西帕依不仅竭力将驯服他们的欧洲军官杀死，还放火烧毁了兵营，并将他们所能抓到的一切英国人（殖民者及其家属）都杀死。马克思在1857年6月30日的《印度军队中的起义》一文中有两处提到起义者杀死他们能抓到的一切英国人。此外，马克思还在1857年9月1日的《印度起义》一文中提到起义军杀死了俘获的英国殖民者的家属这一事实。这是发生在坎普尔的一场战斗，由于在这场战斗中起义军的数量占压倒性优势，英国军队连同步兵人员的妻子儿女均遭到了起义军的围困。最后，英军投降，起义军首领纳那·萨希布答应让他们乘船沿恒河顺流而下到安拉阿巴德。但在这些人刚刚乘船到达河中央时就遭到了恒河右岸起义军的攻击，船上企图往对岸逃命的人也全部被捉住杀死，妇女和儿童则成为了俘虏。后来，英军派援兵攻打起义军，萨希布因寡不敌众而撤退，但在撤退前杀死了所有的俘虏。西帕依在起义中作出的诸如此类的“暴行”本已令人震惊，却被《泰晤士报》等英国主流报刊进一步渲染夸大。一位居住在印度的英国牧师在《泰晤士报》上发文称起义的西帕依甚至割掉被他们抓住的英国人的鼻子和乳房。对此，马克思评论道：“总之，西帕依的可怕的体刑，当然会引起欧洲人的憎恶，其程度超过了对曼彻斯特和平协会会长下令用炽热的爆炸弹轰击广州居民住宅的憎恶，……对英国感化营中惯用的任何一种‘仁慈的’刑具的憎恶。”[2]337这里提到的“用炽热的爆炸弹轰击广州居民住宅”事件即英国侵略者发动的第二次鸦片战争。马克思在评论中所要表达的是，充当英国资产阶级喉舌的主流报刊，应当首先反省英国在奴役其他民族过程中所犯下的各种罪行，而不是一味渲染被奴役民族在反侵略斗争中的“暴行”。为此，马克思说：“残暴，像所有其他东西一样，也有自己的时尚，它因时因地而异。”[2]337在西方主流报刊中，英国殖民者的残暴被说成是军人的尚武行为，而印度起义军的残暴不仅仅只是残暴，还被故意夸大。

As for the "atrocities" of the Sepoys, Marx not only found them unsurprising, but considered them consistent with a religious ritual that the British colonists had sheltered and encouraged. Marx said: "The religion of the Hindoos has made them adepts in self-torture, and it was therefore quite natural that they should inflict torture upon the enemies of their race and creed, and particularly upon the English, who, but a few years before, had derived a revenue from the Juggernaut, and had protected and encouraged the sanguinary rites of that religion."[2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.337 The "Juggernaut" is what we today call the Ratha Yatra festival, a traditional festival of Hinduism. During the Juggernaut festival, a huge chariot bearing the image of the god Jagannath and offerings is paraded through the city, receiving the offerings of believers along the way. During this period, some believers, to display their piety, would lie down beneath the chariot wheels and be crushed to death. Thus, this festival contains elements of cruelty and bloodshed. The British-Indian authorities not only failed to prohibit such a festival, but sheltered and encouraged it in order to derive revenue from it. Therefore, it was quite natural that Indians, capable of self-torture, should treat their enemies with equal cruelty; since the British colonists had encouraged Indians to torture themselves, they had no right to condemn the "atrocities" of the Indian insurgents.

对于西帕依的“暴行”，马克思不仅不觉得奇怪，反而认为这与英国殖民者庇护和鼓励的一种宗教仪式具有一致性。马克思说：“印度人的宗教已使他们成为自我折磨的能手，所以对印度人来说，让他们的种族和教派的敌人受折磨是十分自然的，让英国人受折磨，更是理所当然，因为就在几年以前，英国人还一直在利用札格纳特节获取收益，庇护并鼓励这种残忍的宗教流血仪式。”[2]337“札格纳特节”即我们今天所讲的扎格纳特乘车节，是印度教的一种传统节日。在扎格纳特节期间，载有扎格纳特神像和贡品的庞大礼车在城市中绕行，并接受沿途信徒们的供奉。在这期间，有些信徒为了显示自己的虔诚，会躺在礼车之下让车轮轧死。所以，这个节日带有残忍和血腥的成分。对于这样一种节日，英印当局不仅不禁止，还为了从中获取收益而加以庇护和鼓励。所以，能够自我折磨的印度人以同样残忍的方式对待自己的敌人是很自然的事情，英国殖民者既然能够鼓励印度人自我折磨，那么对印度起义军的“暴行”也就不该加以指责。

IV. "Retribution" the Third: The Expenditure of the British Occupation of India May Reach a Sum That Its Revenue Cannot Compensate

四、“报应”之三：英国占领印度的开支有可能达到其收入难以补偿的数目

On the basis of the Indian revolt and the fact that the British government was compelled to aid the East India Company in suppressing it, Marx further raised a question of the most practical significance for the British government, namely: what was the true value of their rule over India? Marx pointed out: "The direct revenue, that is, the revenue in the form of tribute, that is, the surplus of Indian revenue over Indian expenditure, did not at all find its way into the British exchequer. On the contrary, the annual expenditure was very large."[2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.329 Since the revenue from colonial rule did not find its way into the British exchequer, for the British government pursuing colonial policy, expending enormous human, material, and financial resources to conquer India and maintain colonial rule over it was a tremendous burden. Thus, this constituted the "retribution" of colonialism the third.

基于印度起义以及英国政府不得不援助东印度公司镇压起义等问题，马克思进一步提出了一个对英国政府来说最具有现实性的问题，即他们统治印度的真正价值何在？马克思指出：“直接收入，即贡赋形式的收入，亦即在印度收入抵偿在印度支出以后的余额，根本没有落入英国国库。相反，每年的开支非常庞大。”[2]329既然殖民统治的收入没有落入英国国库，那对于推行殖民政策的英国政府来说，花费巨大的人力、物力和财力去征服印度并维持在印度的殖民统治权，是一种巨大的负担。所以，这就构成了殖民主义的“报应”之三。

Marx exposed that the British government dispatched large numbers of troops and gave large sums of money to aid the East India Company. Founded in 1600, the British East India Company, as its name suggests, was initially merely a commercial joint-stock company, a trading company monopolizing trade between Britain and the East. Although the East India Company was established under the authorization of the British king, for a long period the shareholders and operations of the East India Company were highly unstable, with shareholders changing so frequently that the investors for each voyage might differ, and under the rule of different kings the fate of the East India Company was likewise not the same. Marx pointed out in his analysis in "The East India Company, Its History and Results": "The East India Company was not really founded earlier than 1702, for in that year the various groups contending for the monopoly of the East India trade were united into a single company. Prior to that, the existence of the original East India Company had repeatedly been in jeopardy; during the protectorate of Cromwell its activity was interrupted for many years; under the rule of William III it was again almost wholly dissolved through the interference of Parliament."[4]4 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 1, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2012, p. 138.161 The reason the East India Company was able to grow and expand after undergoing various setbacks was fundamentally the result of the continuously growing strength of British commercial capital, and the result of capitalists bribing the British government. Marx exposed that, according to an investigation by the British Parliament, as early as 1693 the East India Company's annual expenditure under the heading of "gifts" to the powerful reached £90,000, whereas before the "Glorious Revolution" it had rarely exceeded £1,200 per year; the Duke of Leeds was accused of accepting bribes from the East India Company amounting to £5,000, and even the British king himself was proven to have received £10,000 in bribes[4]4 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 1, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2012, p. 138.162. On this basis, Marx pointed out: "The East India Company, like the Bank of England, obtained its power by bribing the government, and it could not, like the Bank of England, maintain that power except by continuing to bribe. Whenever its monopoly expired, it could renew its charter only by making new loans and offering new gifts to the government."[4]4 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 1, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2012, p. 138.162 As the commercial power of the East India Company continuously strengthened and Britain's position as master of the seas was established, by the mid-18th century the East India Company's power extended into the military sphere, and it achieved the conquest of parts of India. That the East India Company was able gradually to conquer so vast a country as India was inseparable from the strong support of the British government. This support was not only military but also financial. On this, Marx pointed out: "Since the East India Company set out in earnest on the path of conquest—that is now nearly a hundred years ago—its finances have been in a state of embarrassment. It has been obliged to apply repeatedly to Parliament, not only for military assistance to help it control the conquered territories, but also for financial assistance to save it from bankruptcy."[2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.329 By 1857, the loans extended by the British government to the East India Company exceeded £50 million; moreover, it also bore the transport costs of 30,000 regular troops to and from India and their maintenance costs while in India. In sharp contrast, the East India Company brought no actual benefit to the British government.

马克思揭露英国政府为援助东印度公司派遣了大量的军队并给了大量的金钱。成立于1600年的英国东印度公司如其名称，最初仅仅是一个商业股份公司，一个垄断英国与东方贸易的商业公司。虽然东印度公司在英国国王的授权下成立，但在很长一段时间内，东印度公司的股东和运营都很不稳定，股东变换频繁到每一航次的投资者可能都不一样，且在不同国王的统治下，东印度公司的命运也不尽相同。马克思在《东印度公司，它的历史与结果》中分析指出：“东印度公司真正的创始不早于1702年，因为在这一年，争夺东印度贸易垄断权的各个团体才联合成一个单一的公司。在此以前，原有的东印度公司的生存曾经一再陷于危殆，在克伦威尔摄政时期，它的活动曾中断多年；在威廉三世统治时期，它又因议会干涉而几乎全部解散。”[4]161东印度公司之所以能够在经历各种波折之后又发展壮大起来，从根本上说是英国商业资本的力量不断发展壮大的结果，是资本家贿赂英国政府的结果。马克思揭露，根据英国议会的调查，早在1693年，东印度公司在给权贵“送礼”项下的支出每年就达到9万英镑，而在“光荣革命”前每年还很少超过1200英镑；利兹公爵曾被指控接受东印度公司的贿赂达到5000英镑，就连英国国王本人也被证明受贿1万英镑[4]162。基于此，马克思指出：“东印度公司和英格兰银行一样，是靠着向政府行贿而获得权势的，它也不能不像英格兰银行那样继续用行贿来保持这种权势。每当它的垄断权期满时，它只有向政府贡献新的贷款，奉送新的礼物，才能更换特许状。”[4]162随着东印度公司商业势力的不断增强以及英国海上霸主地位的确立，到了18世纪中期，东印度公司的势力延伸到军事领域，并实现了对印度部分地区的征服。东印度公司之所以能够逐步征服偌大的印度，离不开英国政府的大力支持。这种支持不仅是军事上的，还有金钱上的。对此，马克思指出：“自从东印度公司大张旗鼓地踏上征服之途，——这是距今已将近一百年前的事，——它的财政就陷入窘困状态。它不得不屡次向议会求助，不仅请求军事援助，以帮助它控制所征服的领土，而且请求财政援助，使它免遭破产。”[2]329至1857年时，英国政府向东印度公司发放的借款超过了5000万英镑，不仅如此，还为东印度公司负担了3万正规军的来往运输费和在印度的维持费。与之形成鲜明对比的是，东印度公司没有给英国政府带来任何实际的利益。

Marx also exposed that the British government faced enormous expenditure in suppressing the Indian national uprising. After India was conquered by the East India Company, northern and central India were brought under the jurisdiction of the Bengal military district. The great national uprising of 1857 began precisely with the mutiny of the native Bengal troops. Only two months after the outbreak of the uprising, "of the entire native Bengal army of about 80,000 men, 30,000 had disappeared through mutiny, desertion, or dismissal. As for the remaining soldiers of this army, several regiments had openly declared that they would continue to remain loyal to and support the British authorities, but would not do what the native troops were presently doing: they would not assist the authorities against the mutineers of the native regiments, but on the contrary would aid their own 'bhai' (brothers). From Calcutta onward, they did this at almost every station."[2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.186 This is the scene Marx described in "The Indian Revolt" in July 1857. Based on the state of the Bengal army at that time, Marx pointed out that the sepoy uprising would very likely cause the complete disintegration of the Bengal army.[2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.186 In fact, even if the Bengal army did not completely disintegrate, it could not continue to function normally after the uprising, because the native troops who had either openly revolted or been disbanded to prevent open revolt already constituted the overwhelming majority of the original total. To suppress the uprising, the East India Company had to request the British government to send troops. For the British government, sending troops to India, 8,000 kilometers away, was a very large expense, requiring not only enormous transport costs but also the living expenses of the soldiers and various other costs. On this, Marx also analyzed and pointed out: "Even if we assume that the Burmese will not take advantage of the occasion, that the Maharaja of Gwalior will continue to support the British, that the ruler of Nepal, who commands the finest troops in India, will remain quiet, that the discontented Peshawar will not unite with the restless hill tribes, and that the Shah of Persia will not be foolish enough to withdraw from Herat—even so, the whole Bengal presidency would still need to be reconquered, and the whole Anglo-Indian army would still need to be re-established."[2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.187-188 This shows that Britain would have to pay enormous sums to reconquer India and re-establish the Anglo-Indian army. Yet the East India Company, which directly ruled India, had long fallen into financial difficulty and could not raise the necessary funds by issuing Indian government bonds. Thus, the various costs incurred by the British government in helping the East India Company suppress the Indian uprising could only be borne by itself. Apart from the direct expenses of occupying India, there were also some expenses related to the occupation of India. Marx held that the war against Russia in 1853–1856, namely the Crimean War, was related to India, because that war was caused by "jealousy of Russia's designs on India"[2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.332. From this, Marx pointed out: "If one further considers the endless conquests and continuous aggressive actions into which the British were drawn by their occupation of India, then the expenses connected with that occupation might, on the whole, reach a sum that could in no way be compensated by its revenues."[2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.332

马克思还揭露英国政府在镇压印度民族起义中面临着巨额开支。印度被东印度公司征服后，印度的北部和中部被纳入孟加拉军区管辖的范围。1857年的民族大起义正是从孟加拉土著军队的哗变开始的。仅在起义爆发两个月后，“拥有约8万人的整个土著孟加拉军队，已有3万人因哗变、逃亡或被开除而消失。至于这支军队的其余士兵，有几个团已公开宣称他们将仍然效忠和支持英国当局，但不做土著部队目前正在做的事：他们将不协助当局反对土著团的哗变者，相反，将援助自己的‘巴依’（兄弟）。从加尔各答起，他们几乎在每一个基地都是这样做的。”[2]186这是马克思在1857年7月的《印度起义》一文中描述的场景。根据孟加拉军队当时的这种状况，马克思指出，西帕依的起义很有可能造成孟加拉军全部瓦解。[2]186实际上，即便孟加拉军不全部瓦解，它也不可能在起义后照常运转下去，因为公开起义的或者为防止公开起义而被解散的土著部队已经占据了原有总数的绝大多数。为了镇压起义，东印度公司不得不请求英国政府派兵支援。对于英国政府来说，向8000公里之外的印度派军是一笔很大的开销，不仅要支付巨额的交通费，还要支付军人的生活费以及其他各种费用。针对此，马克思也分析指出：“即使我们假定，缅甸人不会趁机行动，瓜廖尔的摩诃拉扎将继续支持英国人，指挥着印度最精锐部队的尼泊尔统治者将保持平静，怀有不满情绪的白沙瓦不至于同不安分的山区部落联合起来，波斯的沙赫不会傻到从赫拉特撤退，——即使这样，整个孟加拉管区仍然需要重新征服，整个英印军队仍然需要重新建立。”[2]187-188这表明，英国要为重新征服印度和重建英印军队支付巨额费用。可是，直接统治印度的东印度公司早已陷入财政困境，无法依靠发行印度公债来筹措必要的款项。如此，英国政府帮助东印度公司镇压印度起义所产生的各种费用只能由它自己承担。除却占领印度的直接开支，还有一些与占领印度有关的开支。马克思认为1853—1856年的对俄战争即克里木战争就与印度有关，因为这场战争是由于“猜忌俄国对印度的图谋”而导致的[2]332。由此，马克思指出：“如果再考虑到英国人由于占领印度而被卷入的无止境的征服和连续不断的侵略行动，那么与这一占领有关的开支，总的说来，就有可能达到其收入无论如何也难以补偿的数目。”[2]332

Marx further exposed that the only benefit Britain derived from India was that it enabled "individual subjects" to gain profits[2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.329. Although the British government that pursued colonial policy gained nothing from ruling India, this did not preclude Britain's "individual subjects," namely a small number of capitalists, from reaping benefits. In his article "The Income of the English in India," Marx examined the basic circumstances under which four categories of British "subjects" profited from India. First, shareholders of the East India Company profited from India. Marx noted: "The East India Company has about 3,000 shareholders, and under the most recent charter they are guaranteed an annual interest of 10.5% on their paid-up capital of £6 million, that is, £630,000 per year."[2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.329 Judging from the operational mechanism of the East India Company, a shareholder needed to hold £500 worth of stock to have the right to speak at shareholders' meetings, £1,000 worth of stock to have the right to vote, and £2,000 worth of stock to become one of the twelve directors of the board, while the Company also paid each director a salary of £500. It is evident that merely to guarantee the income of the East India Company's shareholders, enormous wealth had to be extracted from India. Second, Britons serving in India profited from India. The posts of the British-Indian authorities included civil, religious, medical, army, and navy positions. Since Indian languages and customs were entirely different from those of the British, those taking up posts in India had to undergo necessary training. To this end, the East India Company also established specialized schools in India to train civil and military personnel. The annual salaries of civil officials who had received training and passed examinations ranged from $2,500 to $50,000, in addition to various allowances and extra subsidies. Bishops holding ecclesiastical posts earned an annual income of $25,000, while ordinary clergy earned between $2,500 and $7,000 per year. Physicians in medical posts earned annual incomes between $1,500 and $10,000. In addition, the high pay of 8,000 military officers also came from India. Marx concluded: "About ten thousand British subjects occupy various lucrative posts in India and draw salaries for serving there."[2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.331 Third, Britons who had retired from posts in the British-Indian authorities profited from India. Apart from the salaries of those currently serving in India, those who retired from British-Indian posts and returned to Britain still had their pensions paid by the British-Indian authorities. Marx said: "These pensions, together with dividends and interest on debts payable in Britain, consume $15 to $20 million collected annually from India."[2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.332 Fourth, Britons engaged in trade and private speculation in India profited from India. Marx noted that, in addition to Europeans holding government posts, at least 6,000 Europeans resident in India were engaged in trade and private speculation, including plantation owners, merchants, brokers, and factory owners. "These people almost entirely control India's foreign trade, which amounts to approximately $50 million in imports and exports, and their incomes are undoubtedly considerable."[2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.332 Marx held that although the enormous profits these "individual subjects" extracted from India increased the total national wealth of Britain, "corresponding to all this is the need to pay large expenditures," and the costs of the army and navy in India "grow continuously with the expansion of Indian territory."[2]2 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 12, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1998.332

马克思进一步揭露，英国从印度得到的好处仅仅是使“个别臣民”获得利益[2]329。尽管推行殖民政策的英国政府没有从统治印度中得到什么好处，但并不排除英国“个别臣民”即少数资本家获得利益。马克思在《英国人在印度的收入》一文中考察了四类英国“臣民”从印度获利的基本情况：一是东印度公司的股东从印度获利。马克思指出：“东印度公司有股东3000人左右，按照最近的特许状，要保证他们每600万英镑实付资本获得10.5%的年息，即每年63万英镑。”[2]329从东印度公司的运作机制看，股东要在股东大会享有发言权需持有价值500英镑的股票，要享有表决权则需持有价值1000英镑的股票，要成为12名董事会的董事则需持有价值2000英镑的股票，东印度公司还要支付董事每人500英镑的薪俸。可见，仅仅是为了保证东印度公司股东们的收入就要从印度攫取巨额的财富。二是在印度任职的英国人从印度获利。英印当局的职位包括文职、宗教职务、医职、陆军职和海军职。由于印度人的语言和风俗习惯完全不同于英国人，要在印度任职还需要接受一些必要的培训。为此，东印度公司还在印度建立了培养文职人员和军事人员的专科学校。接受过培训并通过考试的文职官员的年薪从2500美元至50000美元不等，除此之外还有各种津贴和额外补贴。担任教会职务的主教年收入达到25000美元，普通牧师的年收入从2500至7000美元不等。从事医职医生的年收入在1500至10000美元之间。此外，还有8000名军官的高额薪饷也来自于印度。马克思总结说：“大约有一万个英国臣民在印度占有各种赚钱的职位，因在印度供职而领取薪俸。”[2]331三是从英印当局职位上退休的英国人从印度获利。除了在印度任职的在职人员的薪俸，那些从英印职务上退休后回到英国的人，其养老金依然由英印当局支付。马克思说：“这些养老金，加上应在英国偿付的红利和债务利息，要耗费每年从印度收取的1500万到2000万美元”[2]332。四是在印度从事贸易和私人投机的英国人从印度获利。马克思指出，除了在政府任职的欧洲人，至少还有6000个常驻印度的欧洲人在从事贸易和私人投机，包括种植园主、商人、经纪人和工厂主。“这些人几乎完全控制着进出口贸易额大约5000万美元的印度对外贸易，他们的收入无疑是相当可观的。”[2]332马克思认为，尽管这些“个别臣民”在印度牟取的巨额收益增加了英国国民财富的总额，但是“与这一切相对应的是需要支付大笔开销”，且用于在印度的陆海军费用“随着印度领地的扩展在不断增长”[2]332。

V. The Contemporary Implications of "Retribution" in Marx's Critique of Colonialism

五、马克思殖民主义批判中“报应”的现实启示

Although the word "retribution" formally carries a religious coloring, in the context of Marx's critique of colonialism it centrally embodies the causal relationship between British colonial rule and the Indian uprising, as well as the negation of colonialism. On this basis, when commenting on the movement in which the Irish people demanded amnesty against Britain, Marx further pointed out: "A nation that enslaves another nation forges its own chains."[7]7 The Sepoys were Indian soldiers serving in the British East India Company's army; the Sepoy Mutiny (or Indian Rebellion) of 1857–1858 was a major uprising against British rule in India.440 That is to say, in Marx's view, the colonial policy pursued by the bourgeoisie brought disaster to the enslaved nations while also creating trouble for its own nation; colonial policy was in reality a predatory policy that harmed the common interests of humanity. Yet, to this day, a small number of major Western powers, represented by the United States, still adhere to colonialist thinking in their foreign relations, engaging in hegemonic, bullying, and domineering acts. Therefore, reviewing Marx's view of "retribution" put forward in his critique of colonialism has important contemporary implications.

“报应”这个词虽在形式上带有宗教色彩，但在马克思的殖民主义批判语境中却集中体现了英国殖民统治与印度起义之间的因果关系，以及对殖民主义的否定。在此基础上，马克思在评论英国遭遇爱尔兰人民要求大赦的运动时进一步指出：“奴役其他民族的民族是在为自己锻造镣铐。”[7]440也就是说，在马克思看来，资产阶级推行的殖民政策在给被奴役民族带去灾难的同时也给本民族制造了麻烦，殖民政策实为一种损害人类共同利益的掠夺政策。然而，时至今日，以美国为代表的少数西方大国在对外交往中依然奉行殖民主义思维，大搞霸权霸道霸凌行径。因此，回顾马克思在殖民主义批判中提出的“报应”观点具有重要的现实启示。

On the one hand, it suggests that the United States and Western countries should abandon colonialist thinking as early as possible in recognizing the general trend of world development. Marx's exposition on how British colonial rule over India encountered "retribution" was intended to tell people that a nation that enslaves other nations not only gains no real benefit from enslavement but also suffers adverse effects on its own development. However, although the world colonial system was declared ended by Namibia's independence in 1990, colonialist thinking has never left the stage of history. That is to say, the end of the colonial era did not end colonialism. In the post-colonial era, the neocolonialism pursued by the United States and the West has created serious obstacles to the development of other countries in the world, especially developing countries. As Xi Jinping has pointed out, hegemonic, bullying, and domineering acts such as bullying the weak, seizing by trickery and force, and zero-sum games are deeply harmful[8]8 Nana Sahib (1820–1859) was a leader of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, best known for his role in the Cawnpore massacre.60. Then what benefits can the United States and the West obtain from neocolonialism? We see that these countries have not achieved lasting domestic stability and development by pursuing hegemonic and bullying acts abroad; on the contrary, they have witnessed various disorders such as demonstrators violently storming the Capitol, slow or even stagnant economic growth, a surge in gun violence, and increasingly fierce racial discrimination and inequality. For example, on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the U.S. government, in order to seek its own selfish interests in the Middle East, has not only supported Israel militarily but also politically, especially by using its veto power in the UN Security Council to repeatedly veto draft resolutions on a ceasefire in Gaza, plunging Palestine into a humanitarian catastrophe. This has not only drawn strong condemnation from the international community but also aroused strong discontent among peace-loving Americans, with people in multiple cities taking to the streets to hold protests and demonstrations against the U.S. government's support for Israel. Xi Jinping emphasized: "History tells us that for a country to develop and prosper, it must grasp and conform to the general trend of world development; otherwise, it will inevitably be abandoned by history. What is the trend of today's world? There is only one answer: peace, development, cooperation, and mutual benefit."[9]9 The Second Opium War (1856–1860) was a war waged by Britain and France against China to expand their trading privileges and legalize the opium trade.266 Only by abandoning colonialist thinking and conforming to the general trend of world development toward peace, development, cooperation, and mutual benefit can the United States and Western countries achieve their own genuine lasting development and stability and realize true prosperity. In recent years, as developing countries have continued to grow and strengthen, some Western countries have begun to reflect deeply on the history of colonial rule; for example, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and several other former major colonial powers have successively apologized for their colonial history and the crimes they committed. Of course, this is only a beginning. For the United States and Western countries, to truly reflect on history, they must thoroughly abandon colonialist thinking and live in peace and pursue common development with all countries of the world, especially developing countries. Based on the current international situation, Xi Jinping emphasized: "Facts have proven once again that Cold War mentality only undermines the global peace framework, that hegemonism and power politics only endanger world peace, and that bloc confrontation only exacerbates security challenges in the 21st century."[10]10 The Juggernaut (Ratha Yatra) is an annual Hindu chariot festival held at Puri, Odisha, during which devotees sometimes threw themselves under the wheels of the temple chariot as an act of devotion.451 In order to promote the shared security of the world, at the opening ceremony of the Boao Forum for Asia Annual Conference 2022, Xi Jinping put forward the Global Security Initiative on behalf of the Chinese side. It can be said that this initiative points the way for the contemporary world, especially the United States and Western countries, to conform to the historical trend and achieve peaceful development.

一方面，启示美西方国家在认清世界发展大势中尽早抛弃殖民主义思维。马克思关于英国殖民统治印度遭遇“报应”的论述，意在告诉人们，奴役其他民族的民族不仅不会从奴役中得到真正的好处，还会对其自身的发展造成不利影响。然而，尽管世界殖民体系已经由1990年纳米比亚的独立宣告终结，殖民主义思维却从未退出历史舞台。也就是说，殖民时代的终结并没有终结殖民主义。在后殖民时代，美西方推行的新殖民主义给世界上其他国家特别是发展中国家的发展制造了严重的障碍。诚如习近平所指出的，恃强凌弱、巧取豪夺、零和博弈等霸权霸道霸凌行径危害深重[8]60。那么，美西方从新殖民主义中又能得到什么好处？我们看到，这些国家不仅没有因对外推行霸权主义和霸凌行径而实现国内的持久稳定和发展，反而出现了示威者暴力冲击国会大厦、经济增速缓慢甚至停滞、枪支暴力事件激增、种族歧视与不平等愈演愈烈等各种乱象。如，在巴以冲突问题上，美国政府为了谋求在中东的一己私利，不仅在军事上支持以色列，还在政治上支持以色列，特别是利用在联合国安理会的一票否决权多次否决加沙停火决议草案，致使巴勒斯坦深陷人道主义灾难。这不仅引发了国际社会的强烈谴责，还引发了爱好和平的美国人民的强烈不满，多个城市的民众走上街头举行抗议示威活动，抗议美国政府支持以色列。习近平强调指出：“历史告诉我们，一个国家要发展繁荣，必须把握和顺应世界发展大势，反之必然会被历史抛弃。什么是当今世界的潮流？答案只有一个，那就是和平、发展、合作、共赢。”[9]266美西方国家只有抛弃殖民主义思维，顺应和平、发展、合作、共赢这一世界发展大势，才能实现自身真正的持久发展和稳定，才能实现真正的繁荣。近些年来，随着发展中国家不断发展壮大，部分美西方国家已经开始深刻反思殖民统治的历史，如，法国、德国、荷兰等几个曾经的殖民主义大国相继为殖民历史及其犯下的罪行道歉。当然，这仅仅是一个开始，对于美西方国家来说，要真正做到反思历史，必须彻底抛弃殖民主义思维，与世界各国特别是发展中国家和平相处、共同发展。立足于当今世界的国际现状，习近平强调指出：“事实再次证明，冷战思维只会破坏全球和平框架，霸权主义和强权政治只会危害世界和平，集团对抗只会加剧21世纪安全挑战。”[10]451为了促进世界安危与共，在博鳌亚洲论坛2022年年会开幕式上的主旨演讲中，习近平代表中方提出了全球安全倡议。可以说，这一倡议为当代世界尤其是美西方国家顺应历史潮流、实现和平发展指明了方向。

On the other hand, it enlightens all countries of the world to jointly promote the building of a new type of international relations centered on win-win cooperation. From Marx's exposition, we see that the "retribution" encountered by British colonists in India originated from their cruel colonial rule over India, and those who put the "retribution" into practice were the Indian people who dared to resist colonial rule. It was precisely the long-term unyielding anti-colonial struggles of the people in colonial and semi-colonial countries that ultimately brought about the complete collapse of the colonial system, which had inflicted profound suffering on the peoples of the world. However, under the traditional international relations dominated by Western developed capitalist countries, developing countries liberated from the yoke of colonialism still encounter various unfair, unjust, and unreasonable treatment in their interactions with Western developed countries. Therefore, to achieve genuine peace and development, it is necessary to break with traditional international relations and build a new type of international relations. China, which was enslaved by colonialism for over a century and, under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, has realized the leap from standing up, to growing rich, to becoming strong, was the first to propose the building of a new type of international relations. On March 23, 2013, in his speech at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Xi Jinping pointed out: "In the face of the profound changes in the international situation and the objective requirement that all countries share weal and woe, all countries should jointly promote the building of a new type of international relations centered on win-win cooperation, and the peoples of all countries should work together to safeguard world peace and promote common development."[9]9 The Second Opium War (1856–1860) was a war waged by Britain and France against China to expand their trading privileges and legalize the opium trade.273 On October 18, 2017, Xi Jinping further defined the new type of international relations in his report to the 19th National Congress of the CPC, proposing to "promote the building of a new type of international relations featuring mutual respect, fairness and justice, and win-win cooperation"[1]1 “Lifting a rock only to drop it on one’s own feet” (搬起石头砸自己的脚): A Chinese idiom meaning to suffer from one’s own actions, often used to describe self-inflicted harm or unintended negative consequences of one’s schemes.187. Among these, mutual respect means respecting the right of the peoples of all countries to independently choose their own development paths, respecting the systems and civilizations of all countries, and respecting the core interests and major concerns of all countries; the formation of the new type of international relations takes mutual respect as its basic premise. Fairness and justice means discarding the Cold War mentality and power politics, upholding fairness and justice, and insisting that all countries, regardless of size, strength, or wealth, are equal; the new type of international relations takes fairness and justice as its basic norm. Win-win cooperation means discarding the law of the jungle where the strong prey on the weak, seeking development through cooperation, promoting peace through cooperation, and replacing zero-sum games with mutual benefit; the new type of international relations takes win-win cooperation as its basic goal. It can be seen that the new type of international relations is proposed in response to the drawbacks of traditional international relations, with the aim of safeguarding world peace and promoting common development. Although traditional international relations also speak of peace, the United States and Western countries frequently use peace as a pretext to launch wars; although they also speak of development, the United States and Western countries speak only of their own development, not common development, and even build their own development on the sacrifices of other countries. Therefore, only by building a new type of international relations can genuine peace and development be achieved. Since proposing the building of the new type of international relations, China has not only continuously improved the theory of the new type of international relations in theory, but has also actively promoted its construction in practice, from strengthening the BRICS cooperation mechanism, to promoting the Belt and Road Initiative, to hosting the G20 Hangzhou Summit and the Beijing Summit of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, and so on, making significant contributions to the building of a new type of international relations of win-win cooperation. Entering the New Era and the new journey, the 20th National Congress of the CPC once again wrote "promoting the building of a new type of international relations" into its report, emphasizing that "China adheres to developing friendly cooperation with all countries on the basis of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, and promotes the building of a new type of international relations"[8]8 Nana Sahib (1820–1859) was a leader of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, best known for his role in the Cawnpore massacre.61. Of course, the ultimate formation of the new type of international relations is not a matter for any one country or a few countries, but depends on the joint efforts of all countries in the world, just as Xi Jinping advocated in his speech at the General Debate of the 75th Session of the United Nations General Assembly: "Let us unite, uphold the common values of humanity of peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom, promote the building of a new type of international relations, promote the building of a community with a shared future for mankind, and jointly create a better future for the world!"[11]11 The East India Company was the British joint-stock company that ruled large parts of India on behalf of the British Crown until the Crown took direct control after the 1857 rebellion.13

另一方面，启示世界各国共同推动建立以合作共赢为核心的新型国际关系。从马克思的论述中我们看到，英国殖民者在印度遭遇的“报应”源于其对印度的残酷的殖民统治，而将“报应”付诸实践的则是勇于反抗殖民统治的印度人民。也正是殖民地半殖民地人民长期不屈不挠的反殖民主义斗争，才使得给世界人民带来深重灾难的殖民主义体系最终土崩瓦解。然而，在西方发达资本主义国家主导的传统国际关系下，从殖民主义的奴役下解放出来的发展中国家，却仍在与西方发达国家的交往中遭遇各种不公平、不公正和不合理对待。因此，要实现真正的和平与发展，必须打破传统国际关系，构建新型国际关系。曾经被殖民主义奴役长达上百年、在中国共产党的领导下实现从站起来、富起来到强起来飞跃的中国，率先提出了构建新型国际关系的主张。2013年3月23日，习近平在莫斯科国际关系学院的演讲中指出：“面对国际形势的深刻变化和世界各国同舟共济的客观要求，各国应该共同推动建立以合作共赢为核心的新型国际关系，各国人民应该一起来维护世界和平、促进共同发展。”[9]2732017年10月18日，习近平在党的十九大报告中进一步界定新型国际关系，提出“推动建设相互尊重、公平正义、合作共赢的新型国际关系”[1]187。其中，相互尊重指相互尊重各国人民自主选择发展道路的权利，相互尊重各国的制度和文明，相互尊重各国的核心利益和重大关切，新型国际关系的形成以相互尊重为基本前提;公平正义是指摒弃冷战思维和强权政治，坚持公平、公正，坚持国家不分大小、强弱、贫富一律平等，新型国际关系以公平正义为基本准则；合作共赢是指摒弃弱肉强食的丛林法则，在合作中谋发展、在合作中促和平，以互惠互利取代零和博弈，新型国际关系以合作共赢为基本目标。可见，新型国际关系是针对传统国际关系的弊端提出来的，旨在维护世界和平、促进共同发展。传统国际关系虽然也讲和平，但美西方国家却动辄以和平为借口发动战争；虽然也讲发展，但美西方国家只讲自身发展不讲共同发展，甚至将自身发展建立在他国的牺牲之上。所以，只有构建新型国际关系，才能实现真正的和平与发展。自提出构建新型国际关系主张以来，中国不仅在理论上不断地完善新型国际关系理论，还在实践中积极推动新型国际关系的构建，从强化金砖国家合作机制，到推动“一带一路”建设，再到主办二十国集团杭州峰会、中非合作论坛北京峰会，等等，为合作共赢新型国际关系的构建作出了重大贡献。进入新时代新征程，党的二十大再次把“推动构建新型国家关系”写入报告，强调“中国坚持在和平共处五项原则基础上同各国发展友好合作，推动构建新型国际关系”[8]61。当然，新型国际关系的最终形成不是哪一个国家或者几个国家的事情，而是依赖于世界各国共同努力，诚如习近平在第七十五届联合国大会上的讲话中所倡导的：“让我们团结起来，坚守和平、发展、公平、正义、民主、自由的全人类共同价值，推动构建新型国际关系，推动构建人类命运共同体，共同创造世界更加美好的未来！”[11]13

Online editor: Tong Xin

网络编辑：同心