Monotheism has a property of blaming the heathen reaction as a reaction against the heathen culture itself. This is seen in such instances where the native response cannot be obliterated, in the standard way, by deeming it as oppressive.
The usual characterization of the native resistance is that the native resistance is the real oppressor of the native, rather than the colonizer; the native culture is deemed as 'immoral' and 'fallen' and responsible for its own eclipse, and any elements supporting the heathen framework are reactionary and illiberal. The mask here is worn by the Colonizing Empire; and the liberal enacts the mask for the Empire by terming the native as the real aggressor and, by implication, the Empire as benign. The Orientalist "loves" the native soul even more than the native resistance and wants to save the native from the depredations of the native resistance.
When this fails or even simultaneously, an orientalist characterization of the native resistance itself is undertaken. This is the stage where, for example, white Liberals assume the voice and "don the clothes" of the native resistance. It is Orientalist "love" enacted "upon" the native resistance and not just with the unsaved native soul. In facetious terms, the native resistance is deemed as the "bitch" of the liberal (and of the Empire). The Empire is openly deemed oppressive and the implicating mask is transferred to the native culture whom the native resister wanted to alert. Now the sant-sipahi, originally fashioned to retaliate against the colonizer, is deemed as exposing the hypocritical (the prototypical abrahamic normative 'sin') mask worn by the native culture. And the manmukh-gurmukh anti-colonial discourse is deemed as "anti-idolatry" and antithetcial to native culture. Remember the latter century Bhakti 'movement' (Gurus, Ramdas) was concomitant with the native militarized response which broke the back of the monotheist Empire; but in the subsequent colonial discourse 'Bhakti' was transformed into a liberation from the immoral native culture itself, and a foreshadow of the subsequent colonial "liberation"!!
More broadly, the Sikh nationalist and anti-colonial movement was turned against the native culture. Please see Jasdev Singh Rai's video where he characterizes the Sikh movement as a movement against the secular state (which was presumably later subverted against the native culture).
This latter stage is what is seen in Daniel's encounter with Darius, the great monarch. The great monarch is shown as benevolent but powerless, and easily fooled. Daniel tricks Darius into sacrificing his own soldiers and Dariusdoes not even realize his mistake but pays obeisance to the Monotheist Deity. And the glowing terms imparted to the benevolent fool Darius are now mistaken for Darius' empathy and involvement with the monotheist agent Daniel by Darius' heathen heirs themselves! It is like saying that Shivaji himself approved and initiated the colonial project.
The usual characterization of the native resistance is that the native resistance is the real oppressor of the native, rather than the colonizer; the native culture is deemed as 'immoral' and 'fallen' and responsible for its own eclipse, and any elements supporting the heathen framework are reactionary and illiberal. The mask here is worn by the Colonizing Empire; and the liberal enacts the mask for the Empire by terming the native as the real aggressor and, by implication, the Empire as benign. The Orientalist "loves" the native soul even more than the native resistance and wants to save the native from the depredations of the native resistance.
When this fails or even simultaneously, an orientalist characterization of the native resistance itself is undertaken. This is the stage where, for example, white Liberals assume the voice and "don the clothes" of the native resistance. It is Orientalist "love" enacted "upon" the native resistance and not just with the unsaved native soul. In facetious terms, the native resistance is deemed as the "bitch" of the liberal (and of the Empire). The Empire is openly deemed oppressive and the implicating mask is transferred to the native culture whom the native resister wanted to alert. Now the sant-sipahi, originally fashioned to retaliate against the colonizer, is deemed as exposing the hypocritical (the prototypical abrahamic normative 'sin') mask worn by the native culture. And the manmukh-gurmukh anti-colonial discourse is deemed as "anti-idolatry" and antithetcial to native culture. Remember the latter century Bhakti 'movement' (Gurus, Ramdas) was concomitant with the native militarized response which broke the back of the monotheist Empire; but in the subsequent colonial discourse 'Bhakti' was transformed into a liberation from the immoral native culture itself, and a foreshadow of the subsequent colonial "liberation"!!
More broadly, the Sikh nationalist and anti-colonial movement was turned against the native culture. Please see Jasdev Singh Rai's video where he characterizes the Sikh movement as a movement against the secular state (which was presumably later subverted against the native culture).
This latter stage is what is seen in Daniel's encounter with Darius, the great monarch. The great monarch is shown as benevolent but powerless, and easily fooled. Daniel tricks Darius into sacrificing his own soldiers and Dariusdoes not even realize his mistake but pays obeisance to the Monotheist Deity. And the glowing terms imparted to the benevolent fool Darius are now mistaken for Darius' empathy and involvement with the monotheist agent Daniel by Darius' heathen heirs themselves! It is like saying that Shivaji himself approved and initiated the colonial project.