Critical Analysis Of The Article “A Trade Of No Dishonor’

The article, A Trade of No Dishonor: Piracy, Commerce, and Community in the Western Indian Ocean, Twelfth to Sixteenth Century, by Sebastian R. Prange emphasizes the surprisingly controversial relationship of piracy to sovereignty and to trade in the Indian Ocean. The thesis of the article states that “the failure to acknowledge piracy as a systemic feature of the premodern Indian Ocean world is rooted in false preconceptions that have been derived from the history of Europe” both in the relation of piracy to sovereignty and to trade.

The first issue is the role of sovereignty in pirates of the Indian Ocean; which differs from Europe only in the indigenous modes of ruling political organizations. European sea raiders in the Indian Ocean are almost always classified as privateers, while their Asian counterparts are classified as pirates. The Malabar pirates were composed of caste-contained communities, that “practiced a form of autonomous political organization (“ruled by their own rulers”)”. They also organized attacks in fleets of ships and this pillaging was a seasonal communal activity, involving men, women and their children. Rulers near the Indian ocean found payoffs from allowing piracy and so turned a blind eye towards its existence, as seen in Mediterranean and Atlantic history as well. Rulers, also, used pirates as a military resource in return for their indifference towards illegal activities.

The second issue on which controversies around piracy have arisen is the relationship between piracy and trade. Pirates and merchants frequently interacted through both direct and indirect investments. Malabari merchants would often purchase goods from pirates to sell at a higher price, regardless of where these goods were stolen from. Piracy flourished in the Indian Ocean similarly to Europe as the “capital accumulated from piracy could also be reinvested into regular commerce, including the highly profitable maritime trade”. Therefore, wealthy Muslim merchants regularly invested in pirate ventures. All in all, maritime violence already existed in the Indian Ocean and the piracy that occurred in this region involved both sovereignty and trade. The primary accounts that Prange references in the article are from many other secondary sources, such as books and articles, on the subject of pirates in the Indian Ocean. The key points of these secondary sources are then used to support the main argument of Prange’s article. Many of the accounts are of those who had been subjected to or witnessed the organized thievery and violence of pirates in the Indian Ocean. One of the primary accounts mentioned in order to support Prange’s clarification of the controversy of pirates in the Indian Ocean is William Edward Hall’s, A Treatise on International Law. Hall’s work mentions that piracy has come to be defined as “acts of violence done upon the ocean by a body of men acting independently of any politically organised society”. Prange uses this citation to support the thesis that the failure to acknowledge piracy as a main component of the premodern political organization within the Indian Ocean is due to bias rooted in European history. This is done through identifying the political organization that governs Europe, sovereignty, and the ruling caste-contained, autonomous political organization of the Indian Ocean. A primary source, mentioned in the cited translational work of G. R. Tibbetts, states that the Arab navigator Ibn Majid warned in his nautical manual: “Beware of the al-Kabkurı… They are a people ruled by their own rulers and number about a 1000 men and are a people of both land and sea with small boats”. Ibn Majid’s account specifies that the 5pirates in the Indian Ocean practiced a form of autonomous government. Therefore, the pirates of the Indian Ocean did in fact live in a politically organised society and so the controversy lies in the relation of piracy to sovereignty or to a political organization.

Furthermore, Prange discusses various secondary sources in the article in order to support the notion that the controversy between piracy and trade in the Indian Ocean lies in the interchangeable roles of pirates and merchants. Prange’s article cites’ Albert Gray and H. C. P. Bell, The Voyage of Francois Pyrard of Laval to the East Indies, the Maldives, the Moluccas and Brazil to support the thesis once again. Gray mentions that a visitor to southern India, Pyrard de Laval, wrote that “Malabari merchants had few scruples in purchasing goods obtained through rapine: ‘the merchants buy the goods filched by the others [i. e. , the pirates] to sell at a higher price, even though they have been taken from their own relatives and friends’”. This reference supports the theme of the heavy involvement of 6pirates in trade in the Indian Ocean during the twelfth and sixteenth century. In addition, Prange uses a study by Pius Malekandathil to link Mappila merchants to pirates through trade. The Mappila merchants used pirate ships to “transport their own consignments and harass commercial rivals (including, but not limited to, the Portuguese), as well as claim a share of any loot” between both the pirates and merchants.

The article, A Trade of No Dishonor: Piracy, Commerce, and Community in the Western Indian Ocean, Twelfth to Sixteenth Century, by Sebastian R. Prange convinces the reviewer that something of significance has been revealed. The revealed pertains to the definition of pirate, and its general vagueness. Pirates are described as those who commit violent acts upon the ocean and act independently of a politically organised society. The article challenges the current definition of piracy by emphasizing the importance of knowing what makes up a “politically organised society”. The European political leaders of sovereign states gave sea raiders the letter of marque to make their theft legal by law; these legal robbers were known as “privateers”. In the Indian Ocean, sea raiders were ruled by indigenous political organizations and were also legally allowed by their “headmen” to pirate others goods; these legal- in their own right- robbers were called pirates. The definition of pirate is therefore “an unfortunate echo of the chroniclers of European imperialism, as it places Asian pirates into a realm of illegitimacy and subversion. ” Furthermore, both European rulers and those of the Indian Ocean used pirate excursions for their own personal profit and at times of war to their countries advantage in both fighting and impeding on the enemies trade.

The article, also, convinces the reader of the significant lack of a true definition of the term pirate, in proving that the merchants of both the Mediterranean and Atlantic sea and the Indian sea bought goods from those who pillaged. The line between piracy and mercantilism are blurred, as the pirates both pillaged and sold goods at low prices, to which the merchants purchased and demanded more. This demand of low priced goods fueled and fed piracy, therefore creating a cycle. The classic “piracy cycle, ” was first made a concept in Philip Gosse’s The History of Piracy, which outlines the cycle of trade between pirates and merchants of the state. In this cycle, European “small seafaring groups [are] driven to predation by necessity or opportunism, who develop into increasingly complex organizations until they become powerful enough to enter into alliances with established states. ” In the Indian Ocean, established autonomous political organizations allowed the 9act of piracy and as a result created and formed their own pirating state. Therefore, once again, the term piracy and pirate are too vague to establish one specific act that pertains to piracy and both “piracy cycles” are then attributed to all who are predators at sea has successfully convinced the reviewer that there is something noteworthy to take from this article; the revelation that the term piracy is too vague. What one state considers an act of piracy may very well be legal in another.

The author, Sebastian R. Prange succeeds in proving his thesis through detailed and plentiful discussion of secondary resources. Prange takes previously made known knowledge on piracy, trade and political organizations of the Indian Ocean and uses these sources to support his thesis. The majority of information is not his own, but he harnesses the essence of multiple works to draw his own significant conclusion. The well supported conclusion that due to only looking through a European lense of history the Asian pirates of the Indian Ocean were viewed as illegitimate and pest like. However, the author has made it clear in his article that “Malabar’s pirates suggest themselves as exemplars of, and vectors in, the negotiation, constitution, and variation of these global zones of commercial interaction, political contestation, and legal reordering that came to define the early modern world. ” Essentially, the pirates of the Indian Ocean contributed greatly to the development 10of trade and the formation of political organizations that established the roots of the early modern world. The thesis of the article is therefore proven through an array of insightful and valuable secondary articles that encompass many primary sources within them.