Blog 3 - Sukarno and Cabral

Colonialism, not only, constituted visible oppression on the material realities of the colonized as evidenced in their economic exploitation and political subjugation, but inconspicuously on their culture and psyche as well. Both Bandung and Cabral recognize the threat of this potent, imperceptible effect of colonialism on the formation of a united front for liberation and march towards progress post-liberation. However, the two diverge on which road to take: Cabral favours armed struggle while Bandung looks to more dialogic, peaceful means.

Both a determinant and the manifestation of a society’s economic and political functioning, culture is underscored by Cabral as the spine for liberation movements. Merely negating and superimposing on the colonized people’s culture isn’t enough for sustaining imperialist domination. Cultural oppression was perpetuated by creating a rift between the indigenous elite and popular masses by aligning the former’s culture to the imperialist masters’ while alienating them from other sections of the population. Trapped in an inferior complex, they view their colonial masters and their cultures as an aspiration and theirs as a denigration of it. They start shedding their culture to embody the colonizer’s and in doing so, cooperate in the colonial agenda of cultural repression. In an attempt to safeguard their economic, social, and political privileges and interests, the ruling classes participate in the colonial machinery of repression and renounce its involvement in the national liberation movement. Guided by what Bandung calls fear, the ruling classes places its trust in the imprisonment of colonialism as it secures their future instead of plunging it in the uncertain potential of freedom. It could be that the arms being raised against the exploitative power of foreign imperialists may be raised against them as they maintain their disproportionately unequal material rewards. Hence, they act, out of fear, thoughtlessly and foolishly to place their material interests over their fellow countrymen’s culture and aspirations, for progress can be achieved through critical appraisal and mobilization of culture. Bandung, in an attempt to unite these various social classes, urges that the colonized shouldn’t be motivated by these misleading fears but hope in and resolve for the freedom to choose their own destinies and ensuring these destinies justify the sacrifices made for it. The root of the conflict lies in the variety of desires and within a colony, obstructing its fight for liberation, the conflict lies between its masses and ruling classes desiring different objectives.

Cabral posits armed struggle as an efficient means for uniting these classes, by bringing the ruling classes in proximity to the peasants and strengthening one’s own culture through mass participation in political processes. Bandung, on the other hand, acknowledges the lack of economic, military, and political inferiority of the colonized people. He realizes that they cannot mobilize troops to achieve independence and rehabilitating their economies and societies. They don’t possess the power and skills that their colonial masters do, but what they can do is harness their non-material strengths in favour of creating a voice on the global platform. United, the colonies can project their voices into world affairs and decide their own trajectories. While Cabral views armed struggle as an inevitable fact of culture and a necessary instrument of liberation, Bandung presses for the preservation of peace and argues for its necessity to protect the independence from colonialists.

Regardless of how both envision achieving independence from the colonialists and the means to safeguarding it whilst steering it towards the fulfilment of national aspirations, they understand the importance of creating a united front that transcends class interests in favour of national cultural values.