پيوستہ رہ شجر سے ، اميد بہار رکھ

As the wave of decolonisation swept across the (third) world, the fathers of the new nations emerged proud with their distinctive visions of liberation. In this time of dazzling optimism and infinite hope, most of the leaders declared culture to be the cornerstone of the new era of independence.

Amongst the front row of these men, was Sukarno of Indonesia. And not too far behind, was the Bissau-Guinean intellectual Amílcar Cabral. Both these men stressed on the importance of culture as the primary tool of resistance against foreign domination, and in building the future of the emerging states. They were, undoubtedly, shrewd men who knew that colonialism was not limited to physical presence of the Whites; it was also their continuing control in the cultural, economic and socio-political arenas of the formally sovereign countries. 

Under this overarching mindset, however, there were distinct differences in the approaches and, consequently, ideas of the future of the two leaders. Cabral’s ideas seem to be rather limited, focusing on the work that must be done within every state to throw off the yoke of foreign domination. Perhaps, due to this narrower focus, Cabral could pick on the important problems that Sukarno clearly missed in his romanticised vision of the future. Sukarno stresses on cultural unity amongst all the Asian and African nations. In doing so, he ends up ignoring the significance of the fact that culture is not a monolithic entity and may not even be uniform within a country, let alone a continent or across continents, as pointed out by Cabral. Thus, although Sukarno acknowledges that the Asian and African nations have vast differences, but he believes they are nevertheless united in their experiences and desires. On the other hand, Cabral believes that first and foremost, we need to create a single and united national culture. He brings up the issue of the culturally alienated sections of the society, used by the colonisers in their domination, and how they must be reconverted. Before moving to an international or trans-national stage, then, one must critically evaluate their own culture and society, and fix it. 

Sukarno believes that, as independent nations and protectors of this independence, the third world must immediately set sail on the journey to bring about world peace and knock sense into the Western nations, who are drunken on the power of their weapons of destruction. He assumes that independence has been a uniform experience for all, and having achieved it, it is time to move beyond one’s own state. Cabral, however, stresses on the problems for the vast majority of the peoples within a state even after independence. As he rightly points out, in some cases, independence from colonial rule has merely been brought about by the local elites to restore their domination. From this lens, Sukarno could arguably be accused to be amongst these very elites, and hence, his vision for the future completely overlook the oppressed sections within his own state. Thus, Cabral believes that national unity precedes transnational unity, and that the former needs to be brought about by persistent efforts to perfect one’s own society and culture. 

Fundamentally, Sukarno and Cabral both agree with the centrality of cultural freedom in decolonisation; however, the former has a more global and outward-oriented approach, whereas the latter takes independence to be, first of all, a moment of introspection.