Sukarno and Cabral

Both Sukarno and Cabral seem to believe that the nominal independence is not the final end. Liberation is a continuous struggle. Sukarno, on an international forum, celebrates the fact that many of the formerly colonised nations have achieved independence. Although it might seem as if this official independence is the great event for Sukarno, he has foresight enough to say that the task is not done. Although independence may have been achieved, and it is a great event, it is not complete. This independence is threatened by the new faces of imperialism: “economic control, intellectual control, actual physical control by a small but alien community within a nation”. Another threat remains, and it is the threat of war, “great chasms [which] yawn between nations and groups of nations”. Cabral agrees that the work is not complete. He too identifies that nominal independence is not enough, and sees the pitfalls which liberation struggle may be prone to. He analyses how the imperialists create divisions within the oppressed, and how this imperial logic might still remain even when the original dominator has departed. The leaders of the liberation movement are liable to fall prey to the imperial logic and the liberation struggle may be hijacked. They might be “culturally alienated” from the great majority of people. In his analysis Cabral seems to have a more nuanced understanding of liberation struggle and the particular challenges it might face, for he sees the internal divisions which might jeopardise the struggle more nefariously than external factors. Even though Sukarno too identifies the problem, his treatment is cursory, perhaps because he is addressing an international gathering and the considerations of international unity are more important to him than those of an intra-national unity.

Their views regarding the course of action to be pursued also align. Both aim at unity and believe that unity will lead to attainment of the liberation only a glimpse of which has been seen so far. Both have a vision of the development and unity on the grandest possible scale. However, they diverge about the nature of this unity. For Sukarno, this unity is international in nature. It is the coming together of all the formerly colonised to be a collective front against imperialism. Even though all these nations are different, for Sukarno, this is not a problem. “Unity in Diversity” is his cry. He believes, somewhat romantically that all these countries would be governed by tolerance and that distances can be overcome. Cabral on the other hand has a more nuanced understanding of difference. He demonstrates how within a liberation struggle difference among the occupied may be a difference of attitudes towards colonial logic. Liberation requires both “vigilance” against and dismantling of this cultural alienation. The liberation struggle must, for Cabral, bring about “a convergence of the levels of culture of the various social categories which can be deployed for the struggle, and to transform them into a single national cultural force which acts as the basis and the foundation of the armed struggle”; or, internal unity must first be reached. Sukarno, on the other hand, seems almost oblivious to or unwilling to talk about the nature of differences within the Third World countries, and how relations of dependence upon the former imperial master might still influence how they act; that is to say, the differences may not be so surmountable after all. Also, various dictatorships in newly liberated countries point to the fact that the logic of imperialism, something Cabral is sensitive to, still reigns true. The elite fostered by the imperialists has replaced them whereas the imperial institutions remain unchanged. What unity will there be in diversity, if this diversity is still polluted by imperialist logic?