The Diagnosis of Colonialism

Both Sukharno and Cabral share a deep anxiety concerning an identity crisis, stemming from European imperialism. Both agree that colonialism ultimately boils down to cultural domination, and thus attempt to fill this identity void with an affirmative response to cultural identity. European imperialism was strongly predicated on eliminating difference, and inevitably entailed a reduction in possibilities. For example, the entire distinctions between civilized and barbaric, ethos and mythos etc, were instruments for elevating one particular way over another. It rejected cultural diversity, and created strict dichotomies, which years of imperial rule solidified. The New World was premised on the inversion of colonial logic, so it was necessary to reclaim cultural diversity. Both Sukharno and Cabral agree that colonialism denied a different way of inhabiting the world, which is their diagnosis of colonialism; the prescription to which would be regaining cultural identity and diversity. However, Cabral’s views are more mindful and nuanced, as he highlights the class factor in this diagnosis, which Sukharno ignores.

Sukharno’s diagnosis of colonialism is encapsulated in his own words, “What harm is in diversity?” The New World was not supposed to be an extension of colonial order. It was not supposed be a reinforcement of the East-West binary. It was supposed to be a world of possibilities and differences, which is exactly what Sukharno wanted to establish at the Badung Conference. He understands that the nations represented there come from different social, cultural, and racial backgrounds. However, he downplays the role of these differences as possible sources of conflict, and emphasizes that conflict emanates “from variety of desires,” and not such differences. The Conference was ultimately a vehicle for portraying the possibility of overcoming the superficial divisions imposed by colonialism, while maintaining the unique individual cultural identity. “New Asia” and “New Africa” were prescriptions for the diagnosis of colonialism. Both were symbolic of how cultural diversity was not only accepted, but also exuberantly promoted in the New World. This carved out the possibility of the revival of different cultures which colonialism had threatened, and finally aimed to reclaim the cultural void.

Cabral converges with Sukharno on agreeing that colonialism was indefinitely premised on jeapordizing the culture of the colonized. His understandings delve deeper into the question of cultural domination when he says that imperial domination was the negation of the colonized culture. A nation can only be free if it embraces positive attributes of the colonizer’s culture and other cultures, and conflates them with its own culture. This directly ties into Sukharno’s ideas regarding the possibility  of different nations collaborating and promoting cultural diversity. He agrees that that liberation movements must entail a mass character, or the popular renditions of culture, but he delves deeper than Sukharno when he brings class-based intersections into the argument.

 The ‘mass character’ of the liberation movement is often reflective of certain prominent sectors of the society, rather than the society as a whole. He brings attention to the cultural alienation of a section of society, which colonialism orchestrates in an attempt to assimilate the colonized to their culture, and create a divide between the indigenous elite and the so-called masses. The “petite bourgeoisie” begins to carry a superiority-complex, alienates itself from its indigenous culture, and is subject to more social privileges. However, with  learning, access to technical knowledge, and social prejudice intact, these people can ascend to the highest positions in the liberation struggle, which means that political leaders, even the most celebrated ones may be culturally-alienated.These people assimilate to the colonizer culture, which is elitist in essence and quite distinct from the indigenous culture. Sukharno, Nehru, Nkrumah among many others are embodiments of this. They were elite urban men belonging to colonial institutions, far detached from the masses. When Sukharno speaks of the diagnosis of colonialism, its only from the standpoint of an urban elite. Cabral brings attention to the masses and makes us question how inclusive and diversified is the culture that Sukharno so zealously talks about. Whose cultural identity is being reclaimed? Whose cultural identity is being neglected? How new are the New Africa and the New Asia?