Title :Colonies of former colonies.
Source : aeon.co
Total No of Words: 750 words.
Expected Reading time: 4 minutes.
Genre: History.
In April 1955, at a closed session of the Asian-African Conference in Bandung, Indonesia, India’s
prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke forcefully about the need for countries in Asia and Africa to
refuse to join either of the two great powers – the United States and the Soviet Union – and to remain
unaligned. Arguing that alignment with either power during the Cold War would degrade or humiliate
those countries that had ‘come out of bondage into freedom’, Nehru maintained that the moral force
of postcolonial nations should serve as a counter to the military force of the great powers. At one
point, Nehru chided the Iraqi and Turkish delegates at the conference who had simultaneously spoken
favourably about the Western bloc and the formation of NATO while lamenting the continued French
colonisation of North Africa. Nehru said:
We must take a complete view of the situation and not be contradictory ourselves when
we talk about colonialism, when we say ‘colonialism must go’, and in the same voice say
that we support every policy or some policies that confirm colonialism. It is an
extraordinary attitude to take up.
A few years later, in 1961, along with Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia, Sukarno of Indonesia, Kwame
Nkrumah of Ghana and Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Nehru became one of the founders of the
non-aligned movement. Having lifted the yoke of British colonialism, India presented itself as poised
to take on the moral and political leadership of the decolonising world. This was perhaps to be
expected, especially given that India was the largest and most populous country to become
independent from European colonial rule. The story of India’s anticolonial struggle, too, had been
mythologised by the nonviolent resistance offered by Indian figures such as Mahatma (‘great soul’)
Gandhi. Nehru, too, was perceived as a charismatic and well-read leader who spoke for the people of
Asia and Africa, and attempted to find what the scholar Ian Hall has called a ‘different way to conduct
international relations’. The stature of both men played a critical role in establishing Indian
dominance in the Third World order, and also in establishing ‘the idea of India’ as a secular liberal
democracy that was built on the foundational idea of unity in diversity.
In April 1955, at a closed session of the Asian-African Conference in Bandung, Indonesia, India’s
prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke forcefully about the need for countries in Asia and Africa to
refuse to join either of the two great powers – the United States and the Soviet Union – and to remain
unaligned. Arguing that alignment with either power during the Cold War would degrade or humiliate
those countries that had ‘come out of bondage into freedom’, Nehru maintained that the moral force
of postcolonial nations should serve as a counter to the military force of the great powers. At one
point, Nehru chided the Iraqi and Turkish delegates at the conference who had simultaneously spoken
favourably about the Western bloc and the formation of NATO while lamenting the continued French
colonisation of North Africa. Nehru said:
We must take a complete view of the situation and not be contradictory ourselves when
we talk about colonialism, when we say ‘colonialism must go’, and in the same voice say
that we support every policy or some policies that confirm colonialism. It is an
extraordinary attitude to take up.
A few years later, in 1961, along with Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia, Sukarno of Indonesia, Kwame
Nkrumah of Ghana and Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Nehru became one of the founders of the
non-aligned movement. Having lifted the yoke of British colonialism, India presented itself as poised
to take on the moral and political leadership of the decolonising world. This was perhaps to be
expected, especially given that India was the largest and most populous country to become
independent from European colonial rule. The story of India’s anticolonial struggle, too, had been
mythologised by the nonviolent resistance offered by Indian figures such as Mahatma (‘great soul’)
Gandhi. Nehru, too, was perceived as a charismatic and well-read leader who spoke for the people of
Asia and Africa, and attempted to find what the scholar Ian Hall has called a ‘different way to conduct
international relations’. The stature of both men played a critical role in establishing Indian
dominance in the Third World order, and also in establishing ‘the idea of India’ as a secular liberal
democracy that was built on the foundational idea of unity in diversity.
