Comparison between the Decolonization of Algeria and India - Research Paper Example

Comparison between the Decolonization of Algeria and India Colonialism refers to the act of other countries invadingothers and forming protectorates for various reasons. The European Conquest of other continents is a very remarkable era in history as it shaped modern-day nations. Decolonization, therefore, is the process whereby nations formerly under colonial rule annihilated their suppression by fighting for their rights and being sovereign states. Over the course of history, decolonization has occurred through various means ranging from guerrilla warfare to “civilized” methods like compromise, intervention and arbitration processes. Decolonization movements gained momentum after the Second World War, and the result was achieving independence from the colonial powers mainly France and Britain. Various countries used different mechanisms for decolonization depending on the prevailing circumstances and the period in question. A case in point is when analysing decolonization in the northern Africa nation, Algeria and the Asian subcontinent, India. The following is a discussion of decolonization in Algeria and India. Similarities and differences in patterns when looking at the decolonization of India and Algeria exist. In both cases, the revolutionary movements began after the Second World War. This compromised European countries since they had for decades benefitted from the resources in their colonies. Similarly, the rising nationalism in India and Algeria played a major part in the decolonization process. In the process, both countries were split along ethnic and religious lines due to the disagreements that ensued. After World War II, colonial powers of Europe which included France in the case of Algeria and Britain in the case of India became weaker. This was a result of the war which had greatly affected their economies: they had no funds to run bureaucracies in the colonies. As a result this, they had to subdue their colonies even more to gain ground and make use of the immediate available resources which could be used to revamp their frugalities once more. The European nations used force and abuse to gain control of the local elites. The war had caused them a major blow. After this, they could not pay Africans and Asian workers decent wages, and they opted for forced labour and other ways of discriminations. This did not go well with the locals; lacking food, clothing, medical care, water, shelter and even working for long hours was painful enough. Millions of Africans and Asians had gone to Europe to help with the war. Upon arriving home, they organized strong revolutions which enabled India to gain Independence in 1947. Algeria, like most African states, gained its independence in 1962. Therefore, there is similarity in what led to the decolonization: gaining experience in the world war and later coming home to fight the colonial masters. This independence was very difficult to achieve without the support of external parties like the United Nations Decolonization Committee which was formed much later. While different historians look at the history of colonisation in two opposing views, one thing remains constant, the death toll that trailed the struggle for independence for most former colonies. It’s well documented by the time India gained independence in 1947; conflicts between Indians and Muslims had grown and became so intense that Muslims broke off to form their own nation the present-day Pakistan while Hindus formed India. The remaining alienated communities in those nations respectively instigated the genocide of Muslims and Hindus in both countries. Regardless of the various historic recordings of how countries received their independence, it is clear that the struggle for independence was the same for all former colonies. A good example of this can be seen by comparing India, which has gone down in history as the only colony to have gained independence without war, and Algeria, where war and violence were reported in its struggle for independence. Algerian struggle for independence was fuelled by a militant and communist front led by people who believed that the French government was evil and had to be dethroned. The war began in the early hours of 1st November, 1954. The impact of the war was ruthless. The French had begun occupying Algeria in 1830’s, and this continued as they occupied much of the state and even bringing some of their descendants to settle in Algeria. They controlled much of the economy through monopoly and used force to gain control of the area. In 1954 local leaders especially Muslim’s tried to negotiate with the French to secure meaningful political participation but their efforts proved fruitless. This angered a group of radical youths who rioted, revolted the French rule in the French Algeria as it was known. The youth founded the Revolutionary Community of Unity and Action (CRUA) with their leaders they began with attacks on French installations in various parts of the country. It is estimated about nine hundred to three thousands militants took part in the revolution. During the winter season of 1954, the French managed to contain the insurrection to the inaccessible parts. In 1955 the Algerians fought back about 123 people were killed in what is known as Philippe-Ville Massacres. The French fought back in an outraged reaction, and this intensified the war. Between 1957 and 1959, the French army which had now grown to 50,000 men managed to control Algeria again. But due to political differences, a secret army organization was formed. This brought about resistance which demanded that negotiations take place in forming a unitary government. The French finally signed the Evian Agreement on March 18th 1962 which brought an end to the war. Algeria gained independence. The Algerians would not have done this without the help of French citizens who were sympathetic to their cause. Of significance were the activities of a main political party formed that year of 1954 the beginning of revolution in Algeria. The national Liberation Front (FLN) a party formed by then Revolutionary Committee of Unity Action (CRU) a body which directed the liberation of independence of Algeria. The National Liberation Front deeply depended on a few French citizens who were sympathetic to their cause and who were disgusted by their government. For instance, the National Liberation Front depended on money earned from taxing Algerians working and living in France and this meant it had to depend on sympathetic French citizens to ferry the money from France to Algeria (Evans para. 3). In this regard, it can be see that although Algeria used force and war to get their independence, just like India, it could not have done it without the help of the French people. Yet, according to Navarrom (para. 3), over 700,000 people died in the Algerian war for independence while there were no deaths in India. India is among the few that did not have to fire a shot to get independence. This was due to the different tactics employed by the Asian leaders. The philosophies, political movements and organizations were the order of the day in fighting company rule, then British Imperial Authority. The use of national and regional campaigns, which were mostly non-violent, paid off hefty fruits. The strategies for these movements were aimed at seeking for more economic and civil rights. The Indian first war of independence began in 1857 after there were a series of complaints concerning the British rule. In retrospect, Vasco da Gama of Portugal was credited with discovering the route to India in 1498. After this discovery, many Europeans started going to India for trading. The more they went, the more they settled in the area. Many countries had interest in India but the British India Company became the major force in India then. The British passed many laws that were convenient for their leadership in India. They treated the Indians in a cruel manner just to have their way. All this resulted into revolts and rebellion’s among the Indians who felt ill-treated. The now Indian First war of Independence began and it was a major event in its history. This was the time organized movements begun. A historical happening partition of Bengal was a major cause of more peaceful revolts against the British rule. This is the time most poets emerged from the movements to show and express their unhappiness at this partition. This partition was famous for the divide and rule policy used by the British rulers. As seen with the Algerians, during the First World War, Indians also supported Britain by providing soldiers to fight. The rich people of India are mentioned to have provided money. Many soldiers had died in the war and Indians became restless and unhappy. Among those people who had travelled to London was Mahatma Gandhi. After his life in South Africa, he went back to India to protest against inequality. He began a movement dubbed “civil disobedience”. This would later prove to be the tool that propelled India to independence. The view of India gaining independence in a peaceful manner should largely be attributed to the effect of their popular leader Mohandras Karamchand Gandhi better known as Mahatma Gandhi. He was the preeminent leader of Indian nationalism in the then British colony. He championed the rights of Indian’s, freedoms and the struggle for civil rights. After the events of the 1857 rebellion, Indians organized movements which created awareness to the people through poems, dramas and lectures. The growing political awareness led to the emergence of Indian leadership at both national and provincial level. Up till now, authors such as Marsh (42) have renounced this and indicted that India did indeed have to fight for independence, as can be seen in the Indian mutiny of 1857 and the Quit India campaign by Mahatma Gandhi in 1942. Despite this, what is clear is that, unlike in Algeria, there was no widespread guerrilla warfare and armed struggle in India’s clamour for independence. In India, peaceful demonstrations led to independence but there were aspects of violence in some quarters. For instance, as Bandyopadhyay (105) points out, immediately after independence, there were bouts of violence and revolution in west Bengal due to some people feeling politically disoriented. Due to the harsh British rule, many Indians were fed up with peaceful demonstrations feeling that independence was not going to come easily. While the music of the time was non-armed struggle, there are those who did not revel in this tenet. The majority of this were non-Hindus especially Muslims who felt that they were not well represented in the congress. Attacks started as a result of differing religious ideologies and practises. The rise of more revolutions led to radical groups whose aim was to overthrow the British governance. These groups believed in violence and radicalism. However, British response was immense and effective. It crushed the revolution. However, this did not deter the Muslim minority. Even at independence, conflicts between Muslims and Hindus were escalating. The Muslims broke off to form their own state which is the present day Pakistan. In view of this, more aggression against Muslims caused genocide in India and Pakistan for any sympathisers of Indians or Muslims respectively. The partition of India was announced on 3rd June 1947. The Union of India and Islamic Pakistan were the new states. In light of these facts, it becomes clear that the struggle for independence in Algeria as well as India was the same, regardless of the differences recorded by historians. We have seen that Indians had used peaceful revolutions to trigger their own independence but this did not go without a fight. Now what matters is the perspective of the historians who told the stories. Many differences have emerged in this decolonization of Algeria and India. In many ways as seen above French colonization of Algeria was quite similar to Britain colonization of India. In most cases, the European countries wanted to impose their will on the people of India and Algeria respectively for economic and other gains. This colonization was also different. While the British were determined to set up expansive empires in India, the French just needed to exploit Algeria of its resources. The size of India or geographical landscape was easy for them to set their dominance unlike what the French found in Algeria. Another difference is that India boost of more advancement than Algeria during the decolonization time. It is for this reason that Algerians took long to revolt against the French. In addition to the difference and similarities of decolonization of India and Algeria; for the case of India it’s now seen to have become comparatively modern in the way it has developed and guarded its political institutions. The British rulers were seen as a continuity of the class/caste system that ruled from thrones of Delhi. India unlike Algeria was also seen as a trading station which grew into colonies, but when this barrier was removed by those who fought for independence in India the British rulers had no otherwise but give in on demands of their colonies. For Algeria, the French used it as a Colonies settlement. For the two countries, the revolution begun when the natives felt that they were being exploited and unfairly treated. Another similarity lies in the factors that drove the colonialists to the area. In both the countries, the colonial masters were attracted by valuable items like gold and ivory. They also hoped to enrich themselves through trade which was booming in the areas at that time. Reeling from the World Wars that had crippled the economies, European nations used their colonies as way of recovering. For starters this worked, but when the locals realized that they were being taken for a ride, they had to revolt. Humanitarian reasons may further be a profound difference and also a similarity in how we look at the decolonization of the two nations. Due to unfair treatment, killings, forced labour the Africans in Algeria revolted. Learned people like Gandhi who had gone to Europe are known for spearheading humanitarian movements which gave rise to revolutions that dethroned the colonial’s masters from their lands. Both India and Algeria were colonized for prestige purpose and strategic reasons because of the trade and economic activities that the colonial masters wanted to control. In both cases though, the countries were greatly affected by the process of decolonization due to the difficult adjustments that needed to be done. Citizens of these nations suffered immensely. Hundreds of years down the line, things seem to have worked out, but this has been a really long process. The tensions that existed between the colonial masters and colonialists have eased over time. The European conquest of other countries was a way that was supposed to benefit these countries especially after the crippled economies following the World Wars. The French conquered Algeria while the British seized control over India. While armed struggle and rebellions were the predominant modes of decolonization in Algeria, diplomacy and civil strife were the predominant ones in India. However, armed struggle is similar in both of the countries since even in India, religious differences led to varied ideologies. Decolonization in the two nations was also different in terms of the results. While in Algeria the process led to instant stability, in India, religious quagmire followed. Muslims drifted apart to form the Republic of Pakistan while Hindus formed India. The similarity, however, is that in both, there was freedom from colonial masters. Works Cited Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar. Decolonization in South Asia: Meanings of Freedom in Post-independence West Bengal, 1947 52. London, UK: Routledge, 2009. Print Evans, Martin. French Resistance and the Algerian War. 10 October 2013. 2013 October 2013 . Jones, Jim. Algerian Independence . July 2012. 17 October 2013 . Marsh, Kate. Fictions of 1947: Representations of Indian Decolonization 1919-1962. Bern: Peter Lang, 2007. Navarrom, Mariano. Algeria: A Case Study of Decolonization. 13 July 2012. 17 October 2013 . Stearns, Peter. Adas, Michael. Schwartz, Stewart. Gilbert, Marc. World Civilizations: The Global Experience. (2003) Read More