Decolonization through nationalist movements: India and Algeria compared

Nationalist struggles for self-Determination - the wave of decolonization in Algeria and India

The fall of the European Empires in the twentieth century came in different manners, either with a war of independence or by negotiations between the parties involved. The uprising in nationalism after the First World War, following the famous Wilson points, led the way for a wave of decolonization after the Second World War, especially in Asia and Africa. India, as a non-violent revolution, and Algeria, with a violent war of independence are two different cases of this process, yet similar in some aspects.

India

The Nationalist Movement and its results

The nationalist movement in India is not new, having as main exponents only Gandhi or Nehru. As Duffet, Hicks and Parkin argue "political unrest is not a recent development in India [...] it has its roots in the nationalist movement that aroused during the first half of the nineteen century" (Duffet, 1942, 71). Political action became a need for young educated Indians, and not only, in order to facilitate a better life for their countrymen.

The demands of the Indian National Congress (later the Congress Party) at the end of the nineteen century, dealt with the involvement of more Indians in the civil service and the policies that affected India's population.

The Congress Party "was an anti-colonial mass democratic party (...) enjoyed significant popular support" (Riley, 2007, 829). The Congress Party became after the First World War the main actor and the most successful in its efforts because its main adversaries, the left, were contained by the British rule, and due to its growing number of members. The party had a great deal of influence and power, not only from the number of supporters and members, but also due to its non-violent ideology. According to Riley, "central to Gandhi's program was non-violence as a tactic [with] a fine balance between restraint and radicalism following a compromise-struggle-compromise strategy" (Riley, 2007, 831), using both official negotiations but also civil disobedience and mass protests. Therefore, a violent confrontation on a large scale with the British administration was more reduced.

Demands for independence became more frequent before the beginning of World War Two. After the British Empire declared war on Germany in September 1939, India automatically entered war. Reactions in India were obviously negative. The Amendment of India Act of 1935, introduced in September 1939 with opposition from Indian politicians, stated that the country would, in case of war, be under direct and immediate control from the British administration.

One might consider the war, and especially giving British position in the war at that time, was used as a reason for India to officially ask for independence. Britain, in the face of low cooperation of Indians, responded vaguely to India's demands. These asked for the right of self-determination and the end of British imperialism having in view the speech that Britain gave, of fighting for world democracy; and giving a military solution to Britain's problem in Asia. If Britain would have recognized India's independence, than "India will gladly associate herself with other free nations for mutual defence against aggression and for economic co-operation" (Duffet, 1942, 84).

The response that Britain offered was obviously considered unsatisfactory by the Congress Party, as well as all the other political forces in India. The demands for independence grew within the following period, but also those coming from the Moslem League, regarding the partitioning into two states: a Hindu and a Muslim one. As a result of intense claims for sovereignty, Churchill decided on 11th March 1942 to send another proposal to the Indian political actors, offering in exchange of co-operation in the war, a step-by-step devolution. The proposals were not accepted by the two main actors, the Congress Party and the Moslem League (Duffet, 1942, 128).

Political disillusion within the Congress Party, and mostly Nehru's position towards a more active and violent participation against the British or the Japanese foreseen invasion, led to the weakening of the Party's stability and power. The Quit India Resolution, from August 1942, followed Gandhi's call for India's independence. In case the demands presented by this Resolution of the All India Congress Committee, were not accepted by the British, then a massive Civil Disobedience action would commence. Gandhi requested peaceful and non-violent manifestations, yet, the political response that Britain gave to these demands was negative. Yet Gandhi's constant appeal for non-violent actions had little or no effect. Furthermore he was accused of coordinating the violence and arrested. With over 300 dead and many other injured from the protestors' side, hundreds of police stations and post-office destroyed, the sudden uprising was put under control by British forces (Brown, 1994, 321-324).

In order to stabilize the system, the newly elected Labour party put forward the idea of elections, in the provinces and princely states that formed India. "Independence would be granted to the provinces and to the princely states" (Kulke, 2004, 322) and it would be their decision whether or not to unify. This way, the Pakistan state, through its Moslem League, was able to satisfy, in the end, its political demands for a nation Moslem state, separate from a Hindu India. The political demands of the Indian/Hindu actors were satisfied as well, as India became independent on the 15th August 1947, with Nehru as Prime Minister.

Algeria

Historical background

As a part of the French Empire since 1834, Algerians' status within the Empire was as second grade citizens. After a violent conquest at the beginning of the 1830's, the French offered Algerians the possibility that, on demand, they could become French citizens, under French rules. To be a Muslim in the French Empire represented the possibility of preserving the Muslim law (Digitheque de materiaux juridiques et politiques, 2005)

Indian and Algerian pursuit of independence

The Indian and Algerian cases are similar in some aspects, but considerably different in other aspects. Both states emerged from colonial empires at their collapse, both sought the route towards democracy and the rule of law and went on to create states out of fragmented social classes, religions or interests. Yet, the methods in which the two states obtained independence are different: according to the concepts that Dylan Riley and Manali Desai present in "The Passive Revolutionary Route to the Modern World: Italy and India in Comparative Perspective," India took the road of a non-violent passive revolution, while Algeria took the road of violent revolution - war against its colonizer.

Therefore, what makes for the difference in the process of acquiring independence between the two countries? India passed through a process of political transformation, with different ideologies confronting, from democracy to communism. Algeria did not experience that. As John Entelis argues "Algeria's revolution was more war than social or political revolution." (Entelis, 1986, 57). Algerian nationalism did not exist outside the French Empire, and had to be built after the state was created. The different classes and groups that make Algeria, similar to India's in formation, were impediments to the creation of a national society. The Algerian elite "conceived the role of the state to be the creation of the nation." (Roberts, 1988, 584)

Demands between the two countries are similar, both in form and in evolution: starting with pre-independence desires, from more autonomy to a basic self-rule, within the Empire. Yet the basic difference between the two cases is the existence of violence or not. Indeed, one might argue that India had violent clashes, but those, in general, were not provoked by the Indians, but by the British forces. The war and the guerilla strategies that the Algerians used were different from the Indian actions to obtain independence.

Another difference appears from the ruling state point-of-view. In view of political turmoil, Britain offered a compromise solution, and intervened to control the situation later on. It offered the possibility of a democratic resolution to the matter, while France did not consider Algeria's independence as being a subject to discuss.

As stated before, the nationalist tradition in the two countries was different. While in India it becomes an important aspect in the mid nineteen century, Algerians' nationalist movements are late. Therefore, the formation of stable and experienced political forces within the country is different from the Indian case, and that is one of the explanations of the way in which the self-determination demands were made. Another aspect of this is the demands vs. political background issue. While in India, the Hindu did not hinder democracy, in Algeria, Islam is in many aspects opposed to the democratic principles found in their demands.