Saleem Qamar Butt
Decolonisation refers to the historical, political, and legal process of ending formal colonial rule, resulting in independent nations, e.g. the Indian subcontinent getting independence from British colonial rule in 1947. However, decoloniality is the ongoing, long-term, and intellectual process of dismantling the “coloniality of power”—the enduring economic, social, and cultural hierarchies, ideologies, and mindsets left behind after formal colonialism ends, i.e. a comprehensive sovereignty or self-rule.
For decolonisation, the focus is on seeking political freedom, sovereignty, returning land, and ending administrative control. It remains a time-bound event often associated with 20th-century independence movements, with the objective to gain the state/administration (physical territory and governance). However, decoloniality is the inescapable follow-up cognitive process (continuous/present), with a focus on knowledge production, cultural de-linking from Eurocentric thought, and dismantling systemic oppression in areas like education, gender, and the economy (dismantling power/knowledge structures). It ought to be an ongoing process, sometimes called the “project” of decoloniality, dealing with the long-term effects of the 15th-century-onward colonial system. The ultimate objective remains the decoloniality of the mind, culture, and social structures.
Why does the distinction matter? Scholars emphasise this distinction because political independence (decolonisation) has often failed to change the hierarchical structures (coloniality) that continue to marginalise non-European cultures and knowledge; Pakistan is an unenviable example of pending decoloniality. Decoloniality aims for a “re-humanised world” that goes beyond just changing who is in charge of the government. We do know that many African, Latin American, and other Asian countries got decolonised in the backdrop of the Second World War; particularly Pakistan and India got decolonised simultaneously as a result of a long and sustained political struggle for independence by the people of the subcontinent under visionary leadership. While leaving aside the reasons for colonisation of larger territories inhabited by far greater populations at the hands of fewer crafty colonial vultures, taking stock of the present state of affairs in the decolonised states is instructive. Why go far away? Just look at the state of affairs in our own beloved Pakistan, where sovereignty remains questionable on some counts.
Sovereignty is generally defined as supreme, independent control and lawmaking authority over a territory. It is expressed through the power to rule and make law. Sovereignty entails hierarchy within a state as well as external autonomy, which refers to the ability of a state to act independently in international affairs. In any state, sovereignty is assigned to the person, body, or institution that has the ultimate authority over its citizens and the power to modify existing laws. Measuring the sovereignty of a country is complex because it is not a single numerical value but a combination of legal status (de jure) and practical control (de facto). Scholars and international bodies generally assess sovereignty through four main lenses, i.e. international recognition (UN membership, diplomatic relations), actual control (monopoly on force, border control, administrative capacity), legal authority (constitutional legitimacy, territorial integrity), and economic and technological autonomy (economic sovereignty, which means freedom from “punitive structural adjustment” or conditional lending that dictates domestic policy, and sovereignty indexes—scaled 0–100—based on 40+ indicators like financial independence from international organisations and trade control).
In a globalised world, economic sovereignty is increasingly complex, as countries must balance global integration with the need to protect their domestic economic interests. Nevertheless, for a country like Pakistan, addicted to economic crutches since inception and, after almost 79 years, gasping under unbearable domestic and foreign debts, economic sovereignty is considered more critical than other aspects of self-rule. Economic sovereignty is a nation’s ability to independently control its own economic policies, resources, and development strategies without undue external influence. It involves managing national currency, fiscal policy, and trade to ensure stability and growth, often challenged by globalisation, multinational corporations, and international debt. The key aspects of economic sovereignty include: first, policy independence, which means the ability for governments to set domestic economic agendas (taxation, regulations) in the interest of their citizens, rather than yielding to foreign entities or global markets. Second, resource control, which entails retaining control over natural resources and national infrastructure. Third, currency and monetary stability, which implies managing the issuance, value, and stability of the national currency to combat inflation and recession. Fourth, challenges that many countries face as constraints due to international debt programmes (e.g., IMF, WB), reliance on foreign investment, and the power of multinational corporations. Fifth, resilience and strategy, which necessitate developing self-sufficient sectors (e.g., energy, technology) to reduce dependence on foreign imports and global economic shocks.
It goes without saying that, in comparison with India, China, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, and many other decolonised countries, with the exception of the defence sector, the performance of Pakistan as regards political stability, much-needed reforms in education, the judicial system, land/agriculture, water and energy security, national resource utilisation, a stable and self-sustained economy, technological advancement, human resource development, an independent foreign policy, and a strong and cohesive policy-based cultural-cum-religious integrity presents a half-glass-full picture, despite tremendous potential. In my opinion, such a malaise and decay have a great deal to do with the inability to undertake decoloniality as a sustained process and national struggle, which the imposed ruling elite considers an existential threat.
The writer is a retired senior army officer with experience in international relations, military diplomacy and analysis of geo-political and strategic security issues.
Courtesy
