There was a discourse of violence of power structure and political violence in the past between coloniser and colonised during colonial times.
Let’s understand it through the insights of Frantz Fanon’s (philosopher and intellectual, 1925-1961) seminal work The Wretched of the Earth (1961) under the postwar decolonisation movement with a focus on Africa, especially Algeria.

His idea comes from how and why the colonialism process should be halted, also about the national and cultural consciousness of newly independent countries, and the impact of colonialism on the psychology of colonised people and nation.

Colonisation and Decolonisation: Use of Violence

Fanon postulates colonial world is divided into two half the colonist (of pride/perfect) and the colonised (shame/clumsy); where the colonist world (of ruling ‘species’) is considered a place of wealth (with light) while colonised (of others) is a place considered to he “inhabited by disrupt-able people” and poor (with darkness).

This division reflects the exploitation of colonised people. There is always a fear of decolonizing in the mind of colonist and the desire for decolonisation is present in the mind of colonised.
Coloniser used violence to dominate over the natives and the same violence is used by natives to rebel against the coloniser; stating, “Decolonisation is always violent” and it cannot to achieve through “gentleman’s agreement” or handshake.

Colonisers used soldier barracks and police stations (use of violence, power and ammunition) to separate from the colonised world. The identities are formulated by the colonist in order to establish their superiority. The injustices of colonialism are revolted by the national awakeness usually coming from rural areas. 

Decolonization through violence eradicates colonial government and liberates the colonised from the mindset imposed by the coloniser. He demonstrates that colonising powers have benefited from the colonised, so they owe reparations payments to their former colonies.

In the international context, Europe’s claim of wealth was criticised by Fanon, as he believed this wealth was exploited by Europe from third-world countries. The distribution of wealth was not fairly distributed around the world. Then he talks about conflict/violence between colonialism against anti-colonialism; after liberation, this conflict was converted into capitalism against socialism, as per Fanon. Capital exploitation is the biggest enemy of a nation.

At the stage of decolonisation, the urban colonised elites like intellectuals and owners of businesses form political parties but they ignore the rights of rural colonised people. The colonised bourgeoisie influences the colonised intellectuals and business elites to accept non-violence means but in fact, that is insufficient for decolonization.

Whereas, peasants (who lived in an undeveloped country, usually live traditional lives) are revolutionary as they have nothing to lose and everything to gain, in comparison to the national bourgeoisie (white-collar people) shall be the last to use violence against the colonial rule.

In a similar manner, it is stated that colonised workers in cities also form unions and protest to improve their own conditions that also do not raise the demands of rural peoples. These rural people act spontaneously against the oppression as they believe in rebellion. Fanon claims in the decolonised nation, the national bourgeoisie is self-centred and should not be allowed to establish dominance in a newly independent nation-state.

The argument is postulated as fear of returning from old means of domination and oppression by the bourgeoisie class if they become powerful in the post-colonial period. This can be avoided by decentralizing in the extreme where the hinterlands would be merged with the region.

He suggested both peasants and urbanised intellectuals should wage war before independence. In the post-colonial period, neo-colonisation can be neutralised by decentralisation, where government should be run by peasants and removal of the national bourgeoisie from power is recommended by Fanon. He also states the need to educate people so that they can rationally discuss the future issues of the nation.

Colonialism had destroyed the colonised past and culture. Thus native intellectuals should revive the glorious history. He signifies the culture should be national and suggest not to imitate European culture, not regional or racial, identity. 

He elaborated on the psychological disorders that were created by colonialism over the colonised, as the colonised are taught to demean without identity, so they try to question the colonialism that results in disorders like depression and anxiety. Moreover, the colonised feel number of post-traumatic disorders that result in psychotic breakdowns.

The only recipe for these disorders was to overthrow colonialism and making a call to his fellow man to fight for the emancipation of colonised populations would ultimately help all of mankind.

Critics: Glorify Violence or Alarms the use of Violence

Critics of Fanon like Hannah Arendt accused him of ‘glorifying violence for violence sake’ (1970). Many conservative writers have reacted against his views on violence, and leftist intellectuals have dismissed his revolutionary statements as outdated and naïve.

Some support Fanon that despite his ideas as on centrality of violence on decolonisation, but “he does not advocate arbitrary violence, but rather recognises the dangers, physical and psychological, of violence without a cause” (Singler, 2016).

Conclusion

Fanon target audience is colonisers and tried to explain the concepts of colonialism and decolonisation through philosophical, cultural, historical, political, and cultural perspectives. This does not mean that violence used in colonised time is justified in post-colonial times. 

Without taking a position of either side of using violence occurred in the Israel-Palestine conflict, my grave concerns stand to more significant questions of who will heal the gaps of lost human life, recover national resources and reduce the international tension?

Author: Dr Sakul Kundra, A.HOD Department of Social Science at Fiji National University

Disclaimer: The views expressed are his own and not of The Australia Today or his employer. For comments or suggestions, email. dr.sakulkundra@gmail.com

The salient voice of Indian indentured workers (Girmitiyas: People who came from India to the Pacific Islands from 1879-1916) is emphasised by the research of Brij V. Lal.

Similar kind of voices from subaltern corners was forced to be salient during the colonial era in the Pacific Islands. Scholarly accepted that research had been used by the West as a method for oppression and dominance over other people during colonization, and its impact prevails.

‘The western gaze on the Other’ is countered by Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s book Decolonizing methodologies (1999 & 2012) to revive indigenous research and knowledge and provoking ‘some revolutionary thinking about the roles that knowledge, knowledge production, knowledge hierarchies, and knowledge institutions play in decolonization and social transformation’.

Hegemony of Western Paradigms

Paradigms of research and knowledge from the position of an indigenous stance and raise a voice to the decolonization of methodologies. The ‘research’ is the ‘dirtiest word’ in indigenous vocabulary, as it is used by European imperialism and colonialism to regulate the others.
The research analyses how western epistemology, knowledge and value have an impact on indigenous research. The work attempts to understand the indigenous values and motivations through indigenous perspective and articulate a new indigenous research agenda. 
Primarily, it endeavours to decolonize and liberate indigenous culture, language and knowledge.

Colonialization and Indigenous Knowledge

Let’s discuss the history of Western research & critiques and, the cultural assumptions behind research by the dominant colonial methodology. It shows the ‘imperial legacies of Western knowledge and the ways in which those legacies continue to influence knowledge institutions to the exclusion of indigenous peoples and their aspirations. This researcher examines indigenous research as placed in a broader context of imperialism and western research; and its impact on indigenous knowledge.

Purposeful deconstruction of Indigenous

Research is done through imperial eyes but not against knowledge or research. It discovering new ways to research with indigenous people.

“The West extract and claim ownership of our ways of knowing, the things we create and produce, and then simultaneously reject the people who created and developed those ideas and seek to deny them further opportunities to be creators of their own culture and own nations”

(p.1).

The work stated western knowledge had placed itself in a higher position to explain the other people; the ways in which western knowledge has colonised the disciplines. Further, explaining how the coloniser has taught the colonised knowledge to indigenous intellectuals.

Her work explains how the west researchers came in different forms who took away many belongings of indigenous people and displayed them in from of the world as primitive through the art of research. This led to the dismissal of the idea that indigenous nations had established a system of orders.

The research contextualises this argument in relation to the Maori’s indigenous people of New Zealand. The researcher postulates that division between Western and indigenous ways, so the indigenous people movement should protect and restore indigenous traditions and totally reject the west.
Colonisation has a negative impact on indigenous people that has left a legacy of disease, dislocation, cultural and language loss. Later this was politicized on a massive scale for diverse concerns and their focus shifted from survival towards restoration and revitalization in various issues.

“So, within indigenous discourses, the term ‘peoples’ has become an important linguistic symbol of our identification as self-determining peoples…. We are united by common territories, cultures, traditions, histories, languages, institutions and beliefs. We share a sense of kinship and identity, a consciousness as distinct peoples and a political will to exist as distinct peoples”

(P. 115).

Reclaim spaces of Marginalization

The research thrives in setting a new agenda for indigenous research. The research advocates the value of research for indigenous peoples and the need to retrieve spaces of marginalisation as spaces.
It explores research practices that offer alternatives to Western paradigms and that give up racism, ethnocentrism, and exploitation. It examines the various approaches and methodologies to raise the importance of indigenous people’s research agendas.

Suggested the manner in which the indigenous researcher should do research within its own communities. The goal of self-determination of indigenous people and in research agenda becomes a political the processes of transformation, of decolonisation, of healing and of mobilisation as peoples (p. 116).

The work stresses taking back the control of indigenous destines by becoming self-determining. In this pursuit, several ‘themes such as cultural survival, self-determination, healing, restoration, and social justice are engaging indigenous researchers and indigenous communities in a diverse array of projects (142).

Thus highlights 25 research projects pursued by indigenous people related to ethics of research and advocates means research could approach their work. The book introduces Kaupapa Maori research and framework a new way of understanding Maori indigenous research.
This research considered indigenous methodologies focus more to approach cultural values and behaviour as a part of the methodology.
Presents a strong anti-positive stance, especially a concern with social justice and relevance in the Maori community. The non-indigenous researchers to efficiently conduct indigenous research is reject or accepted under certain conditions.

The research highlighted the implication for indigenous researchers working with indigenous and marginalized communities as they work the borders, and ‘between institutions and communities, systems of power and systemic injustice, cultures of dominance and cultures in survival mode, politics and theory, theory and practice’ (p.199).

Lastly, it explores potential ways in which indigenous activists and indigenous researchers can collaborate to advance indigenous interests at local, national, and international levels.

Conclusion

Regarding academia, despite decolonization, the focus has shifted towards ‘reconciliation, inclusion and diversity.’ 
Critics blame it for being an ‘insider vision’ that is mostly focusing on helping indigenous researchers to study indigenous communities. The struggle between the world of indigenous people and the world of research continues, to make the voice of the voiceless heard and reviving indigenous knowledge.

Author: Dr Sakul Kundra, A.HOD Department of Social Science at Fiji National University.

Disclaimer: The views expressed are his own and not of The Australia Today or his employer. For comments or suggestions, email. dr.sakulkundra@gmail.com