Bandung Spirit merits a revival

APRIL 24 marked the 70th anniversary of the Afro-Asian Conference organised in the Indonesian city of Bandung in 1955. The conference was a landmark event in contemporary political history. It registered powerfully the rising tide of anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism, led by the first wave of newly independent countries of Asia and Africa.

These were led by a generation of visionary leaders, who demanded the right of their countries to determine their own national destinies in a more democratic world order and to pursue development along pathways best suited to the genius of their own people. There was an overarching sense of solidarity among them, despite differences over many issues.

Most of all they were deeply concerned about the East-West ideological and military divide and the threat of annihilation inherent in the possession of nuclear weapons in the hands of a small minority of powerful nations. The well-known 10 Bandung principles, which elaborated the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, jointly declared by India and China in 1954, became the norms for inter-state relations and peaceful coexistence in a divided world.

The historical context in which the Bandung conference was convened must be understood. It was book-ended by one past and one future event and was integrally linked to them. The precursor was the Asian Relations Conference of 1947, convened by India under its first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Although that conference was restricted to Asian countries, it was the first expression of affinity and shared interests among the newly emerging Asian nations and a rejection of Western dominance. Nehru made a powerful statement at the conference, underlining the independent role of post-colonial countries of Asia, but which applied equally to sister-countries of Africa:

“For too long we, of Asia, have been petitioners in Western courts and chancelleries. That story must belong to the past. We propose to stand on our own feet and cooperate with all others who are prepared to cooperate with us. We do not intend to be playthings of others.”

It is this sentiment that developed and crystallised into the initiative to convene the Bandung conference and led, logically and inevitably, to the global Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), established in 1961, with Nasser (Egypt), Tito (Yugoslavia), Nkrumah (Ghana) and Nehru being its chief architects. Bandung is the critical pivot point in this unfolding saga, which played such an influential role during the Cold War years.

As the world once again begins to fracture along political, ideological and economic fault-lines, is there a possibility of the revival of the Bandung Spirit in an emerging coalition of the Global South?

The notion of a Global South implies that there is a Global North. When the G20 took shape in the aftermath of the global financial and economic crisis (GFC) of 2007-08, this suggested that the advanced countries of the North could no longer monopolise the governance of the global economy. New influential actors in the developing world now exercised greater agency than before. There was now a more plurilateral global financial and economic system, even if the influence of the West remained significant.

Just as the end of the Cold War in the 1990s led to the blurring of the East-West divide, so did the aftermath of the GFC lead to a blurring of the North-South divide between developed and developing countries. Coalition of interests rather than rigid alliances became the norm. This was also the fallout from an increasingly globalised economy driven by rapid technological advance. The world seemed to be moving towards a borderless future and “becoming flat”, as described by journalist Thomas Friedman.

It is the unravelling of these converging trends that has led to a resurgence of a polarised and contested world, weakened the institutions of global governance and multilateral processes and revived the fears of a destructive war. This resembles the Cold War years in that there are two leading powers contending for hegemony, forcing other countries to choose sides. And like in the Cold War, most developing nations do not wish to make a choice and in that sense, wish to be “non-aligned”.

This is a shared sentiment that could justify the Global South moniker but not strong enough to congeal into a political movement like NAM. It is instructive that no one has talked about reviving and re-energising NAM, which still exists and still convenes summits every three years. Creating a parallel Global South may not yield outcomes that NAM is unable to.

In recalling the spirit of Bandung, we should appreciate the importance of articulating a compelling and inspiring vision and the critical role of leadership. The Bandung Principles or the Dasa sila remain valid as norms for inter-state relations and for creating a more democratic world order. They should be revived. NAM, which incorporated the Bandung Spirit, became the largest peace movement in history, creating a zone of peace between contending ideological and military blocs. We need a similar peace movement today and a similar space free of great power contestation.

The uncommitted nations of today deploy greater economic and military capabilities than they did in the Cold War years. They have greater agency and capacity to take relatively independent decisions. Any coalition of such substantial powers would have greater impact than during the Cold War.

There is talk about the revival of spheres of influence. This alone should be enough to mobilise a 21-century version of the Bandung Spirit that rejected the very notion of spheres of influence.

One may have to rethink the category known as the West. Since the onset of Trump 2.0, the very notion of a ‘West’, comprising the developed nations of the trans-Atlantic, may have become moot. Which direction will Europe gravitate towards? Would it evolve into a latter-day but more powerful Yugoslavia with non-aligned instincts?

Nehru saw the pursuit of a non-aligned foreign policy aligned with the rationale for a NAM. His genius lay in using each to reinforce the other. The world has changed and so has India, but there are parallels with the international situation as it prevailed in the early Cold War years and as it is developing today. There is space for statesmanship and for leading another peace movement in the world today. PM Modi has declared that ours is no longer an era of war. India has the opportunity to play a critical role at this inflection point.

Comments