What is the difference between National independence movement and National liberation movement?

Most of the colonies of various European Powers had to wage struggle for their independence. However, there was no uniform pattern of these struggles, nor a common method of the struggle, nor even the duration of struggles was, generally speaking, the same.

Their nature often differed sharply and the time taken by a movement to be successful depended on many factors such as determination of local leadership, support of the people and attitude of the colonial power concerned. In many countries, protest against colonial rule had existed right from the time of arrival of colonial rulers.

In other countries like Ghana (gold Coast), Nigeria, the Congo, Angola, etc. such movements began much after many of the Asian countries had already become free. It is not possible in this unit to go into all the details of struggles of all the colonies. What is proposed to be done is to examine the broad patterns and methods of freedom struggles. In the present section two broad patterns of anti-colonial struggles are dealt with. The two main patterns were generally highlighted by the leftist scholars.

National Independence Movements

A large number of countries, including India, followed the pattern of anti- colonial struggles known as independence movements. These movements were aimed at removal of the foreign rulers, and securing political independence. It was believed that the principal concern of the leadership of freedom movements was transfer of power from the imperial masters to the local people.

The aim was to replace the foreign governments by national governments and to build strong state after independence. The critics pointed out that it simply meant change of rulers. For example, in case of India, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Ghana and Kenya, etc. the objective was to throw the British out, and secure transfer of power to the local elite. The national independence movements were not immediately concerned with the restructuring of colonial societies. Leftist scholars describe these movements as bourgeois, professional and bureaucratic movements for political change.

The point that the critics tried to make was that transfer of power made no difference to the common man and women who remained under the existing exploitative socio-economic system.

National independence movements did not seek to change the social system or economic order. In India and Pakistan, for example, caste continued to dominate the social system which perpetuated social injustice. In economic sphere capitalists and landlords continued to enjoy full power over their workers and peasants. Industrial management remained exploitative.

The workers were given no share in management. Not only were those, conditions of living and work neither hygienic nor conducive to good life. The peasants in the rural areas remained at the mercy of landlords and big peasants. To sum up, political power changed hands, while socio-economic system remained as before. Exploitation remained; exploiters changed.

This was the result of freedom movements carried out by parties and leaders who were essentially concerned with transfer of political power. Most of the leaders had been educated in Great Britain, or in other European countries. In many countries these “westernished” leaders failed to be mass leaders. This, according to critics, was a pattern that helped leadership to acquire power, but did not help the common man overcome his difficulties.

National Liberation Movements

These movements began rather late. In very few colonies movements that were launched and carried out for independence had twin purpose. These anti-colonial struggles were aimed at liberation of the masses from exploitation and injustice. At the same time they wanted to defeat the foreign rulers and seek power for the people, not for the elite.

This, however, is doubtful if the gains actually reached the masses. Power, when transferred, went into the hands of leadership. Vietnam can be cited as an example of the liberation movements. The Communist Party, under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh had to wage a long struggle first against the French who wanted to regain their hold, after Japanese defeat and retain it as long as they could.

Later, when US intervened on the side of South Vietnam, where a right wing government had come to power, the Ho Chi Minh regime had to fight against the Americans and South Vietnamese. At the same time, this struggle was aimed at removal of poverty, illiteracy and exploitation.

The objective of the national liberation movements (or liberation struggles), as in case of Vietnam of Congo or Angola was ending of alien rule and radical restructuring of socio-economic systems.

The aim was to bring about socio­economic justice and ensure power to the people. Through the western critics dubbed it as mere communist domination, the leaders of the movement described it as people’s struggle for their rights, and freedom, and struggle against foreign domination and internal injustice perpetuated by the landlords and handful of owner of wealth.

To conclude, the two main patterns of anti-colonial struggles were common in one respect. Both types of struggles were to defeat the colonialism and imperialism by throwing the foreign rules out – British in case of India, Burma, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana etc.; French in case of Algeria, Ivory Coast and Indo-China Lhaos, Cambodia and Vietnam; Belgians in case of Congo; the Dutch in case of Indonesia, and Portuguese in case of Angola and Mozambique.

While, this one objective was common, the difference between the independence movements and liberation struggles was that whereas former sought only the political freedom from foreign rule or Swaraj the latter also wanted social and economic justice and defeat of exploitation in all its manifestations. Guided by Marxist-Leninist ideas, their aim was social revolution along with political independence.