It is for more than three centuries that the countries of Europe continued pursing a policy of colonisation in Asia and Africa. The English, the French and the Dutch were the typical powers to indulge in this game. Among them England dominated the scene and had colonised many countries in Asia and Africa.

It was on account of the vastness of the Britain empire that it was said that the sun does not set in the British empire. However, the Second World War shattered not only the economies but also the will of these colonising powers such as Great Britain and France that they felt obliged to abandon their colonies by granting independence to those countries.

India was the first country to get independence after the Second World War. This process continued and the whole of Asia became free by the end of fifties. The Bandung Conference held in 1955, that was attended by countries from Asia and Africa, demanded end of colonialism in the world.

The process of independence reached the continent of Africa in sixties. Consequently, colonialism in the sense of direct foreign rule has come to an end almost in the entire world except in a few dark spots in South Africa.



Technically, colonialism has ended but the lust for domination still continues. Even after giving independence to their colonies, the mentality of the imperialist powers has not changed. With change in circumstances and the centers of power, colonialism has also changed its shape and still continues to do so with the result that imperia­list powers still continue to dominate various countries of the world but through new methods.

New methods are invented everyday. Mrs. Gandhi declared at the seventh summit of the N.A.M. held at New Delhi in 1983 that neo-colonialism came wrapped in all types of packages-in techno­logy and communications, commerce and culture.

Consequently colonialism needs to be defined and redefined every time to make its full implications being understood in all the aspects in the changed shape. This problem of imperialist domination in new forms has collectively come to be known neo-colonialism. Neo-colonialism means colonialism practiced in a new form.


Forms of Neo-colonialism. Broadly it is through the means of intervention in third world countries that the imperialist powers are practicing neo-colonialism. Through intervention, they are working as counter-revolutionary forces in the Third World countries so that the latter may not become distinct forces in the political and economic sphere.

The imperialist powers have devised various methods of interven­tion in the Third World countries. Intervention is indeed a very complex phenomena involving a big range of activities so as to penetrate into the socio-economic structure of the Third World countries.

Intervention continues every movement in one form or the other in all the countries of the Third World depending upon the internal and international circu­mstances at a particular moment.

It differs in form with every country. But it is there. In some countries, it takes the shape of mutual security pacts, in others as commercial and culture treaties, and still in others as friendship treaties. Intervention also takes place through the medium of foreign assistance.


It also takes place through invitation when a third world country affords legal sanction to the interested super power to come to its assistance to protect it against internal and external threats

Consequently, Neo-colonialism is being practiced broadly through three instruments—political, economic and cultural.

A. At Political Level. In the political field, it has manifested itself in various forms as discussed under:

1. Formation of puppet Government:

In spite of the fact that the imperialist powers have withdrawn themselves physically from the countries they ruled, they see to it that the government that is establi­shed there serve as its puppet. It is very clear from the examples of Africa, Indo-China and West-Asia.


(a) In Africa:

Great Britain foisted Ian Smith Government on Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) clearly with the intention to keep down the black African people through the White Government.

The Rhodesian people continued their struggle against this government. Consequently, its place was taken by Muzorewa regime to show to the people that a Black Majority government headed by a black leader has been installed, which in fact was a puppet government of Great Britain.

It is after pro­longed struggle that the people of Rhodesia have been successful and election for the new government brought Mugabe into power resulting in black rule over the black people.


(b) In Indo-China:

Towards the close of the Second World War, the whole of Indo-China was run over by the Japanese forces. In September 1945, when Japan was defeated, the Viet-Nam forces led by Dr. Ho Chi Minh proclaimed the birth of the Republic of Viet-Nam which included Tankin (North Viet-Nam), Aanam (Central Viet-Nam) and Cochin China (South Viet-Nam), with Hanoi as its capital.

In the meantime, the French forces established a foothold in Cochin-China with the help of American forces. France did not want to part with the rubber and rice rich Cochin China. This led to a conflict between Franure and Viet-Nam. In order to bring about reconciliation, France recognised on March 5, 1946 Viet-Nam as a free State within the Indo- Chinese Federation. Negotiations were started to end the conflict.

But the failure of negotiations that lasted over sixteen months, led to out­breaks c»f hostilities in December 1946. So, the French Government installed Bao Dai, the emperor of Aanam, as the head of the state of the Federal Union of Indo-China comprising of Viet-Nam, Laos and Cambodia.


Subsequently, France granted independence to Viet-Nam under Dai in March, 1949. The U.S. A, Great Britain and Australia recognised the Bao Dai government while Soviet Russia and her satellites recognised the Republics of Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh.

Thereafter both Ho Chi Minh and Bao Dai claimed to represent the government of Viet-Nam. in the war that started between these two governments, the LT.S.a and France continued their support to the Bao Dai govern­ment and the Communist countries to the Ho Chi Minh government. In the- end, South Viet-Nam was defeated and the whole of Viet-Nam united.

Subsequently, the whole of Indo-China was taken by the comm­unist forces. Cambodia was also overtaken by the communists. However, a rift had by that time developed between Soviet Russia and China. China succeeded in installing Pol Pot regime which was its puppet.

The United Vietnam which is now a close ally of Soviet Russia has been able to overthrow the Pol Pot regime and install in its place the Heng Samorin government.

Some parts of Kampuchea (new name for Cambodia) are still under Pol Pot while its capital has fallen to Heng Samorin govern­ment. It was over this question as to which of the two governments should represent Kampuchea that the Non-aligned Summit at Havana was faced with serious crisis.

c) In West Asia:

West As also provides various examples of installation or creation of puppet governments to serve the ends of the great powers. Taking first the case of Iran which was under the Allied occupation in mid forties, was approached by the Soviet Union and the U.S. A . for oil concession.

The National Front led by Musaddiq passed a resolution in the Majlis (Iranian Parliament) making it a criminal off­ence for any minister to enter into negotiation with any foreign party for the purpose of granting oil concession without prior approval of the Majlis.

The Majlis passed a bill in March 1957 which provided that “for the happiness and prosperity of the Iranian nation and for the purpose of securing world peace the oil industry through all parts of the country without exception be nationalised; that is to say all oper­ations of Exploration, extraction and exploitation shall be carried by the government.”

The moment Musaddiq became the Prime Minister in April, 1951, he gave hints of following a non-aligned policy. This irri­tated the Anglo-American clique which overthrew his government and elevated the Shah of Iran as the absolute ruler. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was replaced by the International Oil Consortium in which U.S. A. obtained 40 per cent shares.

After his restoration to power in 1953, the Shah began to identify the destiny of Iran with that of his absolute personal rule. The U.S.A. found in him a dependable ally in the oil rich Gulf region.

At the time of Nixon’s government the Shah assumed the role of the Gulf’s Police­man to look after the interests of U.S.A. The elevation of the Shah pro­ved doubly profitable to the United States.

First, it eliminated the need of direct intervention by the United States in the Gulf. Secondly, it helped the American economy a good deal by the sale of sophisticated weapons to Iran against the oil revenues earned.

However, the ouster of the Shah from Iran through a revolt staged by the men of Khomeini has created a problem for the U.S.A.

It was on October 8, 1951 that Egypt unilaterally abrogated the Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936 under which Britain was allowed to keep troops in the Suez Canal Zone.

Within five days, the governments of United States, Britain, France and Turkey invited Egypt to join the pro­posed ‘Allied Middle East Command’ to fill the vacuum created by the withdrawal of the Britain forces from the Canal.

Egypt summarily rejected the offer. Rejection meant a policy of non-alignment which under Gamal Abdual Nassar became an inseparable part of Arab nationalism.

Before Nasser, Arab States were for all practical purposes clients of the Western powers in defence as well as in foreign affairs. Nasser asserted Arab sovereignty in this field also by concluding an Arms Deal with Czechoslovakia in September, 1955.

The West retaliated by refusing the promised loan for the construction of the Aswan High Dam. Nasser hit back by nationalising the Western owned Suez Canal Company. Moreover, Nasser launched a Campaign against the Baghdad Pact, with the result that the Western powers were unable to sell arms to any Arb States except Nuri-as-Said’s Iraq.

Nuri’s government was supported by Great Britain. However, it was soon smashed by national opponents at home under the guidance of Inter­national Communism. Shortly after the Iraqi monarchy Was toppled in July 1958, Iraq got out of the Baghdad Pact.

It was the Arab Bath (Renaissance) Socialist Party that led the revolution in Iraq. It was the first political organisation in the region which placed the principles of Pan-Arabism, Socialism and national liberation on the agenda of Arab politics.

It has been the principal ruling party in Syria and Iraq since 1963 and 1968 respectively. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordon have worked for Arab national liberation.

Upon his election as President of UAR in October, 1970, Sadat had solemnly reaffirmed before the National Assembly his adherence to the principles of non-alignment.

However, during the course of the last 10 years, Sadat had gone away from the path of non-alignment. He had given up the honorable option of a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israel problem in favour of an American sponsored piecemeal solution.

He entered into a pact with the United States known as the Camp David Agreement. Thereafter, he reached understanding with Israel under the Egypt-Israel Treaty under which he had given a free hand to the Zionist regime of Israel to liquidate Palestine right to self determination.

In addition, he has expressed willingness to play the role of Washington’s policeman in West Asia and Africa in return for liberal grants of American army and economic aid. Sadat offered to receive the ousted Shan of Iran just to please the United State. He also advocated that the U.S.A. should use force for the release of American hostages in Iran.

Commenting on the role of Egypt in recent editorial, the New York Times said: “Both (Egypt and Israel) depend on United States and their peace will further enhance the US influence in the region. For the U.S. purpose, more than ever, is to protect Israel while also protecting the West’s access to the Middle East oil. The less tension between the Arab and Jew, the less tension in U.S. objectives.”

2. Super Power Hegemonies:

Super Power Hegemonies is another from of neo-colonialism. It means creating areas of influence and dominance. And this is being done by the super powers through pacts of defense and friendship, In fact, the Super Power have decided among themselves on the demarcation of their respective spheres of influence.

Conclusion of mutual security pacts was the first instrument used by the great powers to establish their areas of influence. The main pact that the U.S.A. concluded was signed in Washington on April 4, 1949 to include various other countries of Europe in an effort to check Soviet expansion.

It is known as North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Its present members include U.S.A., Great Britain, France, Canada, Italy. Portugal, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Greece, Turkey and West Germany.

The last three countries were admitted in 1952. The treaty serves as a guarantee of collective security for its members in the face of inadequacy of the United Nation to protect its members against Soviet expansion.

The NATO was denounced most bitterly by the Soviet Union. She considers NATO as a coalition of aggressors to “establish by force Anglo- American domination over the world.”

They also advocate that NATO “is a factor undermining the United Nations Organisation.” Nehru also condemned this pact on the ground that Turkey and Greece hardly belong to the North Atlantic area.

He said, “What is more important is the tendency for the pact to include in its scope the protection of the colonial territories of Atlantic powers with regard to that, I thought that there was something essentially opposed to the basic charter of the United Nations.

In her efforts to contain communist expansionism the U.S.A. entered into various other alliances in different parts of the world. If NATO was to secure the North Atlantic as against Soviet expansionism, SEATO was aimed at blocking Chinese expansion in South East Asia.

It was Great Britain which at first floated the idea of the security of South East Asia against communist infiltration but the U.S.A. did not react favorably. It was the war in Indo-China which made U.S.A. realise the importance of pact for this part of the world.

Soon after the truce agreement on Indo- China was signed in 1954, a conference was held at Manila which was attended by Australia, France, New Zealand, U.K. and U.S.A. in addition to three countries from Asia—Pakistan, Thailand and Philippines.

The other Asian countries invited to the conference were Burma, Indonesia, India and Sri Lanka but they declined the invitation. The conference adopted on September 8, 1954 a South East Asia Collective Defence Treaty also known as the Manila Pact.

Like many other regional arrangements, Baghdad Pact was concluded on February 24, 1950 to defend the Middle East from the Soviet Influence Its members were U.K., Turky, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan.

However, Iraq went out of it after the ruler of Iraq, Nuri-as-Said, was dethroned. Since then its name was changed from Bagdad Pact to CENTO. The U.S.A. was not its member but agreed to participate fully in its economic and military activities.

Pakistan is by no means a country of the Middle East, but She also entered the pact to get military aid with a view to talking to India from a position of strength.

It was only after signing these pacts that Pakistan became a follower of the West. Pakistan was the only country which joined both CENTO and SEATO. The geographical position of Pakistan attracted U.S.A.

Strangely, Pakistan also entered into mutual pacts with China against whose expansion CENTO and SEATO were concluded. China, on its part, began arming Pakistan with a view to making the whole position of SEATO ridiculous.

China attacked these Western pacts but defended Pakistan. Chou En Lai told a news conference in Dacca on February 25, 1164 that Pakistan’s position was “Defensive in an other-wise aggressive system of military alliance.”

It was in 1961 that President Kennedy of U.S.A. asked Pakistan for the first time to send troops to Laos to fulfill its obligations under the SEATO agreement. But Pakistan refused blankly.

Pakistan’s interest in these pacts was further weakened when U.S.A. rushed military aid to India against China in 1952. Pakistan wanted to use these pacts against India while America wanted to use these against China.

In the Indo-Pak wars of 1965 and 1971, Pakistan tried to invoke the SEATO Provisions in her favour but nothing could materialise. Pakistan got dis-enchanted with these pacts as early as June, 1968 and declared that she is progressively disengaging itself from CENTO and SEATO because these military pacts had lost much of their validity.

Nixon’s visit to China in 1972 radically changed the concept of collective security against Chinese expansionism. This made Pakistan to withdraw from the SEATO. Pakistan continued to remain in CENTO because of affection with Turkey and Iran.

Iran, after the oyster of Shah in 1979, denounced CENTO. Turkey and Pakistan also withdrew. Consequ­ently, both these pacts now stand dissolved-Pakistan had since realised that her association with these pacts had isolated Pakistan from the mainstream of Asian nationalism.

She was looked down upon by the Arab world, Afro-Asian community, and the Soviet Union. As against this, non alignment was gaining respectability. Pakistan has now become a full- fledged member of the non-aligned movement at the Havana summit held in 1979.

The mad race of the Western countries

in forming military allian­ces with various countries in different parts of the world had its natural effect on the communist world also. They also felt the need to arm themselves against any threat from the Western countries.

They also took cue from the charter of the United Nations which encourages regional arrangements of collective security in consonance with the terms of the charter.

Like all other pacts concluded by the Western countries the Warsaw Treaty Organisation also takes refuge under the ideology of the United Nations. The W.T.O. came into existence nine days after West Germany’s entry as full member of the NATO.

West Germany’s entry caused an alarm in the communist world over the intervention of the Western countries which were giving due patronage to the furtherance of German militarism.

German militarism has caused two world wars in the course of a quarter of the present century. It was on May 14, 1955 that the Soviet Union and her satellites with an observer from China, met in Warsaw for a “Conference of European countries on safeguarding Peace and Security in Europe.”

As a result of the deliberations at the Conference, all the countries agreed to establish a unified command of their forces and signed a Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance.

The signatories to the W.T.O. were Soviet Unite, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Rumania and Albania. Albania, however, dropped out in 1961 as she came under the influence of Communist China which developed ideological difference with the Soviet Union by that time.

It was under this treaty that Soviet Russia intervened in the internal affairs of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. Thus result of this in­tervention was clearly the establishment of Soviet hegemonies as certain parts of the population of the respective countries were against the government of their country.

In this period of turbulence, Soviet Russia intervened to help government that was faithful to the Soviet Union. It was given out by the Western analysts that the Soviet Union had adopted the Brezhnev Doctrine which advocates limited Sovereignty for members of the Warsaw Pact.

So, the Soviet Union was criticised all over the world for its act of suppression in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The Soviet Union countered the charges on the plea that the Soviet Union was bound by the provisions of the treaty to come to the help of those countries in the event of real danger to their existence.

She pleaded that Russia had only fulfilled the obligation under the Treaty.

Soviet Russia has now concluded a Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance with Viet Nam. On being attacked by China in 1979 when Viet Nam was charged with ousting Pol Pot regime in Kampuchea, Soviet Russia reminded China of former’s obligations towards Viet Nam under the Treaty.

However, no concrete action was taken by Russia. Soviet Russia entered into such a treaty with India also in August 1971 at the time of Bangladesh crisis. It is since then that the Western countries have continued to allege that India has come under Soviet hegemonies.

It is under the Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance that Afghanistan signed with Soviet Russia that. the latter has sent troops in Afghanistan in December, 1979.

The Western world and a large number of the non-aligned countries regard it as a clear intervention in the internal affairs of Afghanistan with a view to establishing Soviet hegemonies.

Soviet Russia pleads that she has only fulfilled the treaty obligations by sending troops on a request made by the government of that country to safeguard against foreign subversion.

This request, according to Soviet Russia, was made both by the Amin and Babrak Karmal govern­ments. China counters this plea on the ground as to how could Amin invite Russian troops to get himself murdered.

Moreover, at the time Amin was murdered, Karmal was not in Afghanistan. He was imported into Afghanistan after the revolution was staged. It may be mentioned here that it was within a short period that three governments had changed in Afghanistan.

Daud was assassinated by Noor. Mohmoud Taraki. ‘Taraki was over-thrown by Hafizullah Amin who was in turn overthrown by Karmal in December, 1979.

Cuba has also played a very objectionable role in the affairs of the countries of the Horn of Africa. She intervened militarily by sending forces in war between Ethiopia and Somalia.

Both Somalia and Zaire objected to the role of Cuba. It was at the non-aligned summit of Havana in 1979 that the foreign Minister of Somalia said, “A highly disturbing example of the dangers of foreign intervention in African affairs is the strange role assumed by Cuba in the Horn of Africa.

A supposedly non-aligned country has chosen to ally itself with the forces of colonialism, oppression and hegemonies, It has allowed itself to be used as a proxy for a super power, namely the Soviet Union, in the promotion of latter’s designs and ambitions within the context of Super Power rivalry and com­petitions.

3. War by Proxy:

In this way, by installing puppet governments and concluding with them mutual security pacts or the pacts of friendship, the great powers dominate smaller countries.

They give them huge quantity of armaments by way of military assistance or on easy terms. This policy of arming certain countries by a particular great power against the other country takes the form of cold war.

There have been certain areas such as West Asia and Indo-China where this cold war turned into hot war many a time between the countries of the region concerned. In these wars, the smaller countries fight on behalf of the great powers.

Or in others words, the super powers fight war on the lands of other countries in directly. It is on this account that such war is termed as war by proxy. The concept of war by proxy was used for the first time by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the head of the National Security Agency of the United States.

He declared that one of the major dangers of the twentieth century was the phenomenon of war by proxy. It was the Foreign Minister of Singapore who referred to this concept at Havana Conference of the non-aligned. He argued that the recent wars in world history were essen­tially wars undertaken by minor powers on behalf of the major powers.

Wars in Indo-China and in West Asia are the examples of war by proxy. If North Viet Nam was supported and given military assistance by the Communist powers, South Viet Nam was supported by the American bloc.

This war flared up and involved an active participation by the U.S.A. Similar is the case in West Asia where Israel is being helped by the U.S.A. while the Arab powers by the Soviet-Union. Of late, Egypt has been won over by the U.S.A. through the Camp David Accord signed in September, 1978.

Thereafter, with the active help of U.S.A., Egypt has also come to terms with Israel through, the Egyptian-Israeli Treaty signed in March, 1979.

The dependence on a Pew super powers for arms is what makes it possible for them to convert localised conflicts arising out of indigenous causes, into proxy wars.

The supplier can direct the course of a local conflict by simply replenishing or withholding supplies and spare parts or, worse still, by threatening to switch his affections to the other side.

Most of the wars now going on in the Third World and fought by increased sophisticated weapons can be intensified or brought to a halt at the will of the suppliers. If and when the great powers feel that they need a rest from the tensions of proxy wars, they can do so by reducing the volume of supply.

4. Multi-National Corporations:

This is indeed the ultramodern method of neo-colonialism under which U.S.A. and other Western European countries dominate politics and economies of the developing countries.

Multi-national corporations are those corporations which originate from a common centre in the imperialist country but operate in different developing countries by merging in themselves certain firms of the countries of operation also.

In this way, capital in the developing countries is also getting concentrated in those multinational corporations which have their centre of origin in the imperialist countries.

It is on this account that certain analysts have observed that by this policy of wide-spread mergers within the country of origin and across national frontiers, the “three hundred giant international corporations will dominate the economies of the principal non-communist countries of the world by 1985”.

The multinational corporations are establishing monopolies by exploiting the resources of the developing countries. According to estimates of foreign experts, almost 40 per cent of the exports of the developing countries are made up of products manufactured by these very firms.

As noted in the widely known reports by the U.N. experts namely. Multi-national Corporations in World Development, the monopolies, not content with their dominant role in the export of products from the extracting countries of the Young States, “are in general playing an increasingly important part in the export of manufactures from developing countries.”

Pursuing a policy of neo-colonialism, the multi-national corporations infringe upon the sovereignty of the Third World countries, seek to gain control over their natural resources, impose unequal agreement upon them and impede the development of their in dependent national economies.

These Corporations have given rise to a big question mark whether political freedom will continue to exist when economic power is getting more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. This tendency of creating multi-nationals has arisen in various other countries of Europe also after the pattern set up by U.S.A.

John K. Galbraith, a noted American economist and one-time Ambassador to India, believes that there should be change in the planning system under which these firms operate.

He advocates that they should be turned into public enterprises from that of private. Only this will enable the government to exercise a proper control over them. In fact, these so called private corporations are really public financed.

He writes: Working capital is supplied by the Government a large fraction of their fixed capital is supplied by the Government ; their business comes from the Government. Yet the fiction is maintained that they are private firms.

This fiction allows them to lobby, encourage lobbying by unions, promote political contributions and candidates,, and otherwise engage in activities that would be forbidden to full public firms. I see public ownership as a device for reducing the power presently deployed by our part of the plan­ning system.

Beyond this, I suppose the day will come when the really mature corporation will be recognised for what it is a—public corporation.

These multi-nationals are in this way playing a role in the develop­ing countries that goes against the economic, and in the final analysis political independence of the country concerned.

They dominate economic life of the developing countries through investment of huge capital and manufacture of important goods. They get raw materials from the developing country, where they operate, at cheaper rates, but sell the manufactured goods at a very high rate.

In this way, they exploit the developing countries under the excuse of developing different manu­facturing units in the developing state itself. In addition, they absorb into themselves the firms or companies of the developing countries that are working or have potential in the respective field.

Having larger shares of the corporation in the country of its origin, a major portion of profits so earned are remitted to the parent country, thus draining the resources of the developing countries.

These multi-nationals pay fat salaries to their employees. And, they are paid out of the huge profits earned by them from the developing country itself. The rare rate of payment made to the labour helps in the development of what is called labour aristocracy.

In simple words, the workers in these firms get very big salaries as compared to the workers in other indigenous firms. This naturally makes the aristocratic labour go against the interests of the workers in general.

They become elite among the labour. They become bourgeois (capitalist) among the labour. These workers, in this way, help in spreading bourgeois mentality among other workers.

Consequently, they destroy labour consciousness and the labour movement. Gunder Frank says : “There are two major consequences of multi-national enterprises.

Externally, these multi-national enterprises have maintained and expanded the economic dependence of the under­developed nations. Internally they have led to the emergence of a new privileged group people in these countries,”

Their activities do not remain confined to the economic sphere alone. They indulge in political activities also. On the basis of the economic power wielded by them, they try to influence the decision-making process of the country in which they operate They lobby for a particular interest.

They finance individual members of a political party and the parties themselves during elections. In these days, funds play a major role in elec­tions. Any party that can manipulate funds, has better chances of victory. Naturally, they get political control of the developing countries also.

B. At Economic Level:

At the economic level, the developing countries are linked to the system which works to the advantage of the developed countries at the cost of the developing countries.

Due to the absence of industrialisation, the developing countries have to depend on the developed countries for the supply of finished and consumable goods.

The raw materials are no doubt supplied by the Third World countries but contracts are made at such terms that such materials are sold at a very low rates as compared to the finished goods. This creates a big deficit in the balance of payments. The Third World countries stand to lose on all accounts.

The developing countries need foreign aid for development. But this aid also involves exploitation. Aid is given for particular projects approved by the donor countries.

The donor countries give aid for those projects which are useful to them in the long run. It means development will be made in the direction fixed by the donor countries. So. there is no exaggeration in holding that such aid “comes at a wrong time, goes to a wrong sector and provided for specified interested purpose.”

Moreover, a major portion of the foreign aid given by the industria­lised nations to the countries of the Third World is neutralised by the element of imbalance in trade.

In simple words the aid given by the developed nations is swallowed back in the shape of trade deficits and the gap of balance of payments. Consequently, the nations of the northern hemisphere are becoming richer while those of the southern hemisphere becoming poorer.

The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the International Monetary Fund are also dominated by the imperialist countries. The Bank has not been of any help to the developing count­ries because of low rate of economic growth and high level of development in these countries.

The aid received by the developing countries instead of being of any help, becomes a burden upon them. It becomes difficult for them to repay the loans. Not to say of loans, it becomes difficult even to pay the interest. Sometimes loan is taken just to pay the interest due to be paid on the previous amounts of loan reclaimed.

Not only that, the imperialist countries have brought into existence certain preferential trade blocs such as the European Economic Comm­unity (EEC) and COMECON.

These trade blocs not only protect at home the member nations but also shelter large overseas market from competition from the Third World countries. With this policy of protectionism, the imperialist countries keep the developing countries under their economic dominance.

C. At the Cultural Level:

At the cultural level also, the imperia­list countries have developed various methods to exercise neo-colonialism over the Third World countries. These methods are:

1. Transfer of Technology:

The developing countries stand in need of technology for development. But the technology sold to them is the technology which the developed countries have since discarded. After the Second World-War, the imperialist powers were faced with a large number of industries that had become unproductive and absolute.

They needed to be scrapped. It is this scrap which is being sold to the developing countries at a high price. It has helped the industrialised nations by providing them with the capital raised out of the sale of that technology.

Moreover, the transfer of technology has been limited to few areas that benefit only the imperialist countries. These include:

(i) Industries consuming too much energy.

(ii) Industries that pollute atmosphere.

(iii) Mining and extractive industries to get raw materials for use in the imperialist countries.

(iv) Agricultural production industries to get edibles.

(v) Experimental technology that needs a large scale of trials for development such as electronics, communications, chemicals, drugs and pharmaceuticals.

(vi) Industries which need large number of labour force.

2. Brain-Drain:

Instead of developing education and scientific facilities within the developing countries, the imperialist countries encourage higher education in science and other fields in their respective countries.

The trainees from the developing countries, instead of being trained in the area of need of their respective country, are trained in areas for which facilities in that country exist or which serve the needs of the imperialist powers.

The people so trained in Western culture, outlook and aspirations become ineffective in the underdeveloped environment of their own country. They become alienated from their own country and prefer to settle in the countries where they got training. This results in what we term ‘ Brain-Drain’.

Brain-drain is not simply a matter of losing exceptional talent. More often, it consists of less exceptional losses which the country can not afford either. According to recent estimates, there are 15,000 Indian doctors, 5,200 engineers and technicians, and 3,740 scientists working abroad.

Experts of technology and higher education thus serve as instruments of cultural domination. The economic, cultural and value system of the developing countries are changed. This is quite clear from the standard of films now produced as compared to those produced after independence.


All this would make clear that the imperialist powers have only changed their tactics of domination but not the will. They continue with their old game but in a new way. And that is why colonialism has taken the shape of neo-colonialism.