Consequences of the Colonisation: One main reason for the disparities between rich and developing countries is colonisation: there were colonisers and colonised, exploiters and exploited. In many situations, important assets were transferred to the coloniser. According to the last Oxfam Report (20 Jan. 2025), the colonial extraction of wealth from India from 1765 to 1900 by the British Empire amounted to $64.82 trillion. It refers to colonialism as responsible for ruining Indian industrial output by imposing strict protectionist policies that prevented Asian textiles from competing in the market. In 1750, the Indian subcontinent accounted for 25% of global industrial output, drastically reduced to 2% by 1900.
The freedom movements had their expression in the 1950s/70s: It may seem that there was plenty of time to recover from the shock, but the colonial struggle was unequal, with asymmetry of attack and defence power: one side with the power of weaponry and the other dispersed, with meetings prohibited, only able to throw stones or set up ambushes. Everything favoured the maintenance and consolidation of the powerful, reducing the colonised to insignificance. Therefore, recovery had specific nuances, as referred to below.
Colonies with white majorities were lucky, as they shared resources and means of defence from the coloniser. It was pretty easy to declare independence and continue working without surprises. Nevertheless, many indigenous people were concentrated in ghettos after many others had disappeared in the fight for possession of their land or due to diseases brought by the invaders.
In such context, several countries in Central and South America have freed themselves from the yoke of Spain, such as Mexico, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile and others. Brazil declared independence from Portugal. The United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand did the same with England. The colonising country no longer responded in time to bring soldiers and weapons and subdue the rebels. The new leaders were of the same race as those of the colonisers, so transferring power to new hands was effortless and without tragedies. The newly independent country ended up being an extension of the colonisers, with the possibility of mutually benefiting from collaboration and facilitating the transition of power.
The humiliating tragedy of slavery and apartheid. In the history that preceded the liberations, many of the future local leaders disappeared because of the disproportionate use of weapons. In other cases, they were enslaved and sold, and many were taken to different continents. Thus, society was disrupted without their leaders and a new organisation imposed by the colonisers. It happened in Africa, where they encountered people of different races, ethnicities and skin pigmentation and used them without respect, enslaving and giving a facade of legitimacy with the parliamentary vote, as done currently with abortion. That allowed them to purchase and sell the enslaved people and take them from one continent to another to work in the crops as there was a lack of local labour force.
Slavery was the worst tragedy of greed for profit and disregard for personal dignity. Millions were taken from Africa to the Americas in incredibly inhumane conditions. During the transport, a high percentage died due to lack of assistance for their illnesses and to the mode of transport occupying minimal space and being tightly tied so that there would be no uprising on the ship. An estimated 12.7 million were taken to the Americas, of which only 10.7 million survived and reached. There were other forms, let us call semi-slavery, in some colonised islands.
These are old times, only worth remembering, for they never repeat. There were forms of segregation, equally detestable, such as apartheid, to make the difference between whites, who considered themselves the superior race, and others. These barbarities came from thinking that intellectual capacities were different: there was the race of masters and that of servants.
All colonised countries wish to advance to achieve acceptable levels of development, allowing their populations to live a decent human life with sufficient and healthy food, assistance in case of illness, and access to basic and advanced education according to each one’s possibilities and intellectual preparation.
What makes a country progress? Some countries have made good progress, especially those with a relatively long period of peace; those with good governance, capable of fostering dialogue between all groups to define clear rules of organisation and behaviour, identifying and discovering responses to their desires. All this was done with the possibility of providing education and professional training in an environment where corruption had been made difficult or impossible (as in Singapore).
Learning is something natural for men. Many countries have exemplary development based on the education of their people, such as the Asian Tigers (Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore). Others -such as China, with an authoritarian political regime but liberal in economic terms - have made enviable progress that has awakened its neighbours and led them to ask whether they could grow faster. I am thinking of India, which has had a fascinating trajectory after 1991 when the economic regime, modelled on the centrally planned economy, as in the Soviet Union, shifted to a free initiative model with a decisive growth spurt. It has continued with new reforms to the point that it is a large country with the highest growth rates.
Need to learn from exceptional leaders. The situation in Africa is sad in general. They seem to lack the consistency to take the country’s Constitution seriously and learn to live within the defined rules, accepting defeat when it comes without revolts that usually pit some against each other and destroy the ability to build wealth.
Politicians in African countries need to introspect and remember the teachings and behaviours of indisputable leaders like Nelson Mandela from South Africa to understand what the democratic game means, with victories and defeats giving rise to the alternation of power, teaching everyone that the democratic vote is binding to accept and follow.
Another leader in the democratic game is Mahatma Gandhi, who always respected human life, whether of the coloniser or the colonised, because it is of incalculable value. He suffered from the atrocities committed by the English against the Indians, but he never incited any revenge except passive resistance. He never resorted to violence to impose the voice of those multitudes who followed him.
The principles that guided the actions of Mandela and Gandhi should be taught from the earliest grades of primary Education, recalling episodes of their lives when they suffered at the hands of the oppressors without ever using violence against anyone. That was their nobility and a unique, compelling way of defeating the injustices and atrocities of the all-powerful colonisers!
In conclusion, some countries like India were robbed and destroyed but recovered well in an environment ambitious for peace, good governance, and high intellectual and scientific preparation. Others, with white majorities, had a swift transition and did well. Others with slavery and disrespectful rules are struggling with their identity and remaking their personality and growth.
(The Author is Professor at AESE-Business School (Lisbon), at I.I.M. Rohtak (India), author of The Rise of India)