Academics have been increasingly attracted to the premise of decolonization as a foundational principle in equity-related work. Following calls to decolonize the curriculum and pedagogical practices, the word ‘decolonization’ has become, in many ways, synonymous with efforts to engage in diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in higher education institutions. But what was just a smattering of worry is now a relatively strong sense of anxiety, and I would argue that this usage constitutes a dangerous precedent which plays right into the hands of authoritarian leaders, including but not limited to those in India as well as other countries that are swiftly veering towards nationalist and intolerant governance practices.

To understand this danger, it is important to recognize why decolonization provides an attractive imagery in the minds of progressive thinkers, while also navigating the dissonance with right-wing nationalist regimes. The desire to disavow the colonial legacies of marginalization and oppression while honoring the voices of those who were silenced by colonial powers is absolutely critical and needed. Yet the “imagined community” that predated colonial rule in many parts of the world was not the utopian vision of peace and prosperity that nationalist leaders argue that it was. This conflict leads to an unintended consequence ― decolonization as a term of practice is at the diametrically opposite end of the spectrum in terms of intent and meaning.

To frame this argument, let me start with a few brief points of relevance, a foundation, so to speak, for a shared understanding of the lexicon we are working with, and a deeply abbreviated timeline to consider the context of how these terms fit into the larger colonial exercise. Colonization was almost entirely designed to ensure the domination of one country over another through direct and indirect political, economic and educational control. Furthermore, the persecution of indigenous/local populations by the colonizer resulted in economic, political and social structures that continue to influence many aspects of modern life today. 

As countries in Asia and Africa gained independence in the mid to second half of the 20^th century, the world moved towards a period of post-colonialism and post-imperialism in which countries sought ways to self-actualize their vision of national identity. Neo-colonial influences began to take shape, where new, unequal power relationships depended on the relationship between the nation and industry, leading to relationships between the haves and the have nots that mimicked those of the colonial era. The desire to see decolonization as a way to remove the influence of colonial and neo-colonial influences is a natural evolution for progressive individuals and groups which support social justice.

The tension between the progressive vision for decolonization and the co-option of the term by nationalist ideologues is grounded in our understanding of the past and our sense of the future. The overarching extractive nature of colonization justified the marginalization and exclusion of large swathes of the population. Negative portrayals of the colonized have had deeply disturbing and enduring impacts on our views of these groups decades later. From a social justice point of view, it would be natural for a movement to focus on decolonizing aspects of our lives, from education to the economy, political representation and social norms and mores. The ideas of inclusion, belonging, representation and voice all speak to progressive values, and are oftentimes couched in a single term: ‘decolonization’. The synergy around this term and the imagery it produces creates a more holistic vision of breaking the shackles of a wide range of inequities and intolerances perpetrated on individuals and communities.

Yet. Yet. Yet. We embrace the notion of decolonization at our own fragile risk. Using the term broadly and without deep analysis risks an unintended partnership with nationalist, fundamentalist and populist leaders who are adept at using narratives of a more perfect past to seek and maintain continued control. There is a sense that those who want to portray allyship gain a vocabulary of convenience (a buzzword, one might say) but might only partially understand the ways in which they are aligning instead with a very different community than they had intended to.

The rhetoric of leaders and nationalist ideologues paints a picture of national supremacy that supersedes the complexity of governance in a globalized age. Neo-colonialism brought us a desire to engage with the world, from the exchange of goods and services to the need for labor and markets to be in co-dependent relationships. Yet we preferred not to address what came with it ― broad swathes of people migrating to make a living, rapid growth which infrastructure cannot cope with, as well as competition for jobs, education, opportunities… everything, really. So, using our hopes and fears, nationalist movements capitalized on looking inwards and using divisiveness to create movements to propel them to power. Their brand centers around populism, insularity and forms of marginalization and persecution that are designed to look like they are protecting the country. By stating they are the true patriots, and that they alone are able to solve the people’s problems, they craft an us-versus-them binary, one where people who do not follow them are at best unpatriotic. In the worst cases, such people are deemed to be treasonous and suffer the consequences when a popular leader calls someone an enemy of the people.

So, this brings us back to the idea that decolonization in fact becomes the tool that the nationalist ideologue claims will do what they are truly trying to do. They are drawing a line in the sand that ensures that the primacy of the nation is clear and that the existential expression of patriotism is holy. In such environments, every comparison between “us” and “them” is a battle for validation and any success, whether winning a National Spelling Bee or besting a ‘colonizing’ country in a sports match, is an expression of national power and success – a form of resistance and a ‘decolonizing’ moment.

In India, subtle efforts at developing a knowledge system align with what could be argued to be a form of decolonization, but in fact can also be seen as a way to embed the Hindutva agenda in education. An Indian knowledge system sounds benign. It can be aligned with practices of equity and justice, and can elevate local knowledge and indigenous expertise. But in a worrying way, it can also be seen as another form of the oppression of minorities and groups who are not seen as valuable in the context of the current political environment. Just as the state of Kansas in the United States made the teaching of evolution optional in the 1990s, altering the ways in which science is treated in the US, an effort at decolonizing science would blur the lines between myth and science. For instance, in 2019, the journal Science, ran an article titled ‘In India, Hindu Pride Boosts Pseudoscience’. The focus on Hindu pride in the headline draws attention to the claim of G Nageshwar Rao, scientist and university vice chancellor, that India had mastered the use of stem cells centuries ago, in part due to the fact that Gandhari, a character in the Mahabharata, had given birth to 100 sons.

These examples just scratch the surface, but they offer a lens into the dissonance between progressive visions of decolonization and the nationalist embrace of decolonization as hyper-patriotism. Misunderstanding how nationalist leaders are operating in this space, and allowing for a naïve interpretation of decolonization, leads to an uncritical acceptance that any use of the term is itself an act of resistance against colonization. And values that are seen as progressive, humanist, feminist or secular are characterized as imported by colonizing powers. This would lead to demands to resist and counter those movements as foreign imports contrary to the national ideal.

Colonization was a moment in history. Its effects are complex and complicated. It is impossible to restore us to a point in history prior to that era. An effort to erase the history of colonization is a Sisyphean task. We can neither ignore its influence, nor deny its presence. And for some, that will just have to be enough, especially if we do not want to inadvertently become pawns in the games of nationalist and authoritarian leaders who seek to use the language of decolonization to impose new forms of marginalizing and oppressive behaviors.

For further reading, please see Baily (2024) in the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education.