Bharat, Türkiye, etc. What’s in a Name?: The Politics of Country Rebranding

Comparative politics, Inter-ethnic relations, International Relations, Literary & Linguistics, National politics, Politics, Regional politics, Society & Culture

In international news of late there’s been speculation by some pundits that the Republic of India might be planning to drop the name “India”—the name the world identifies the South Asian mega-state by—as the official title of the country. The conjecture stems from an apparent signal given by Modi’s government in issuing invitations in the name of the “President of Bharat” to attendees of the September 2023 G-20 summit held in New Delhi.

Why Bharat? Well, Bharat is already the other official name of India, enshrined in the nation’s constitution, with a backstory stretching far back into the Sub-continent’s pre-colonial history. The word comes from ancient Sanskrit—Bhārata (“to bear or to carry”), a shortened form of Bhāratavarsa (first used in the 1st century AD)—as does the name Hindustān, also in currency among Hindi-speaking Indians as another name to describe the country as a whole. Some Hindu nationalists have advocated for the creation of Akhand Bharat (“Greater India”) which would unite India with all of its contiguous neighbours in a South Asian super-state.

Origin of “India”: It derives from the Sanskrit word Sindhu, a name for the Indus River and the lower Indus basin. Etymology: Ancient Greek Indikē, Latin Indía. The name “Hindu”, the predominant Indian religion and dharma, also relates to the Sub-continent’s paramount river, being an Old Persian adaption of “Sindhu”.

Modi of Bharat (photo: Ludovic Marin/AFP/Getty Images)

Modi’s nomenclature move has received endorsement by government officials and followers (no surprise!) who contend that the name “India” as a nation title is “tainted” with its past connotations of colonialism and slavery, echoing the sentiment that “British colonial rulers had coined the name India to overshadow Bharat and forge a British legacy” [‘India’s government has used another name on the world stage. What does ’Bharat’ mean?’ SBS News, 06-Sep-2023, www.sbs.com.au].

If Bharat has already been an official name for India since 1949, why has the Indian government decided to publicise it just now? One answer comes from the political opponents of the BJP who allege that the notion is a diversional tactic by Modi’s party to try to upstage the recent formation of the opposition’s “INDIA” alliance to contest upcoming elections (Rahul Gandhi, Congress Party). This move follows a BJP pattern in power of erasing Indian place names which reflect India’s Mughal (Muslim) and (British) colonial past. Critics accuse the government of “pursuing a nationalist agenda aimed at forming an ethnic Hindu state out of a constitutionally secular India” [‘India’s Modi gov’t replaces country’s name with Bharat in G20 dinner invite’, Aljazeera, 05-Sep-2023, www.aljazeera.com]

source: moroccoworldnewsnews.com

Disassociating with the bird: In 2022 the Republic of Turkey notified the international community that it repudiates the name “Turkey” as a descriptor for it, instead the country should be be referred to officially by all as Türkiye (pronounced “Tur-kee-yay”), the communique stated. The government foreign minister said the use of Türkiye would increase “the country’s brand value”, but reputedly, a reason for the name switch is the president, Recep Erdoğan’s dislike of the association of his country with the Meleagris, a large gallinaceous bird (and by extension with the whole American Thanksgiving thing)…compounding that aversion to the name, is “turkey’s” colloquial meanings, (a person who is) inept or stupid; a movie or play which is a dud.

Another motive of Erdoğan’s could be in play – a political one. The move fits in neatly with his wish to be “rid of a westernised, anglicised name that jarred with his neo-Islamist, nationalist-populist brand” [‘The Observer view on Turkey’s name change’, The Guardian, 05-Jun-2022, www.imp.theguardian.com]. Critics of the Erdoğan regime take an even more scathing view, that “the rebrand is another populist device that Erdoğan is exploiting to divert attention away from the country’s persisting economic woes and to galvanise nationalist voters ahead of (upcoming) crucial elections” ‘ Turkey is now Türkiye: What other countries have changed their name?’, Euronews 28-Jun-2022, wwweuronews.com].

Switching synonyms: While India and Turkey are topical examples of the inclination for nomenclature rebranding, the 20th century is dotted with instances of other such name changes. In 1989 the authoritarian military government in Burma—a country named after the Burmans, the dominant ethnic group—caught the world by surprise by suddenly changing the country’s name to “Myanmar”. The regime explained the switch as jettisoning a name inherited from its colonial past and choosing a new name that would foster ethnic unity by recognising it was a multi-ethnic state. In reality it was “linguistic sleight-of-hand” as in the Burmese language “Myanmar” is merely a more formal version of “Burma”. The Burmese regime, viewed as an international pariah after years of violent repression against its citizens was seeking to rebuild its PR standing, so you only needed to be slightly cynical to see the thinking behind such a cosmetic name change ploy [‘Myanmar, Burma and why the different names matter’, Kim Tong-Hyung & Hyung-Jin Kim, PBS News, 03-Feb-2021, www.pbs.org].

Myanmar, the military’s choice (photo: JPaing/The Irrawaddy)

Czechs of Czechia: The Czech Republic (Česká republika) came into existence in 1993 when Czechoslovakia ceased to be a single political entity (splitting amicably into two countries, the Czech Republic and Slovakia). In 2016 a further name change, or more correctly, name addition, happened, the Czech government introduced a short-form title, “Czechia”, for communication in English, while retaining Česká republika as its full name. Though less controversial than other instances, the term “Czechia” was criticised by some Czechs for being confusingly too close in sound to the name of the internal Russian republic, Chechnya. This was the very reason the Kingdom of Swaziland, a landlocked southern African country, swapped names in 2018, becoming (the Kingdom of) Eswatini. The change occurred by royal fiat…with the stated reason that when Swazi tourists were overseas locals would mistakenly think they were from Switzerland.

”Resplendent” name change: The small island nation of Ceylon left the British Commonwealth and became a republic in 1972…at the same time the government affected a name change to “Sri Lanka“, which combines the honorific Sri meaning “resplendent” and the island’s original name Lanka which simply means “island”. The name “Ceylon”, based on an earlier Portuguese name, had been adopted by the British rulers after they had colonised the island in stages between 1796 and 1817 [‘Sri Lanka erases colonial name, Ceylon’, Charles Haviland, BBC News, 01-Jan-2011, www.bbc.com]. Prior to becoming a British colony the island comprised two entities, a Dutch Ceylan part and the native Sinhalese Kandyan Kingdom.

Regime change ➔ name change: In the case of the small Southeast Asian state of Cambodia the changing of the country’s name, throughout the 1970s and ‘80s, became something of a merry-go-round. In succession it went from (the Kingdom of) Cambodia to the Khmer Republic to Democratic Kampuchea to (the People’s Republic of) Kampuchea to (the State of) Cambodia back to (the Kingdom of) Cambodia, reflecting the state-level instability of ongoing regime changeᑢ.

Cambodia/Kampuchea

Ping-pong nomenclature in Bangkok: Prior to 1939 Thailand was known by the name “Siam”, deriving from a Sanskrit word, syam. In 1939 Prime Minster Phibun changed the kingdom’s name from Prathet Siam to Prathet Thai or Mu’ang Thai (English: “Land of the Thais”). At the end of WWII Phibun having backed the losing Japanese side fell from favour and the succeeding Thai regime changed the name back to Siam to distinguish itself from the previous regime associated with the fascist Japanese invaders. In 1948 however Phibun returned to power and reinstated the name Thailand, which the country has retained to the present [‘Thai or Siam?’ P Juntanamalaga, (1988), Names: A Journal of Onomastics, www.ans-names.pitt.edu].

Siam/Thailand

Footnote: Endonyms and exonyms When Turkish president Ergodan objected to the continued use of the name “Turkey” by outsiders to describe his country, he was in fact rejecting the convention of exonyms (or if you like, xenonyms) – the non-native name by which others refer to your country (cf. endonyms, the native name by which you refer to your own country)…for instance, what an English-speaker calls “China” (an exonym), a Chinese-language speaker would call Zhōngguó or Chung-kuó (an endonym). Imagine how unwieldy and confusing it would get if every country insisted on universal usage of their particular linguistic exonym?

Article 1 of the Constitution, “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States”

not really a name change as the nation officially has been called Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti) since 1923

Cambodia” is the exonym, cf. the endonym of “Khmer”

also called an autonym

meaning “Central Demesne” or “Middle Kingdom” or “Central Nation”

The Stronato: Casting a Long, Dark Shadow on Paraguayan History

Comparative politics, Regional History

Paraguay’s youthful conservative political leader, Santiago Peña, won the presidential election in 2023, promising not to raise taxes, in a country beset by widespread inequality and rising extreme poverty rates. The opposition candidate did the same, grim news for the nation’s legion of poor considering that Paraguay was already an underfunded state with the lowest tax burden in South America, a circumstance which as The Guardian notes, “greatly benefits the wealthiest in society” [William Costa, “Paraguayan looks for change as election looms. But that’s not on the ballot”, The Guardian, 27-Apr-2023, www.theguardian.com].

(image: mandalaprojects.com)

Peña from the dominant Colorado (Republican) Party is on record as stating that the historic dictatorship of Alfredo Stroessner was a positive for national stability and that the golpe de estado (coup d’état) that brought the army chief to power in 1954 was actually a “political agreement” [Spanish-language reports, cited in the Wikipedia article on Santiago Peña]. Peña’s controversial and heavily criticised revisionist views–sentiments mirrored by his mentor, the tainted former president Horacio Cartes—underscore the ongoing failure of the Colorado Party and Paraguay conservatism to come squarely to terms with the past𝟙, the excesses of the authoritarian despotic Stronato (or Stronismo) era of Stroessner’ rule, a dark chapter of Paraguay’s history in which the Colorados played an integral role.

Desk general: Alfred Stroessner (photo: Brazilian Report)

Caudillismo tradition: General Stroessner’s seizure of power in 1954, overthrowing the civilian Chaves government, stemmed from an internal power struggle within the ruling Partido Colorado. After a hastily arranged poll Stroessner was elected president unopposed. A military inspired coup was nothing novel for Paraguay, it had been a recurring feature of Paraguayan politics since independence–all starting with José de Francia (1814–40) whose military dictatorial rule made Paraguay an isolated hermit state–golpes were a constant threat with eight successful coups between the 1930s and 1950s and dozens of curtelazos (barrack revolts), ensuring that “militarism remains the rule rather than the exceptional state in Paraguay” [Paul C. Sondrol, “The Paraguayan Military in Transition and the Evolution of Civil–Military Relations”, Volume 19, Issue 1 (Fall 1992): http://journals.sagepub.com].

The Colorado Party maintained its own ultra-right paramilitary militias, an addition arm of the Stranato repressive appartus

Washington’s relations with Stroessner: Stroessner’s uncompromising anti-communist stance made Paraguay a valued ally for the US in the midst of the Cold War…in the mid-Fifties the president struck up a close working relationship with US ambassador Arthur Ageton who mentored Stroessner on how to best manage internal security and control. Washington money in the form of aid and military funds flowed freely and unquestioningly into Paraguay, at least until the Carter administration in the late Seventies started insisting Stroessner clean up his act in respect of Paraguay’s abysmal human rights record and rampant corruption [Klas Lundstrom, Remembering the ‘Stronismo’: How the ghost of a brutal dictator haunts Paraguay”, Aljazeera, 29-Jun-2024, www.aljazeera.com].

Personalised fiefdom and praetorianism: Although often characterised as a military dictatorship, historians have emphasised the personalist nature of Stroessner’s rule. Stroessner’s position as head of the military was the vehicle for his attaining power, but once consolidated, El Continuador𝟚, as he was known, developed a cult of leadership based on personal authority. The president adopted a patrimonial style towards his officer corps which politicised the army…loyalty was demanded and rewarded with a share of the corrupt contraband activities widely practiced within the country𝟛.

South American Dictators Club: Pinochet & Stroessner, 1974 (source: Museo de la Buena Memoria)

At the same time spies from the secret police were used for surveillance of army officers, to identify and weed out any opponents of or potential threats to the commander-in-chief. Without any apparent external threats to Paraguay, the usual defence role of the army was subordinated to one of maintaining internal security and guarding against subversion, ie, against the threat of communist insurgence, largely extinguished by the early Sixties (Sondrol, ‘Paraguayan Military in Transition’). Andrew Nickson however argues that armed insurgency by radical groups including the Communist Party continued after this period, but was ultimately unsuccessful due largely to Stroessner’s efficient network of police informers and a ruthless counter-insurgency strategy which grossly violated the human rights of ordinary Paraguayan citizens [Andrew Nickson (01 Apr 2024): Armed opposition to the Stroessner regime in Paraguay: a review article, Small Wars & Insurgencies. DOI: 10.1080/09592318.2024.2333065].

Coalescing military, party and government: The Stronato exercised a similar domination over the Colorado Party, the sole legal political party permitted in the one–party state, which Stroessner himself headed. To further tie the various organs of his power base together under his control Stroessner made membership of the Colorado Party a necessity for all personnel of the armed forces (and for all government employees). And as with the military Stroessner obsessively surveilled the party to purge any dissident groups or individuals detected.

Privatised land monopoly: cattle ranch in the Chaco, land subjected to intensive deforestation (source: earthsight.org.uk)

Tierra mal habida, the “Ill-gotten lands”: One of the most egregious acts of the Stroessner regime was its outrageous land colonisation program, the catastrophic ramifications of which are still being acutely felt by rural Paraguayans to this day. Vast swaths of public land was divided up and handed out to the dictator’s family, to Colorado Party cronies and to supporters under a flimsy veneer of supposed “land reform” (Lundstrom). No post-Stronato governments has made any attempt at redressing this massively inequitable land monopolisation—Oxfam estimates that just 1.6% of the Paraguay population owns 80% of land —with the single exception of Fernando Lugo’s progressive Patriotic Alliance for Change government (2008–2012). Lugo came to office promising to distribute land to the teeming masses of landless campesinos but was stymied by the combined efforts of the Colorados and the Liberal Party who forced Lugo’s removal from the presidency in what amounted to a parliamentary coup.

Underworld of illegality: Smuggling, contraband, call it what you like, illicit trade between Paraguay and Brazil was another way the Stronato cashed in big. Stolen cars, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, exotic animals and more, crossed the porous border in increasingly larger quantities, facilitated by officially-approved corruption by the regime𝟜. Stroessner funnelled revenue derived this way largely into paying off military officers and politicians in return for their loyalty and collusion in his political objectives.


Ciudad del Este (hub of the underground economy) ~ originalled named Puerto Presidente Stroessner 
(source: Wikivoyage)

Open door for deplorables: During the Stronismo Paraguay became “a refuge for exiled dictators, drug traffickers, Nazi war criminals and other international pariahs” – a welcome haven for the likes of Anastasio Somoza (exiled Nicaraguan dictator), French heroin kingpin Auguste Ricord and Nazi death camp chief physician Josef Mangele, “ALFREDO STROESSNER: 1912–2006 / Dictator controlled Paraguay for 34 years”, Jack Epstein, SFGATE, 17-Aug-2006, www.sfgate.com].

photo: idsa.in

End of the road for El Continuador: The 1980s arrived and Stroessner, though now ageing and subject to increasing ill-health, was still firmly ensconced at the helm. Disaffection with the Stronato, both within and outside the country𝟝, however was growing, in part due to a worsening economic situation in Paraguay (a recession in 1983). Elements of the armed forces were unhappy with their lot, specifically field-grade officers who found themselves blocked from further promotion by an officer corps that Stroessner had allowed to grow top-heavy. Most seriously of all was the emergence of a division within the ruling Colorados. One group, the Militantes, sided with Stroessner in wanting a continuation of the status quo, another group, the Tradicionalistas, clamoured for change, wanting a transition away from the personalist focus on the leader. The issue that appears to have been the trigger for insurrection however was the vexed issue of succession, Alfredo’s accelerated promotion of his son Gustavo to colonel in the Air Force was taken by Stroessner’s detractors as a signal that he was jockeying his son into position to become the presidential successor (Sondrol, ‘Paraguayan Military in Transition’).

Photo image: Getty Images

Endnote: La Noche de la Candelaria The putsch against Stroessner came in February 1989 from an unexpected source, army general, Andrés Rodríguez, who had previously been a close confidante of Stroessner and the two were in-laws (Rodríguez’s daughter married Stroessner’s son). Rodríguez with Paraguay’s strongest and best-equipped army corps at his command prevailed in a battle lasting several hours with Stroessner’s 700-strong presidential escort guard. The president was arrested and with his son sent into exile in Brasilia, Brazil, never to return to his homeland. Elected president three months later, Rodríguez’s political aims were not to bring democracy to Paraguay but to liberalise society in a limited fashion, to blunt the sharp edges of Stroessner’s authoritarian system, remove the personality cult, rescind the death penalty, allow some pluralism, all while retaining the hold of the Colorado Party over politics in Paraguay [Sondrol, P. C. (2007). Paraguay: A Semi-Authoritarian Regime?  Armed Forces & Society34(1), 46–66. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48608804], a pattern maintained by his successors for most of the last 30 years.

𝟙 even to the point of expressing an unabashed nostalgia for the Stroessner days

𝟚 “The Continuer”…another, less flattering name bestowed on Stroessner was “the Tyrannosaur”

𝟛 Sondrol describes the Stronismo as equating with the archetypical praetorian society, with the presence of these features, “executive dominance, non-elective rule, golpes, continual military involvement in government and weakness (or absence) of effective countervailing political institutions”. The existence of an elite guard, a presidential escort regime exclusively for Stroessner’s personal protection further underscores the praetorian component of the regime

𝟜 contraband is an even greater problem in Paraguay today—a legacy of the Stronismo—especially the illicit, out-of-control trade in narcotics and cigarettes

𝟝 Stroessner had worn out his welcome in the US

Strangelove and his Cold Warrior Comrades, Art Imitating Life

Cinema, Comparative politics, Futurism, International Relations, New Technology,, Popular Culture, World history,

Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 dark satire Dr Strangelove is a classic of the genre which comically probes the collective anxieties triggered in the West by the Cold War at its height in the early 1960s. Kubrick hammers home the utter absurdity of the prevailing nuclear standoff between the US and the Soviet Union and the consequential existential threat to the planet from the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and “Doomsday bombs”. The movie’s plot involves the unilateral unleashing of a preemptive strike on Moscow by a deranged US Air Force general and the Pentagon’s shoddy attempts at “management” of the crisis.

Sellers as Dr Strangelove

˚
Kubrick and his film co-writers Terry Southern and Peter George give us three dangerously over-the-top, lunatic fringe characters – two gung-ho hawkish military types, generals Turgidson and Ripper, and the eponymous “Dr Strangelove”𝟙. The central figure in the nuclear nightmare scenario, Dr Strangelove (played by Peter Sellers), is a former German Nazi technocrat turned US strategic weapons expert and scientific advisor to the US president Merkin Muffley (also Sellers). Strangelove is creepily sanguine about the prospect for humanity post-nuclear Holocaust, expanding on his vision of a 100-year plan for survival (for some)…a male elite ensconced in an underground bunker where they can sire a selective breeding program with a plurality of desirable females [‘Dr Strangelove (character)’, Kubrick Wiki, www.kubrick.fandom.com].

Wernher Von Braun (Photo: Mondadori via Getty Images)

˚
Strangelove a composite of various personages

Though characterised by caricature and satire, the film’s three wildest characters are recognisable among the actual political, military and scientific figures of the day in America. The heavy Middle European accent of Dr Strangelove, his authoritarian-Nazi mannerisms and regular references to “Mein Führer”, has led some observers to conclude that the character was based on German aerospace engineer Wernher von Braun, instrumental in the Nazis’ V-2 rocket project and after 1945 in the US designing space rockets for NASA (a view given countenance by one of the screenwriters Terry Southern). Others have added émigré Hungarian scientists John von Neumann and Edward Teller as models for Strangelove. Both men worked on the Super-bomb projects (A-Bomb, H-Bomb, C-Bomb) for the US government in the 1940s and 50s, and both were rabidly anti-communist and anti-Russian [P.D. Smith, Doomsday Men (2007)]. Teller in particular shared a number of Strangelove’s traits, eg, volatile nature, Soviet-fixated and obsessed with bombs, possessed of a prosthetic limb. It’s probably a reasonable bet that the there was something of the personality of all three men in Dr Strangelove, but other individuals were also sources of inspiration for the character.

Herman Kahn (Source: Alchetron)

˚
A Megadeath influencer from RAND
Another real-life figure widely associated with the Strangelove character is Herman Kahn, who was a physicist and military strategist with the RAND Corporation𝟚. Kubrick got the idea of a “Doomsday Machine” from Kahn whose 1960 book On Thermonuclear War posited the possibility of a winnable (sic) nuclear war. Kahn has been described as a “Megadeath Intellectual” with his robust insistence that the dangers of nuclear war were exaggerated (this also accords with the outlier position of General Buck Turgidson – see below)𝟛.

Gen. Jack Ripper (Photo: Columbia Pictures)

˚
Military madness
Maverick general in the Strategic Air Command Jack D Ripper (played by Sterling Hayden) is gripped by the all-consuming communist conspiracy hysteria. His belief in the loony notion that the Soviets have been fluoridating American water supplies to pollute the “precious bodily fluids” of Americans leads him to initiate a H-Bomb onslaught on the USSR without consulting the Pentagon. Ripper’s wild rhetoric and blustery style has been compared to Robert Welch, the rabid anti-communist founder of the ultra-conservative and reactionary John Birch Society. Ripper’s loopy claim about Soviet water contamination echoes Welch’s baseless anti-fluoridation allegations (‘How I Learned to Stop Worrying’).

Gen. LeMay (Image: Mort Kunstler / Stag)
˚
Expendable dead
Gen. Buck Turgidson (played by George C Scott) was largely modelled on four-star air force general Curtis LeMay𝟜. Turgidson is an unrepentant war hawk who wants to escalate Ripper’s nuclear attack on the Soviets, justifying it with the outrageous claim that it will result in only “limited” casualties from the ensuing superpower war, which in his estimate equates to 10 to 20 million dead! Like Turgidson LeMay danced to the beat of his own drum, he was well disposed towards a preemptive strike on the Russians and vociferously advocated nuclear strikes on Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis and on North Vietnam during the Indo-China War.

Gen. Turgidson (Scott) in the War Room (Columbia Pictures)

˚
The actions and statements of the clearly psychotic Ripper and morally reprehensible Turgidson convey insights into the level of paranoia gripping the real-life military commanders in the climate of the nuclear arms buildup in the Sixties. [Fred Kaplin, “Truth Stranger than ‘Strangelove‘“, New York Times, 10-Oct-2004, nytimes.com].

Fail Safe (1964)

˚

Footnote: Satirical Dr Strangelove v Serious Fail Safe
Intriguingly, at the same time Kubrick was making Dr Strangelove there was a separate film in the works also about an American nuclear attack on the USSR. Fail Safe dealt with the same subject but as a straight-up drama. In this second film about nuclear Armageddon the trigger to the catastrophic event however is not rogue generals but a technical glitch. Strangelove’s equivalent morality-free scientist character in Fail Safe is Professor Groeteschele (played by Walter Matthau) who draws similar comparisons with Herman Kahn.


𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝄪𝟙
Dr Strangelove is broadly based on George’s novel Red Alert (1958), although the character of Dr Strangelove doesn’t appear in the novel
𝟚 mimicked in Dr Strangelove as the BLAND Corporation
𝟛 another Strangelove comparison is Henry Kissinger…suggested by a shared “eerie poise, lugubrious German accent and brutally pragmatic realpolitik” [Gary Susman, ‘Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb’, Time, 11-Feb-2013, www.entertainment.time.com]
𝟜 although behaviourally the Ripper character (“cigar-chomping, gruff-talking”) also resembles LeMay’s style

Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, 1960s: ‘Konfrontasi’ and ‘Maphilindo’

Comparative politics, International Relations, Regional History

When the assortment of Malay Peninsula states and the British colonies in Singapore and Borneo joined together to form the Federation of Malaysia in 1963, it’s large neighbour to the south, Indonesia responded by launching a policy of Konfrontasi (“Confrontation”) against the newly-formed state. The Konfrontasi took the form of both a diplomatic offensive and acts of military aggression against Malaya/Malaysia, targeted at it’s territory in northern Borneo.

An Asian subset of the Cold War
Various outside countries took sides in the Konfrontasi in an East/West alignment of powers transforming the conflict into yet another local arena for a proxy playing-out of the Cold War
▪ Malaysia was backed militarily by Britain and the Commonwealth (Australia and New Zealand), and diplomatically and materially by the US and Canada
▪ Indonesia got support from the two major communist powers, the USSR and mainland China, and from the Philippines and North Vietnam

Bung Karno rhetoric in full flight (Source: indoleft.org)

Indonesia’s initiation of the Confrontation with Malaysia should be seen in the context of nation-building and the regional ambitions of the former Dutch colony‘s leader. President Sukarno, father of Indonesian independence, AKA Bung (“Brother“) Karno, saw the new Malaysian state as a neo-colonial appendageⓐ, a plot by the British to destabilise Indonesia (The Philippines held a similar view of Malaya). Sukarno’s own brand of socialism and his anti-western bent was sharpened by western complicity in sectional insurrection movements against the Indonesian state (giving aid to Permesta and Darul Islam rebels in their struggle against the government). Sukarno-inspired invective spoke of “crushing Malaysia” (Indon: Ganyang Malaysia).

Indonesia Raya, a Pan-Malay Union?
Indonesia’s nationalists had long nurtured a dream of Indonesia Raya, the creation of a “Greater Indonesia” uniting all the territories of ethnic Malays (see Endnote)… Sukarno’s objective was to wreck the Malaysian Federation and drive the British forces out, the realisation of which, it was hoped would allow Djakarta to establish a Greater Malay hegemony in the region led by Indonesia [Hindley, Donald. “Indonesia’s Confrontation with Malaysia: A Search for Motives.” Asian Survey 4, no. 6 (1964): 904–13. https://doi.org/10.2307/3023528]. An allied objective was territorial expansion, having earlier secured Irian Jaya through assertive brinkmanship diplomacy, Djakarta also harboured designs on adding northern Borneo to the republic [DVA (Department of Veterans’ Affairs) (2021), The Indonesian Confrontation 1962 to 1966, DVA Anzac Portal, accessed 24 May 2022, https://anzacportal.dva.gov.au/wars-and-missions/indonesian-confrontation-1962-1966].

Australian combat troops in Borneo (Photo: National Museum of Australia)

An undeclared war
The Indonesia-Malaysia conflict never broke into open warfare but remained a limited engagement, a series of low-intensity border actions between the combatants. The military strategy adopted by the Indonesians comprised campaigns of infiltrations across the (Kalimantan/Borneo) border to make sorties on the Malaysian side. The Sultanate of Brunei—also viewed by Indonesia as a British puppet—was another target of Djakarta‘s subversive measures. Eventually the British retaliated with ”Operation Claret”, a sequence of counter-raids by small forces penetrating Indonesian Kalimantan which managed to keep the Indonesian forces on the back foot. Later Indonesia extended the conflict to the southern Malaysian mainland with a series of paratroop and seaborne raids.

Suharto (Source: Indonesia at Melbourne)

Removing Sukarno
The conflict drifted into a stalemate through 1964 and 1965 while Japan, Thailand and the Philippines strived unsuccessfully to broker a peace deal [‘Konfrontasi (Confrontation) Ends’, HistorySG, www.eresources.nlb.gov.sg]. The ultimate circuit-breaker was domestic in origin, an ongoing power struggle involving the president trying to juggle the growing demands of the Indonesian Army on one side and the PKI (Indonesian Communist Party) on the other came to a climax in October 1965 with a failed palace coup. Army leaders used the incident as a pretext to carry out a mass purge of PKI (communist) members and leftist sympathisersⓑ – at least half a million were liquidated! President Sukarno was consequently discredited owing to his alleged close association with the PKI and eventually forced to relinquish power to General Suharto. Sukarno’s downfall took the heat out of the conflict…by August 1966 with Suharto’s “New Order” running the shop in Djakartaⓒ, Malaysia and Indonesia settled their differences with a peace treaty, bringing the Konfrontasi to a close with the sweetener of of desperately-needed US aid for the Indonesian state.

Endnote: Maphilindo, a still-born S.E. Asian association
The eruption of the Konfrontasi in 1963 killed a promising regional initiative stone dead. Filipino president, Diosdado Macapagal, convened a summit in Manila that year to propose a non-political confederation of Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines called “Maphilindo“…a long-held dream of Filipinos for union of states in the Malay Archipelago (Melaya irredenta – cf Indonesian aspirations)ⓓ. Suharto’s unilateral and uncompromisingly aggressive move squashed any hopes for close fraternal relations and mutually-advantageous cooperation in the region but Maphilindo did signpost the way to ASEAN which became a reality in 1967 [Pauker, G. J. (1964). Indonesia in 1963: The Year of Wasted Opportunities. Asian Survey, 4(2), 687–694. https://doi.org/10.2307/3023576].

~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
ⓐ when attempts were made to reach a resolution of the conflict Djakarta refused to negotiate directly with the “ puppet state“ of Malaysia
ⓑ a task facilitated for the army by invaluable CIA assistance (supplying communications equipment and lists of suspected communists to Sukarno) [‘What the United States Did in Indonesia’, Vincent Bevins, The Atlantic, 21-Oct-2017, www.theatlantic.com]
ⓒ and well and truly Cold War-aligned now with America in the anti-communist camp
ⓓ in the tri-state agreements Djakarta secured a coup getting Kuala Lumpur and Manila to agree that any Western bases (of which there were some on both Malaysian and Filipino soil) would not be be an indefinite fixture (Pauker)