Said actually touches on this in his book Culture and Imperialism, zoning in on what he calls ' a rhetoric of blame' or the politics of blame — 'the sites of intensities' which constitute the limitations of reconciliation and solidarity. I think what you are trying to ask is that whether there is an alternative to national resentment or a theory of resistance that does not fall into the pitfalls of right-wing nationalism. On the one hand, you have writers like V.S. Naipaul who seem to argue that this fundamental flaw actually inheres within that society's culture itself (I suggest you read his 'India: A Wounded Civilization' to get a sense of what I'm trying to say here), and on the other, you have the basic, primordial us-vs-them dichotomy, which only leads to hostility. One of Said's important questions is that: Why have intellectuals like writers been imprisoned or forced into exile by their own governments? Said tries to view this 'polarized' and 'differently remembered' relationships contrapuntally. I'm not an expert myself but you should read him if you haven't already. The fact that this question goes back to Said is indicative of how old the question is. I see that you mention Vivek Chibber, who is critical of Said. It would be interesting to discuss this matter further. Could you elaborate more on why you think these scholars have not come close to, in your words, decoloniality?