| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | The Culmination of the Partition of India | >
> | From Cricket to Politics | | | | |
<
< | -- By AliAbid - 23 Feb 2024 | >
> | -- By AliAbid - 23 Feb 2024 (revised 08 Jun 2024) | | | | |
<
< | The partition of British India in 1947 is one of the most pivotal events in the history of South Asia. It resulted in the countries of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. This event set the stage for the modern rivalry between India and Pakistan, while also sparking religious conflicts between Hindus and Muslims in South Asia. The tensions in the area are a direct result of the British occupation of India. | >
> | Thousands of people from South Asia are currently flooding into the streets of New York for the opportunity to support their nation in the T20 Cricket World Cup. This tournament is set to feature one of the greatest rivalries in sports, India vs. Pakistan. Although cricket is not native to South Asia, this region produces some of the greatest players and attracts the largest number of viewers worldwide. As with many idiosyncrasies particular to South Asia, the roots of this phenomenon trace back to British colonialism. Colonialism brought the Indian Subcontinent their favorite pastime, but it also brought about the very reason why the match between India and Pakistan is so contentious. The divisive strategies employed by the British embedded deep-rooted tensions between Hindus and Muslims and hostilities between Pakistan and India that persist to this day. | | | | |
<
< | Prior to the arrival of the British, the people of various religions in South Asia lived relatively in cooperation. The British influence started with the arrival of the British East India Company in the 1600s. They were interested in making money from the spices and resources in India. The Mughal Empire was in power during the time the British East India Company arrived. They later started to decline and then the company took the chance to establish more power over India. Since the territory of India was not united at the time, there were many rulers. One of the company’s initial moves was to take over the Bengal region and implement a tax on the region’s people. The British East India Company established deals with different leaders under the reason of protection. The Brits also had a rule where if the leader of a territory died without an heir, the territory would then be British owned. Eventually in 1857, the people of India had enough and revolted. The British stomped the rebellion and then established direct control of India officially. The British Crown then took over for the British East India Company. | >
> | South Asia's immense diversity in ethnicities, languages, and cultures has historically made unifying the region under one political system challenging. Before the British arrival, the Mughal Empire governed the region through a hierarchical structure, with the Mughal emperor being at the top. This structure involved various sovereigns ruling different parts of the empire. The issue with this system was that the sovereigns, local chieftains, and landowners often vied for more power, weakening the central authority. The lack of a centralized army further limited the Mughal Empire's ability to exert force and maintain control.
Initially without ambitions of conquest, the British presence in South Asia started with the arrival of the British East India Company in the 1600s. However, by the mid-1700s, they had gained a stronghold in the prosperous region of Bengal. The company exploited its trade privileges and used military force to expand their control of the area. In 1756, the Mughal emperor granted the company formal sovereignty over Bengal. Under Lord Wellesley’s governance from 1798, the British expanded their rule across the subcontinent, quelling Indian revolts and consolidating their power. In 1858, the British Crown formally took over control from the company. | | | | |
<
< | The British had a large empire at the time. They had control of places such as Nigeria, Australia, Jamaica and the like. They were generally not liked by their subjects as they would turn people against each other. This was part of their strategy of divide and rule. In India, they used this strategy to pin Hindus and Muslims against each other. The British institutionalized divisions between the two religious groups. They established separate electorates for them which created conflict among them. In 1885, the Indian National Congress was formed. They had the intention to represent all Indians but after a while Muslims did not feel represented. They formed the All-India Muslim League in 1906. This group wanted to represent the interests of all the Muslims in India. | >
> | The British employed a divide-and-rule strategy, implementing policies that exacerbated religious divisions between Hindus and Muslims. A key method the British systemized these divisions through was legal reforms. Warren Hastings, the first Governor-General of India, believed that distinct and separate codes of law existed for Hindus and Muslims. This belief led to the formalization of Hindu and Muslim civil law codes in the 1860s. These laws, though not newly invented, were rigidified and imposed without consideration for the local customs and traditional practices throughout Indian communities. The bifurcation of Indian society into religious categories has shaped contemporary Indian identities, fostering a sense of separation that had not previously existed. | | | | |
<
< | With the rise Indian nationalism and the weakening of the British Crown from their involvement in World War II, the movement towards independence picked up. The Muslim League thought it was for the betterment of the Muslims in India if they were given independent sovereign territories where they were a majority. This idea was presented in the Lahore Resolution in 1940. The Muslim League wanted to make sure that as religious minorities, Muslims would still have power and representation in India. This effort was led by the eventual founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. | >
> | The cultural impact of these divisions became apparent in the late 1800s. This was exemplified by the literature such as the Bengali novelist Bankim’s writings depicting Hindus triumphing over oppressive Muslim rulers, while Muslim writers glorified Islamic history. Issues like that of cow protection further strained relations. As cows are sacred in Hinduism, whereas Islam has no similar religious reverence, there were issues of adherence to the animal between the two groups. This conflict intensified the view among Muslim leaders that their interests needed to be protected by exclusively Muslim organizations. This hope eventually came to fruition. Believing that the Indian National Congress failed to adequately represent Muslim interests, the All-India Muslim League was formed in 1906.
The partition of Bengal in 1905 further exemplified the British strategy of divide and rule. Seemingly to weaken this strong and prideful region, they separated the land by religious lines, creating Eastern Bengal as predominantly Muslim and Western Bengal as predominantly Hindu. | | | | |
<
< | After World War II had ended, the British did not have the resources and ability to keep India as part of its empire. Great Britain was dealing with enough domestic problems as a result of the war that they could not extend more concern to maintaining rule over India. In 1946, the British proposed the Cabinet Mission Plan where there would be one federal government and then various provinces primarily based on religious majorities. This plan called for one unified India. The Indian National Congress and the Muslim League did not come to a mutual agreement on the plan which led to its failure. A few months later, the Muslim League officially demanded a separate homeland for Muslims. They wanted a separate country independent of India. To move towards their goal, the party called for a labor strike. This would be known as Direct Action Day and was a pivotal point in the partition of India. This event sparked mass riots in the city of Kolkata which spread throughout the territories of British India. The communal violence between Muslims and Hindus caused more than 4,000 deaths and 100,000 people displaced in Kolkata. | >
> | The rise of Indian nationalism and the weakening of the British Crown due to World War II bolstered the movement towards independence. The Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, advocated for independent sovereign states for Muslims. They feared that Muslims would be marginalized in a unified India. This culminated in the formalization of the demand with the Lahore Resolution of 1940. The British countered with the Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946, aiming for a unified India with provinces based on religious majorities. The plan failed due to disagreements between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, leading to the Muslim League's official demand for a separate Pakistan. The party's call for Direct Action Day resulted in violent riots, with more than 4,000 deaths and 100,000 displaced in Kolkata alone. | | | | |
<
< | The conflicts led to the British in 1947 sending Lord Mountbatten to India to finally hand over power and leave the land. The vagueness of the British proposals led to the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League not coming to a mutual agreement. Mountbatten then proposed a partition of two independent countries, India and Pakistan. Pakistan would consist of two territories, West Pakistan, which is modern day Pakistan and East Pakistan, which is modern day Bangladesh. India would consist of the land between West and East Pakistan. The Indian National Congress initially opposed the partition but with the spread of riots and tension throughout the land, they became in favor of it. The Muslim League agreed as well and thus is the birth of both countries. August 14th, 1947 marked the independence of Pakistan and August 15th, 1947 marked the independence of India. | >
> | In 1947, the British sent Lord Mountbatten to India to oversee the transfer of power. The vague British proposals led to continued disagreements, resulting in Mountbatten’s plan for partition into two independent countries, India and Pakistan. Despite initial opposition, the Indian National Congress agreed to the partition due to the escalating violence. The Muslim League also agreed, leading to the independence of Pakistan on August 14, 1947, and India on August 15, 1947. | | | | |
<
< | The independence of Pakistan and India sparked one of the largest migrations of people in history. Sikhs and Hindus from the area of present-day Pakistan moved to India while many Muslims from present-day India moved to Pakistan. Around 15 million people migrated between both sides. This migration came with mass violence and atrocities committed. Around one million people are estimated to have died during this period and scarred a generation with trauma. Hostility as a result of the partition is still felt by the people of India and Pakistan. If the British was invested in the success of its former colony instead of exploiting it, perhaps the landscape of South Asia would be much different today. | >
> | The partition triggered one of the largest migrations in history, with around 15 million people moving between the new nations. This migration was accompanied by mass violence, with approximately one million people dying and countless others traumatized. The scars of partition continue to shape the relationship between India and Pakistan, fueling ongoing hostility and conflict. | | | | |
>
> | British colonial policies fostered an environment of distrust and conflict that persists today. The rigidification of religious identities and the creation of separate political and legal frameworks for Hindus and Muslims disrupted traditional customs and intensified communal tensions. The legacy of these policies is evident in the ongoing rivalry between India and Pakistan. The contentious cricket rivalry between the two nations serves as a microcosm of the broader historical and political tensions that continue to shape their relationship. | | | | |
<
< |
This draft identifies the subject and indicates clearly where the learning you want to do would be found, so the next draft can actually build on that basis. It's odd, of course, to read an account of an historical subject as heavily studied as the Partition that proceeds as though no one has ever written about the subject before at a deeper than Wikipedia-inflected level. The best route to improvement is to put the next draft in touch with some small fraction of the truly immense literature, giving the reader a sense of how the historical discussion has evolved, what the issues are, how the writers have approached them, and where the balance of the conversation stands now. To get the basic narrative and this generation's dominant sources in view, I would probably start with the Cambridge Concise History of Modern India, or an equivalent one-volume introduction for beginners. I like the Metcalfs' book best among the recent introductions. The bibliography is basic, as one would in such a work, but helpful. After almost fifty years, Yasmin Khan's The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan is still unsurpassed, I think. A recent historiographic survey by David Gilmartin in the Journal of Asian Studies seems to me to offer some useful perspective on the shape of the current discussion. | >
> | As an aspiring future attorney, engaging in and researching this topic has influenced me to further inform myself about the root causes of injustices in America. I want to become a lawyer who is more aware of the social and historical factors that shape our legal system. Through that, I hope to be an advocate for the need of policies that promote unity. | | | | |
<
< | But we are sitting in a law school on the other side of the world, so perhaps our attention should be at least as directed at what the learning you are doing contributes to your legal education as to the subject itself. How does learning this history, and reading in to the conversation going on among scholars about it, affect your developing lawyer's theory of social action? What does engagement in historical study like this tell you about the sort of lawyer you'd like to become?
| >
> |
Works Cited
| | | | |
>
> | Khan, Yasmin. The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan. Yale University Press, 2017.
Metcalf, Barbara D., and Thomas R. Metcalf. A Concise History of Modern India. Cambridge University Press, 2012. | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|