ethnicity and the partition of India
As a colonial power, the United Kingdom possessed numerous colonies all over the world, including a large area of land in South Asia located in what is now Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. When the British receded from the region, many people in the former colony feared that the ethnic tensions would result in chaos if India became one sovereign state. Centrifugal forces were far too strong to allow ethnically diverse populations to coexist harmoniously, and centripetal forces seemed to favor having separate states. The two groups involved are the two different ethnic groups. One was composed of a Muslim population found in present day Pakistan and Bangladesh, and the other was composed of a Hindu population found in present day India. Fortunately, the British were sensitive to the region’s ethnic diversity, and, as best they could, the former colonial power essayed to separate the two ethnicities along cultural boundaries. Indeed, the resolution of cultural problems resulting from the imbalance of centrifugal and centripetal forces in the former British colonies in southern Asia demonstrates the beneficial application of the principle of dividing ethnic groups in order to minimize conflict.
In order to understand the creation of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, it is important to understand the myriad of predominantly cultural centrifugal forces that operated in southern Asia at the time of their creation. The main centrifugal force in the region was religion, for one ethnicity practiced Islam and one practiced Hinduism. The shatterbelt located on the boundary created by these two religions has always been a source of conflict. In fact, before the British took over in the early nineteenth century, Muslims led raids in the Punjab area of India that caused a full-fledged religious war. By the thirteenth century, Muslims had gained control of large portions of northern India. Because of this historical trend of animosity, many Hindu Indians did not want to be in the same state as Muslims and vice versa. In addition to religion, language acted as a centrifugal force in southern Asia. The people in modern-day Pakistan predominantly spoke Urdu, Pakistan’s current official language, but, in India, Hindi was a lingua franca because, even though there were hundreds of other languages, Hindi is commonly used amongst people who practice Hinduism. With these two powerful centrifugal forces, the conflict between Muslim and Hindu ethnicities was heightened, and, had the British not intervened and separated them into different states, the former colony would have been catapulted into chaos.
Despite the large-scale region’s multitudinous centrifugal forces, the centripetal forces within what would become India and Pakistan provided a resolution and presented a hope for stability. Religion acted as a centripetal force in what would become Pakistan and Bangladesh, for both groups are Muslim even though they are separated by India. Having a common religion makes these groups have a common culture, which creates homogeneousness and decreases the potential for conflict. Similarly, the religion of Hinduism in India greatly increased its potential for peaceful existence, even though there are hundreds of languages and other cultural factors that promote diversity within the ethnic group. Religion acted as the strongest centripetal force, but proximity, in a way, acted as a centripetal force within certain areas, too. Being close to one group means that one will have more in common with that group than one that is far away, as distance decay theory states. This led to unity within Pakistan and India respectively. The entire colony was just too big to be one state, especially since centripetal forces of culture only acted on a smaller scale. If the states had stayed together, there would have been conflict because of religion and cultural differences, but, because Britain had the foresight to create separate states, these conflicts were avoided, and centripetal forces were, for the most part, enhanced.
The end result of Britain’s action in leaving southern Asia had a lasting impact. The resolution to the problem was to create two separate states of India and Pakistan, and this was able to make states mirroring the nation-state ideal. Now, India is a predominantly Hindu country composed of people united by religion and cultural similarities, and Pakistan is a predominantly Muslim country whose population is proud of its homogeneous Muslim religion and culture. The borders were created to coincide as well as possible with the ethnic boundaries, so the current border strives to keep Muslims in Pakistan and Hindus in India. Unfortunately, it was not drawn well, and a mass migration of Hindus into India and Muslims into Pakistan caused a perilous period of religious and ethnic tension between the two nations. In addition, there is still an area in southern Asia called Kashmir that India and Pakistan wish to have, but it is currently divided by a 1972 line of control. Despite initial tensions, the border between India and Pakistan has been relatively effective in minimizing ethnic and religious tensions just as the British hoped.
Presently, southern Asia is not perfect, but it is on its way to developing ethnically homologous nation states that will be mostly free of conflict. New problems face the region now. First, Bangladesh was forced to secede from Pakistan because the separation was
to taxing on the geographically distant states. In addition, Sri Lanka’s ethnic tensions have flared between the Tamils and Sinhalese as a result of colonial powers leaving the region. However, as southern Asia continues to strive to shape itself to minimize conflict, it will continue to improve and be better equipped to confront the challenges ahead. As a result of the foresight of the United Kingdom when leaving, southern Asia has been saved from becoming an area constantly plagued with major conflict and internal centrifugal forces. The problems faced by the region now pale in comparison to what it has overcome, and it is sure that the region will continue to improve.
In order to understand the creation of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, it is important to understand the myriad of predominantly cultural centrifugal forces that operated in southern Asia at the time of their creation. The main centrifugal force in the region was religion, for one ethnicity practiced Islam and one practiced Hinduism. The shatterbelt located on the boundary created by these two religions has always been a source of conflict. In fact, before the British took over in the early nineteenth century, Muslims led raids in the Punjab area of India that caused a full-fledged religious war. By the thirteenth century, Muslims had gained control of large portions of northern India. Because of this historical trend of animosity, many Hindu Indians did not want to be in the same state as Muslims and vice versa. In addition to religion, language acted as a centrifugal force in southern Asia. The people in modern-day Pakistan predominantly spoke Urdu, Pakistan’s current official language, but, in India, Hindi was a lingua franca because, even though there were hundreds of other languages, Hindi is commonly used amongst people who practice Hinduism. With these two powerful centrifugal forces, the conflict between Muslim and Hindu ethnicities was heightened, and, had the British not intervened and separated them into different states, the former colony would have been catapulted into chaos.
Despite the large-scale region’s multitudinous centrifugal forces, the centripetal forces within what would become India and Pakistan provided a resolution and presented a hope for stability. Religion acted as a centripetal force in what would become Pakistan and Bangladesh, for both groups are Muslim even though they are separated by India. Having a common religion makes these groups have a common culture, which creates homogeneousness and decreases the potential for conflict. Similarly, the religion of Hinduism in India greatly increased its potential for peaceful existence, even though there are hundreds of languages and other cultural factors that promote diversity within the ethnic group. Religion acted as the strongest centripetal force, but proximity, in a way, acted as a centripetal force within certain areas, too. Being close to one group means that one will have more in common with that group than one that is far away, as distance decay theory states. This led to unity within Pakistan and India respectively. The entire colony was just too big to be one state, especially since centripetal forces of culture only acted on a smaller scale. If the states had stayed together, there would have been conflict because of religion and cultural differences, but, because Britain had the foresight to create separate states, these conflicts were avoided, and centripetal forces were, for the most part, enhanced.
The end result of Britain’s action in leaving southern Asia had a lasting impact. The resolution to the problem was to create two separate states of India and Pakistan, and this was able to make states mirroring the nation-state ideal. Now, India is a predominantly Hindu country composed of people united by religion and cultural similarities, and Pakistan is a predominantly Muslim country whose population is proud of its homogeneous Muslim religion and culture. The borders were created to coincide as well as possible with the ethnic boundaries, so the current border strives to keep Muslims in Pakistan and Hindus in India. Unfortunately, it was not drawn well, and a mass migration of Hindus into India and Muslims into Pakistan caused a perilous period of religious and ethnic tension between the two nations. In addition, there is still an area in southern Asia called Kashmir that India and Pakistan wish to have, but it is currently divided by a 1972 line of control. Despite initial tensions, the border between India and Pakistan has been relatively effective in minimizing ethnic and religious tensions just as the British hoped.
Presently, southern Asia is not perfect, but it is on its way to developing ethnically homologous nation states that will be mostly free of conflict. New problems face the region now. First, Bangladesh was forced to secede from Pakistan because the separation was
to taxing on the geographically distant states. In addition, Sri Lanka’s ethnic tensions have flared between the Tamils and Sinhalese as a result of colonial powers leaving the region. However, as southern Asia continues to strive to shape itself to minimize conflict, it will continue to improve and be better equipped to confront the challenges ahead. As a result of the foresight of the United Kingdom when leaving, southern Asia has been saved from becoming an area constantly plagued with major conflict and internal centrifugal forces. The problems faced by the region now pale in comparison to what it has overcome, and it is sure that the region will continue to improve.
reflection
Process: This essay was a minor assignment in my online AP Human Geography class, but it still necessitated a typical essay writing process. First, I gathered research from numerous sources including my textbook and online databases. With this information, I was equipped to answer the four main questions presented by the assignment. I decided to make each question’s answer a separate paragraph, so that become my organizational base for the essay. With that planning out of the way, I got all of my thoughts on paper about the ethnic reasons for partitioning the former British colony in South Asia. Unfortunately, I exceeded the three page limit as I often do, so I was required to heavily edit the work until it came in under the page limit. That was essentially the only editing I did to create the final product aside from a few minor grammatical and syntax changed to ameliorate the essay overall. This product, due to the process, was rather simple to complete.
Product: I like many things about this product. First, I really liked the topic as I think it was interesting, so that showed in my
multitudinous supply of facts that I gleaned from research. In addition, I think I went into great detail explaining the centrifugal and centripetal forces that were in play in South Asia to an extent that exceeded the requirements of the essay assignment. Also, in terms of writing, my introductory paragraph gave great background information to the conflict in the area so that readers would be able to understand what was happening. Again, this came from my abundant research. Finally, my optimism throughout this essay was uncharacteristic, but it was somewhat enjoyable to think back on this assignment and see how much I obviously liked the British actions in this scenario. This project was fun to say the least.
Growth: This project did push my abilities because it was one of my first essays for an AP class. I had previously been told by my AP teacher that I, like most IB students he has taught, have a propensity to employ flowery IB language, which is bad for AP because the AP scorers want the facts and nothing else. However, in this essay, unlike practice FRQs, I was given to opportunity and the encouragement to use a little more flowery language than usual. As a result, I had to find a happy medium between the flowers and the facts while I was writing. Even though I tended to go to the comfortable IB language, I still think this essay has a lot of facts and straight, ungarnished information than I am used to putting on paper. For these reasons, AP projects are certainly more difficult than my comfortable IB writings.
Improvement: There are many areas for improvement in this essay. First, I am obviously biased while I am writing this essay in a manner that is not appropriate for the task. I used to many pro-British phrases that made me sound like one myself. That eliminates the credibility of my entire piece of writing. In addition, the organization of this essay is deplorable. Of course, I was quite restricted in terms of organization because of the questions I had to answer in the essay in terms of the assignment, but I still ought to have ameliorated the terrible organization I had. Finally, I think economy of words could have been more present in my piece. In fact, the first and second body paragraphs are perhaps mirror images of each other. Unfortunately, I had to do that to make my answers to the guiding questions obvious, but I wish I could have found a way to avoid restating the opposite of what I just said. To be sure, this essay is far from perfect.
Product: I like many things about this product. First, I really liked the topic as I think it was interesting, so that showed in my
multitudinous supply of facts that I gleaned from research. In addition, I think I went into great detail explaining the centrifugal and centripetal forces that were in play in South Asia to an extent that exceeded the requirements of the essay assignment. Also, in terms of writing, my introductory paragraph gave great background information to the conflict in the area so that readers would be able to understand what was happening. Again, this came from my abundant research. Finally, my optimism throughout this essay was uncharacteristic, but it was somewhat enjoyable to think back on this assignment and see how much I obviously liked the British actions in this scenario. This project was fun to say the least.
Growth: This project did push my abilities because it was one of my first essays for an AP class. I had previously been told by my AP teacher that I, like most IB students he has taught, have a propensity to employ flowery IB language, which is bad for AP because the AP scorers want the facts and nothing else. However, in this essay, unlike practice FRQs, I was given to opportunity and the encouragement to use a little more flowery language than usual. As a result, I had to find a happy medium between the flowers and the facts while I was writing. Even though I tended to go to the comfortable IB language, I still think this essay has a lot of facts and straight, ungarnished information than I am used to putting on paper. For these reasons, AP projects are certainly more difficult than my comfortable IB writings.
Improvement: There are many areas for improvement in this essay. First, I am obviously biased while I am writing this essay in a manner that is not appropriate for the task. I used to many pro-British phrases that made me sound like one myself. That eliminates the credibility of my entire piece of writing. In addition, the organization of this essay is deplorable. Of course, I was quite restricted in terms of organization because of the questions I had to answer in the essay in terms of the assignment, but I still ought to have ameliorated the terrible organization I had. Finally, I think economy of words could have been more present in my piece. In fact, the first and second body paragraphs are perhaps mirror images of each other. Unfortunately, I had to do that to make my answers to the guiding questions obvious, but I wish I could have found a way to avoid restating the opposite of what I just said. To be sure, this essay is far from perfect.