.png)
By: Jessica Chai
Historic Overview
Britain’s long-lasting regime sowed the seeds of instability that are beginning to flower today. When Mahatma Gandhi, the “prophet of nonviolence,” called for independence from the British crown, there was an initial struggle between the Indian citizens and British officials. Though the British empire did institute internally destructive structures in the Indian government, perhaps the most outwardly destructive policy was the Pakistan-India partition. In fact, according to a statement released by India’s High Commissioner in 1947 (retrieved from the National Archives), the relations between Hindus and Muslims had been soiled by the remarks of western governments. These included the notion that “Muslim leaders had always tried to ‘betray the country and therefore they would now be given their proper place”, meaning that Western countries were the first to create the ideological divide between these two ethnic groups. Additionally, it seems European empires were predicting the future turmoil, as an analysis from the British government in that same year warned that the near “collapse [of Pakistan] was primarily due to the hostility of India''. These two factors of colonialism and apprehension were the foundations for ruinous contemporary Pakistan-Indian relations. Both the violent separation of these ethnic groups and the rise of neo-imperialist regimes contribute to the multiple factors that make up India and Pakistan’s unstable relationship.
Kashmir Conflict
One of the most everlasting conflicts in the South Asian region is the Kashmir conflict, or more specifically, a territorial battle between India and Pakistan over a geographically strategic buffer zone. As the National Army Museum summarizes: after the Viceroy of India, Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten, confirmed the withdrawal of British troops, “the responsibility for maintaining law and order was handed over to the Indian Army...a chiefly British-officered force”. This contextual information could be the reason why such horrible acts of mass violence occurred during the bidirectional migration, taking upwards of a million lives. This also could explain how migratory authorities refused to see the legitimacy of Pakistan, thus escalating to three full-scale wars over the indecisive state of Kashmir. Unfortunately, even after a “United Nations-sponsored ceasefire in 1948” the Kashmir region is still a boiling hotspot waiting to explode, now with a third military actor, China, encroaching on its borders. In fact, all three countries constantly have troops stationed at the border between their official border and Kashmir territory. The image is bleak: every day, civilians and troops are shot in the cross-firing of thousands of bullets, but with no side willing to back down.
Nuclear Weapons Arms Race
Traditional ground combat between India and Pakistan has likely tired both countries, and unnecessarily lost millions of troop lives. While neither side is willing to give up, this dilemma has directed the governments of India and Pakistan to look towards a newer sphere of conflict: Nukes. According to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, current relations are at a standstill, as India and Pakistan, who both possess weapons of mass destruction, “have refused to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)”, which makes their animosity that much more concerning. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation continues that a short while after the British officially withdrew, “a group of Indian scientists, led by physicist Homi Bhabha...convinced Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to invest resources in a nuclear program.” However, this program initially started as a purely atomic energy initiative, which Nehru saw as a necessary project to quickly modernize India. Later on, Bhabha introduced the use of nuclear energy from civilian to military use, “merging western militaristic attitudes in the defense policy’s sphere, and India’s nationalistic aspiration to grow as a world power.” Bhabha’s idea can be attributed to the fact that he attended the University of Cambridge, and was able to meet with famous European physicists who contributed to the notorious Manhattan Project. Ironically using European strategies as inspiration, he and the Indian government believed that achieving nuclear technology would push India to overcome decades of British colonialism.
The year 1996 marked a turning point for India’s nuclear ambitions when Indira Gandhi became the Prime Minister of India. Gandhi, whose power nearly reached the extent of a dictator, was a relentless advocate for the military use of nuclear technology. Eventually, the development of the US global military presence widened the schism between India and Pakistan. When Pakistan started to receive military and economic assistance from the US, India’s government was provoked and immediately started to counter these measures. Both countries used hawkish rhetoric to villainize the other. While Pakistan claimed that it was more geographically strategic for the US to help the Pakistani government because its position between the Soviet Union and China could help fight communism. India argued that providing US aid to Pakistan would shatter the balance of power in the region and worsen threats between India and Pakistan. Therefore, Pakistan’s nuclear ambition has been shaped by its perception of India as a threat and its existential need to be on equal footing. The most recent significant change in South East Asian nuclear policies has, unfortunately, also been regressive, when India and Pakistan both refused to sign the NPT, signaling their intent to hold the threat of a nuclear launch.
Remnants of Colonialism in the Education System
In many of India's schools, according to Lory Hough from the Harvard Ed. Magazine, teachers consciously try to avoid reverting back to how they were taught as students, “which often involved public shaming and corporal punishment”. The reason for this was because the structure of these schools was rooted in the colonial education system first laid out by British politician Thomas Macaulay. In enforcing a strict and hierarchical school system, Macaulay claimed this would “enlighten the ‘comparatively ignorant’ peoples of the subcontinent and create a class of Anglicized clerks to work for Britain”. The lasting effect of these roots can be seen as the Indian government, even after achieving independence, still retained the educational bureaucracy because it benefited those in the governmental position, despite having cultural prejudices. Abdul Qayyum et al. supports this conclusion in a powerful publication, stating that the British “colonize India for financial benefits...institutionalized the systems…to produce [a] workforce which [would] follow the mindset of the rulers without causing any problems.” That’s why so much of Indian education is structured to be suffocatingly competitive because the “philosophy behind the system was to educate the people in such a way to think like rulers and oppress their own countrymen.” Those who were able to step on the heads of others to get ahead were rewarded, especially if they could achieve high paying jobs or prestigious political positions. This could be the invisible force that makes India and Pakistan clashing entities. Therefore, even though the British partition separated Pakistan and India, the general perception is that Pakistan is still under the influence of the colonial mindset. Qayyum ends with a powerful message: “This system does not give the sense of independence as the educated people try to enslave their own countrymen. This system teaches to hate fellow beings.”
More than just the education, this carries over to both India and Pakistan’s career markets. Y.P. Rajesh writes from Reuters that the enforcement of the English language since British colonial education has produced millions of Indian “English-speaking engineers and back-office workers, pushing the country’s IT industry to the global center stage and earning billions of dollars for the economy.” However, this image of prosperity only brings “a sense of equality under British rule,” but does not equate to India being on actual level terms with the European nation. India itself is not an economic force, but the working class of the world, making it a very illusory kind of development. Thus, the most damaging legacy that still endures is an administrative structure that was designed to run a colony, which is now implemented to run a democracy.
Defining India’s Caste System
In order to introduce India’s caste system, it is imperative to understand that the system was found from ancient text and came forth from religion. The caste system is a four-tiered categorical hierarchy of the Hindu religion. The order from top to bottom is Brahmins, which consisted of priests, then Kshatriyas, which were rulers or warriors, then Vaishyas, which were farmers/traders/merchants, and finally Shudras, which were low-level laborers. There was a fifth level that consisted of a class of people belonging outside of the hierarchy called Outcastes, or Untouchables, which were people who did unclean work and therefore could not be integrated into normal society. Presently, discrimination based on one’s caste ranking, or social standing, is illegal now and there are policies similar to affirmative action, otherwise known as positive discrimination.
Unlike the commonly held belief that India’s caste system took over all aspects of society, this notion was fabricated at the beginning of the 19th century, when the British colonial authorities pushed the narrative that India was purely based on a hierarchical system. In fact, more accurate historical reports suggest that the caste system had little significance or prevalence in Indian society before the British made it India's defining social feature. The ranks of the caste system were so much more flexible. Slaves, laborers, or merchants became kings; farmers became soldiers and soldiers became farmers; the society was flourishing with diversity. There is little evidence of systematic and widespread caste oppression, and thus in order to reject Eurocentric versions of history, we need to fundamentally re-imagine the role of social identity in pre-colonial India. It was after the British involved themselves in India that these religious, unstructured caste rankings became fully realized under British rule. Consequently, British officials took up all high positions in order to ensure complacency, or resist protests from Indian and Pakistan civilians. Therefore, as current unrest swells in each respective country due to ethnic, political, economic, or social tensions, the governments of India and Pakistan collapse back on habits instilled during the British colonial era and use force to push down their constituents, leading to a build-up of hostility.
Discussion Questions
How have Sino-Indian relations contributed to tension in the South East Asian geopolitical sphere?
Are nuclear treaties on the table for future international meetings?
How has Euro-centric education impacted the structure of the Indian economy?
How has Pakistan’s cooperation with the Taliban shifted the Kashmir conflict?
Sources Used/Further Reading:
تعليقات