tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23301331.post834338084976280059..comments2023-10-28T05:02:10.442-04:00Comments on Americans For Bosnia: "Divide or Fall?" by Radha Kumar--Chapter OneKirk Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06879908614214050994noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23301331.post-77647117641881337022008-04-24T04:29:00.000-04:002008-04-24T04:29:00.000-04:00I think "agreed by both" gives a misleading impres...I think "agreed by both" gives a misleading impression of the degree and timing of agreement on partition. Partition was a project that was impelled by Jinnah and the Muslim League. The Congress Party was opposed to partition until very late in the day.<BR/><BR/>Congress believed that Muslims as well as Hindus could be accommodated within the party and within its proposals for an independent India. Gandhi had also argued that Muslims and Hindus should work together for and after independence, hence his post-independence assassination by a Hindu nationalist.<BR/><BR/>I'm not an expert but the key moment seems to have been the Direct Action Day in August 1946. Jinnah persuaded the UK government Cabinet Mission, which was supposed to come up with a mutually acceptable formula for independence, to come up with a plan for partition which the Congress Party rejected.<BR/><BR/>As I understand, it was the violence on the Direct Action Day a couple of months later that persuaded Congress that the inter-communal situation was irretrievable, hence their agreement to the partition proposals.<BR/><BR/>So although partition was agreed, the intransigence of one side had made it the only practicable option. Whether or not violence could have been avoided without partition is another matter. I guess a lot depends on the date you take as the starting point for the analysis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23301331.post-81621444972163963612008-04-23T23:45:00.000-04:002008-04-23T23:45:00.000-04:00With respect to Cyprus, the British did not attemp...With respect to Cyprus, the British did not attempt a division strategy. Rather, they tried to keep Cyprus whole and independent, with minority protections. It failed.<BR/><BR/>In Ireland, it is true that the British divided the country. But one could argue that there were economic reasons to do so. Religion was important, as the Catholics for a long times were disenfranchised, but religion also can be overstated. Many Irish Home Rule leaders were Protestant (Parnell the most famous example). <BR/><BR/>The failure of the Home Rule movement was not really a religious issue but economic. What is today Northern Ireland was then a heavily industrial place whose prosperity relied on ties with Great Britain and with the Empire. What today is the Republic of Ireland was then a heavily rural and pastoral place. Much opposition to Home Rule was a concern that the Home Rule government would be dominated by rural interests. <BR/><BR/>In any event, the war that broke out in Ireland after independence was unrelated to partition but rather a war between supporters of the Free State settlement and those who wanted a Republic free of any tie to Great Britain -- it would have happened even if there was no partition but the other provisions of the settlement remained.<BR/><BR/>With India, the issue is more complex. As pointed out, partition had been discussed for some time. One could argue that partition was a bad thing, as it broke apart economic and cultural connections that had existed for hundreds of years (if not longer). It created pockets of tyranny (i.e. Kashmir) in India, an otherwise democratic state. It helped create undemocratic conditions in Pakistan. If the country was not portioned, it might have created a second Moslem democracy (after Turkey) in those regions that were heavily Moslem.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, one could argue that partition did not go far enough. India was in many ways a hodgepodge of states that were not really connected, except though outside empires (the Moguls then the British). At the very least, Pakistan and Bangladesh should have been split. <BR/><BR/>In any event, one cannot clearly state when partition is good and bad. Even when it is a proper solution, you can never draw the border perfectly.<BR/><BR/>I look forward to the rest of the analysis (you read books so I don't have to!)Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06638332009159486046noreply@blogger.com