4 ms·

#5: conflict between ethnic groups is, IMO, our big blindspot. An amnesia regarding the story of modern politics. Some version of "Rwanda 1994," occurred in man

by netcan 1y ago

#5: conflict between ethnic groups is, IMO, our big blindspot. An amnesia regarding the story of modern politics. Some version of "Rwanda 1994," occurred in many places, at the transition to modern nation state from whatever came before. Before nation states, the world wasn't as divided geographically into nations. It got to be that way through violent conflict. Empires like Austria-Hungary, Russia or the Ottoman Empire were multicultural. Places like Poland, Czechoslovakia had communities of Czechs, Slovaks, Germans, Jews, Hungarians, Roma. "German" ethnicity was spread out all over europe... and all the way to Kazakstan. The whole world was like this. We "sorted" mostly through conflict... in the latter examples of transition to National democracies, or non-democratic nation states. Ireland was partitioned along religious lines, in 1921. The world wars moved borders and people until strong majorities were created. When the Ottoman empire divided, Greeks and Turks kicked eachother out. When India gained independence Muslims and Hindus kicked eachother out. Yugoslavia divided violently at a later date... as soon as totalitarianism ended. Cyprus divided in in 1974. Iraq divided internally into ethnic regions and neighbourhood after Sadaam. Syria is currently shedding its ethnic diversity. Conflicts in Sudan and Yemen are civil wars between different religions. Democratic nation states with familiar features like left-right politics and a widely respected constitutional order... those generally appear post "sorting." The Military is always involved here. We have some good ideas about defending an order. This text makes more sense in that context. Defending a democratic order. It doesn't tell us much about generating such an order. I think that a stronger narrative understanding of this history would serve an officer well. Allows a distinction between a defensive and offensive mission.

defrost 1y ago
> When India gained independence Muslims and Hindus kicked eachother out. My understanding is that partition was driven by the British, starting with the 1905 partition of Bengal and ultimately leading to the greater partition of (formerly) British India. Had it not been for the British obsession with drawing lines on map both India and the middle east would be very different today with (possibly) considerably less inter ethnic group strife.
- sieve 1y ago
  > partition was driven by the British The British absolutely had a role. One theory is the West needed a pliable state on India's west to guard the Arabian Sea from the Russians. A lot of Hindu politicians of the era were socialists. Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, was a Fabian Socialist. What if India allied with Russia? Pakistan soon became a CENTO treaty member. The thousand year Hindu-Muslim rivalry is the main driver, however. During the 16-18th centuries, European expeditions started hitting Indian shores, initially nibbling around the edges, and Muslim power on the subcontinent was comprehensively demolished by the Maratha Empire. The British drove out other European claimants and managed to wrest control over the subcontinent piece-by-piece. Muslim elites did not mind ruling over majority-Hindu provinces for centuries. But loss of power and membership of a numerical minority creates insecurities and the idea of a separate Muslim nation started post 1857. People can quibble about the origin of the idea and who is to blame. But no one can deny the fact that repeated massive riots between these communities (which are separate communities/religions, not ethnicities) in the decades leading to the partition signaled the inevitable.
  - netcan 1y ago
    > People can quibble about the origin of the idea and who is to blame. Look... I think there is a whole lot of extremely motivated reasoning. Even the British weren't that keen to defend British imperialism by the time of India's independence. The Brits being already responsible for so many sins, make an easy place to put "blame" that cannot be borne elsewhere. The alternative is to "blame" nationalism, self determination, liberalism. republicanism, and/or democracy. Everyone knew that India was going to civil war. It was a big factor delaying British decolonisation. Gandhi's whole ideology/rhetoric as independence loomed changed to try an prevent it. Naive in retrospect. This has always been the sticking point, for modern nationalism. People have strong, inconvenient notions of who the "nation" is.
- miohtama 1y ago
  Here is how the partition of India happened. It was not entirely linear process. https://youtu.be/4VMLTmksq3Y?si=G6rhRG21hnh-yaaW https://youtu.be/4VMLTmksq3Y?si=G6rhRG21hnh-yaaW

by netcan 1y ago

defrost 1y ago

> When India gained independence Muslims and Hindus kicked eachother out. My understanding is that partition was driven by the British, starting with the 1905 partition of Bengal and ultimately leading to the greater partition of (formerly) British India. Had it not been for the British obsession with drawing lines on map both India and the middle east would be very different today with (possibly) considerably less inter ethnic group strife.

sieve 1y ago
> partition was driven by the British The British absolutely had a role. One theory is the West needed a pliable state on India's west to guard the Arabian Sea from the Russians. A lot of Hindu politicians of the era were socialists. Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, was a Fabian Socialist. What if India allied with Russia? Pakistan soon became a CENTO treaty member. The thousand year Hindu-Muslim rivalry is the main driver, however. During the 16-18th centuries, European expeditions started hitting Indian shores, initially nibbling around the edges, and Muslim power on the subcontinent was comprehensively demolished by the Maratha Empire. The British drove out other European claimants and managed to wrest control over the subcontinent piece-by-piece. Muslim elites did not mind ruling over majority-Hindu provinces for centuries. But loss of power and membership of a numerical minority creates insecurities and the idea of a separate Muslim nation started post 1857. People can quibble about the origin of the idea and who is to blame. But no one can deny the fact that repeated massive riots between these communities (which are separate communities/religions, not ethnicities) in the decades leading to the partition signaled the inevitable.
- netcan 1y ago
  > People can quibble about the origin of the idea and who is to blame. Look... I think there is a whole lot of extremely motivated reasoning. Even the British weren't that keen to defend British imperialism by the time of India's independence. The Brits being already responsible for so many sins, make an easy place to put "blame" that cannot be borne elsewhere. The alternative is to "blame" nationalism, self determination, liberalism. republicanism, and/or democracy. Everyone knew that India was going to civil war. It was a big factor delaying British decolonisation. Gandhi's whole ideology/rhetoric as independence loomed changed to try an prevent it. Naive in retrospect. This has always been the sticking point, for modern nationalism. People have strong, inconvenient notions of who the "nation" is.
miohtama 1y ago
Here is how the partition of India happened. It was not entirely linear process. https://youtu.be/4VMLTmksq3Y?si=G6rhRG21hnh-yaaW https://youtu.be/4VMLTmksq3Y?si=G6rhRG21hnh-yaaW