colonialism and border conflicts: india/pakistan

[rioters bloc]

to anyone who's familiar with any the history of colonialism in india/pakistan, israel/palestine, or ireland/nth ireland: to what extent do you think that colonialism [and the withdrawl of the british empire] was responsible for the border conflicts which still exist in those areas? was it directly responsible, or do you think that it simply exacerbated underlying local tensions?

this is for an assignment, and i've pretty much got stuff worked out but i'm looking for different ideas as well so i can either incorporate them into my essay or find reasons why i disagree with them.. will make it easier for me to be back stuff up that way :)

and also cos i think it's an interesting question.

cheers in advance

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'd say colonialism played a huge part in the continueing clashes in these places to this day.

I'm not that familiar with Indian history, but collaborating with the British and letting them partition off parts of it was a huge mistake that caused the deaths of thousands and thousands of people and dislocated many many more. During earlier periods of resistance to British imperialism, Muslem and Hindi Indians worked together, so I don't think that the claim that these groups were always antagonistic is valid.

Divide and conquor is the most effective tactic used by minorities who want to rule majorities. The US is doing this in Iraq as we speak. They fan the flames of regional antagonisms by having Kurdish soldiers in the South or soldiers from the south for the occupation of Falluja. In Ireland it's the same thing, prop up prodestants and spark antagonisms between them and the opressed catholics and then the government has a justification for continueing it's "paternal rule" over the people "who obviously can't rule themselves".

[viva le revolution]

Well i can only comment on India and Pakistan. The current hostilities are the direct result of British colonialism. For example , the Kashmir question,
Each state in india was given the option to join either india or pakistan based on two conditions, 1). THAT THE muslim-dominated areas would go to Pakistan and the hindu-majority areas would go to India 2). Independant fiefdoms were given the option of joining between the two, i.e the local rajah could choose.
Kashmir posed a problem, it was surrounded by muslim territory designated for pakistan, it was a muslim-majority area but the rajah was a hindu who chose india. The logical conclusion, it should go to Pakistan. However, on the insistence of Lord Mountbatten, governor-general of india at the time, lord Radcliffe, who was responsible for marking the borders gave the muslim areas surrounding kashmir( jalandhar) to india in direct contravention to the earlier conditions.
The result. India got direct land access to Kashmir. Seeing this Pathan tribesmen from north pakistan moved towards kashmir to furthur their claim, the rajah requested india to send troops, much to the dismay of his subjects. At that time, the armed forces of india and pakistan were still commanded by british officers. Indian troops left for kashmir. Seeing this, the pakistani government also called for it's troops to move towards kashmir, However the british commanders kept on delaying and only when india took over half of kashmir did they take action. Thus kashmir was split between pakistan and india, in what is now Azad and india occupied kashmir. A seemingly straightforward case of seccession was turned into a conflict zone by the british. Three wars were fought over kashmir between india and pakistan to date, and it still risks becoming a nuclear flashpoint.
i guess we all know who to thank for this shit? fly union jack, fly!

[rioters bloc]

i agree, from what i know of the three cases the groups in question lived in relative harmony before colonial invasion - of course there were tensions, but they were nowhere near as bad as they are now. basically the line im taking is that it was in the interests of the empire to create a hostile sectarian environment because it was easier to economically exploit regions if people within those regions were fighting against each other rather than uniting against a common enemy.

also, according to historian Mushirul Hasan, the main bulk of the tensions in india were between muslim and hindu landlords and the Punjab peasant population, and the borders were created to benefit colonial powers and the landlords who saw the decline of feudalism as being socially and economically detrimental to them. if they kept the proletariat at war with each other, they don't have time/energy to put into class war. are there any obvious fallacies in that opinion which i should address?

i'm meant to be comparing india/pakistan with ireland/nth ireland, does anyone have any info on how the same economic exploitation was orchestrated in nth ireland? [if it did, from my vague understanding of its history it did happen but i dont know any details.]

[rioters bloc]

this is kinda a basic unedited intro i wrote, it's due in 12 hours and i've barely started! :( and its 3000 words argh :(

[insert first line here - i can never start essays :(] As the world moved from a feudal mindset to a much more profit-based capitalist one in the modern era, agriculture and labour became commodities that could be bought and sold – and the expanse of an empire in order to acquire resources was deemed the best way to ensure power and profit. Colonialism was not just the invasion of the East by the West, as it is often represented, but a collaborative effort between the colonisers and the colonised nation’s ruling classes to further the capitalistic goals of both. Decolonisation did not ‘liberate the masses’ as popular thought would have it, but merely shifted the power to exploit workers from the colonial empire to the newly formed governments. Moreover, the partitions formed along ethnic and religious lines by the colonisers before they withdrew served to suppress any cohesive subversive movement against this exploitation by creating a hostile, violent, sectarian environment where united class struggle would be impossible.

Despite the different natures of the presence of colonialism in India, Northern Ireland, and Palestine prior to the withdrawl of the British Empire, all three cases bear testament to this industrialist design. Continued conflict around modern borders is a direct result of the British Empire’s tactics of ‘divide and rule’, whereby underlying local tensions [in some cases more pronounced than others, such as Ireland/Nth Ireland over Israel/Palestine] are heightened to an exponential degree during the colonial reign, and are then locked in by partitioning the land in a way most favourable to the colonisers.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 6 2005, 09:23 AM
i'm meant to be comparing india/pakistan with ireland/nth ireland, does anyone have any info on how the same economic exploitation was orchestrated in nth ireland? [if it did, from my vague understanding of its history it did happen but i dont know any details.]
There are most likely many similarities in the colonial rule of both places. But there are also some differences in the colonal rule of these two places. In India, for many years, the british relied on the pre-existing feudal caste system to support their rule. They sides with some local lords against others only to double cross both (divide and conquor) in the end. I don't know what the social structure of Ireland was like before british intervention.

THe conditions before colonail rule in both of these places were different so the British had to take different tactics in order to take over. Additionally, it's two completely different periods of colonial conquest, so the British were probably more sophistiocated in the ways they attempted to rule in India vs. Ireland (though the result, blooshead and opression ruined lives, is the same).

[Hiero]

Everywhere there has been colonial contact, fasle borders and false nations states were created.

Iraq is the creation of 3 nations.

In Africa most nation states are false colonial creations. There is so much you could write about.

[PrideoftheProletariat]

Well, I can personally comment on the situation in Northern Ireland as I have family that live there. British colonialism was responsible for the creation of it. However nowadays, it has very little to do with the clashes that exist there. The activities of the IRA are just the actions of radical catholic terrorists. Its not so much a colonial discontent as it is religious, or at least is concieved to be the Irish catholic exretemists. The majority of Northen Irish don't see it as a religious fight even, and the vast majority of them, Catholic and Irish, want to stay in the UK, which is a lot more liberal and secular than the Catholic bathed goverment of Ireland. My family in Ireland are cops and some of them have had their houses bombed by members of the IRA. I scoff at anyone who thinks that Northern Ireland returning to the government of Ireland would be a fight for "freedom".

[bcbm]

I don't think anyone wants to "return" Northern Ireland to the government of the Republic of Ireland, I think they want the creation of a new, unified Irish state.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 01:11 AM
Well, I can personally comment on the situation in Northern Ireland as I have family that live there. British colonialism was responsible for the creation of it. However nowadays, it has very little to do with the clashes that exist there. The activities of the IRA are just the actions of radical catholic terrorists. Its not so much a colonial discontent as it is religious, or at least is concieved to be the Irish catholic exretemists. The majority of Northen Irish don't see it as a religious fight even, and the vast majority of them, Catholic and Irish, want to stay in the UK, which is a lot more liberal and secular than the Catholic bathed goverment of Ireland. My family in Ireland are cops and some of them have had their houses bombed by members of the IRA. I scoff at anyone who thinks that Northern Ireland returning to the government of Ireland would be a fight for "freedom".
So your saying that if the British never colonised Ireland, or the North of Ireland was giving back to the Irish people the IRA would still be active?

This is completlty ridiculous, the IRA and other IRA splinter groups' actions up to this point are the cause of colonialism and the overextended control of Northern Ireland by the British.

Also any correct Marxist does not apologise for imperialism and colonialism based on the imperialist or coloniser being more liberal and secular. If we do this, it gives a go ahead for any liberal democracy to invade and interfer with every conservative country in the world.

[rioters bloc]

like BBBG said. the IRA do not want Northern Ireland to be a part of the rep of ireland, any more than they want it to be united with Britain. they gave up on the republic long ago when they realised that they didn't really give a shit about the situation up north.

also, i don't think that all the IRA are 'irish catholic extremists.' one of my close friend's entire family [the male part anyway :/] apart from her dad is part of the IRA, and they're pretty much atheist from what i've observed :P

[Delirium]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 5 2005, 06:54 AM
to anyone who's familiar with any the history of colonialism in india/pakistan, israel/palestine, or ireland/nth ireland: to what extent do you think that colonialism [and the withdrawl of the british empire] was responsible for the border conflicts which still exist in those areas? was it directly responsible, or do you think that it simply exacerbated underlying local tensions?

this is for an assignment, and i've pretty much got stuff worked out but i'm looking for different ideas as well so i can either incorporate them into my essay or find reasons why i disagree with them.. will make it easier for me to be back stuff up that way :)

and also cos i think it's an interesting question.

cheers in advance
Do not forget about Britian's failed attempt to convert Iraq into a sovergin state, much like the united states is doing now. As a spoil of WWI it was haphazardously threw together and that recklesness created many of the ethnic problems in iraq today. You could say the same for much of the middle east and south asia.

[The Grey Blur]

Well, I can personally comment on the situation in Northern Ireland as I have family that live there
So you believe everything your relatives tell you? Didn't you say one of them was in the UDR? (The UDR was one of the more brutal and anti-Catholic parts of the British Military, controlled by Loyalist paramilitaries who would collude with the UDR in hits on innocent catholics or republicans)


British colonialism was responsible for the creation of it.
I take it you mean 800 years of opression and brutality (I know it's cliché, but it's true)


However nowadays, it has very little to do with the clashes that exist there.
So you think that British colonialism and the plantation as well as 72 years of living in a biased, sectarian hellhole had nothing to do with the enmity between Catholics and Protestants? If so you are deluded.


The activities of the IRA are just the actions of radical catholic terrorists.
Well I'll break down your mistakes then I'll correct them, shall I?

"The activities of the IRA" - Defense of under-siege Catholic areas and retaliation against the imperialist British forces.

"are just the actions of radical catholic terrorists" - Wait no seriously? Seriously? You're trying to brush off the IRA as just the actions of radical catholic terrorists? Well these 'radical catholic terrorists' just nearly managed to change the direction of the 20 century - bomb in the Bristol hotel gos off a minute earlier = no more Maggie Thatcher.


radical catholic terrorists
You consider yourself a communist and you cannot even recognize a revolution of the opressed?

First off, the IRA were not a sectarian organization; not only were the majority of IRA people anti-Catholic Church they never once targeted protestants, they targeted the British forces and Loyalist organizations, regardless off religion. (the first British trooper killed on the streets of Belfast was a catholic)

Secondly, you consider them terrorists? Tell me, do you consider the Palestinian freedom fighters, the ANC or the Zapatistas as terrorists as well? Do you consider the ANC radical black terrorists?

Last point - why are we even arguing over this? The IRA are defunct; they have laid down their weapons and are prepared to assist Sinn Féin through peaceful means to achieve a United (non-sectarian) Democratic Socialist Ireland.


Its not so much a colonial discontent as it is religious
Wrong again, it wasan integral piece of propaganda for the British Government that the North is just two backward sectarian communities viciously feuding and that the British military were simply trying to conduct a peace-keeping mission when, in reality, it was a revolution against an Imperialist aggressor, justified in any means it used.


or at least is concieved to be the Irish catholic exretemists.

British Imperialist aggressor: Blame all this sectarian violence on those crazy, fire-and-brimstone Catholic preachers...oh wait, the Catholic population in the North have always wanted peaceful co-existence and, in fact, the Catholic Church has nominal support in Republican areas...uh maybe we can blame it all on those crazy, fire-brimstone Protestant preachers!...oh wait, basically the same thing there (ignoring big Ian of course)...umm, who can we blame this mess in the north of Ireland on now?

Aide: Maybe ourselves sir?

BIA: What are you, a troublemaker?


The majority of Northen Irish don't see it as a religious fight even,
Including the IRA


and the vast majority of them, Catholic and Irish, want to stay in the UK
WTF? Catholic & Irish? :blink:

There is no 'vast majority' - at the rate that pro-Irish Unity on both sides of the border increases and due to demographics that show that the Catholic (generally pro-Unity) population is increasing wheras the Protestant (generally anti-Unity) is decreasing. ...anyway, Irish Unity is the main goal of all Irish Republicans, once this is achieved the goal of a truly democratic and socialist Ireland can take main stage.


which is a lot more liberal and secular than the Catholic bathed goverment of Ireland
:lol: Okay, I've never been put into the position of actually having to defend the corrupt, capitalist government of the Republic before - the rate of life is much higher in the Republic and it is not an Imperialist aggressor like England.


My family in Ireland are cops and some of them have had their houses bombed by members of the IRA
Sincerely doubt the IRA would target RUC men at their homes, more likely they were either part of the UDR and colluded in murder or they were attacked on duty but tried to discredit the IRA by accusing them of attacking them at their homes.


I scoff at anyone who thinks that Northern Ireland returning to the government of Ireland would be a fight for "freedom".
*shakes his head sadly* You are quite obviously uneducated, misguided, and biased against Catholics if you think Irish Republicans have been fighting for years and years to return to the Republic.

Conclusion; You are a misguided fool who takes the word of his relatives as law. Read Connolly, the 1916 Proclamation, the IRSP founding statement ,Sinn Féin's manifesto or, better yet, pick up the simplest piece of Irish Republican literature and read it.

BTW - Really, really sorry about wrecking your thread Rioters', he just annoyed me

[bulrog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 02:11 PM
Well, I can personally comment on the situation in Northern Ireland as I have family that live there.
I'm not even going to get into detail, RATM took you to peices mate.

But just because you have family here does not mean you can ''personally comment on the situation'' anymore than the next guy, it does seem to me that your family would be the type to brainwash their kids and relatives, it happens a lot.

I fucking live here, as does RATM, as does Makaveli, Des, Oglach, Sir AuntyChrist and a fair few others, and I'm sure we'll all generally agree that you talk complete and utter balls (yes even Sir AuntyChrist couldn't possibly agree with you on all that bullshit).

EDIT: Bombs at a relatives house :lol: As if the IRA would waste a bomb on a house, wise up. Bombs were used for the British Army (Warrenpoint), businesses (Shankill), important buildings (Canary Wharf) and other British related stuff.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Datura inoxia+Nov 18 2005, 04:21 AM--> (Datura inoxia @ Nov 18 2005, 04:21 AM)
rioters [email protected] 5 2005, 06:54 AM
to anyone who's familiar with any the history of colonialism in india/pakistan, israel/palestine, or ireland/nth ireland: to what extent do you think that colonialism [and the withdrawl of the british empire] was responsible for the border conflicts which still exist in those areas? was it directly responsible, or do you think that it simply exacerbated underlying local tensions?

this is for an assignment, and i've pretty much got stuff worked out but i'm looking for different ideas as well so i can either incorporate them into my essay or find reasons why i disagree with them.. will make it easier for me to be back stuff up that way :)

and also cos i think it's an interesting question.

cheers in advance
Do not forget about Britian's failed attempt to convert Iraq into a sovergin state, much like the united states is doing now. As a spoil of WWI it was haphazardously threw together and that recklesness created many of the ethnic problems in iraq today. You could say the same for much of the middle east and south asia. [/b]
thanks dude, i handed the assignment in about 2 weeks ago though :)

and yeah, we could only 3 cases to do, out of a list of about 10.. i don't think iraq was in there..

[Guerrilla22]

Colonialism is responsible for numerous conflicts all over the world, because certain European powers created most of the territories we now now in Africa, South East Asia and the Middle East with no regard to ethnicities. if you recall British India also included Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. The British government gave the Muslims Pakistan and forced their relocation, which cause all kinds of problems and led to the conflict over Kashmir.

[Janus]

Much of the world's border conflicts stem from the irresponsibility of the governments that set up those borders. In the case of India and Pakistan, it was the negligence of the British to control the situation rather than run away and laeve their former subjects in turmoil. Despite the good intentions of the UN in establishing Israel, how could they think that they could fix one culture's sorrows by kicking out another culture from lands that they had settled for centuries. However, the conflict in Northern Ireland was a political and religious conflict rather than one about borders. In all theses countries, it was the negligence of the nations that established them that created these conflicts. The imperialists disregarded ethnicity and never stablised the situation before packing their bags.