How did this division intensify the very conflict it was intended to resolve? Part of the answer lies in the drawing of the boundary. The problem of Indo-Pakistani tension took on greater urgency when both India and Pakistan tested their nuclear weapons in May 1998, and current events in South Asia demonstrate the need for continued attention to and greater understanding of this vital region. The results include three wars, in 1948, 1965, and 1971, as well as the Kargil conflict of 1999. Conflict between Hindus and Muslims had existed on the subcontinent, to a greater or lesser degree, for many centuries, but the partition brought that conflict to the international level - and exacerbated it. Unfortunately, it also inaugurated Indo-Pakistani tension. For South Asian history, it meant independence for India and Pakistan. As an episode in imperial history, it marked the beginning of a global trend towards decolonization. This territorial division is significant on multiple levels. There is, in contrast, a great deal to be said about flaws in the boundary-making procedure - and why those flaws existed. Radcliffe’s line was far from perfect, but it is important to note that alternative borders would not necessarily have provided a significant improvement. The Punjab’s population distribution was such that there was no line that could neatly divide Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs. Due to this fact and to a myriad of political pressures, the Radcliffe Commission failed to draw a geopolitically sound line delineated and demarcated in accordance with accepted international procedure. From a certain perspective, however, a rigorously and properly delineated boundary was not necessary to accomplish these political ends - any boundary line would do. It would not be possible to hand over power without making it clear what international entity would take on that power in order to define a new international entity, a new boundary was necessary. without defining the entity or entities that would come into power, they concluded that such an approach was impractical. The Muslim League, which claimed to represent South Asia’s Muslims and was led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, won Pakistan, the sovereign Muslim state for which it had campaigned.Īlthough the British had, in 1946, considered leaving India piecemeal, transferring power to individual provences as they withdrew, they concluded that such an approach was impractical.
The British seized the opportunity to withdraw from their onerous Indian responsibilities as quickly as possible the Indian National Congress, the avowedly secular but primarily Hindu party headed by Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, took control of India, as it had desired for so long. In the end, his boundary-making effort was a failure in terms of boundary-making, but a striking success in terms of providing political cover to all sides. The commission takes its name from its chairman, Sir Cyril Radcliffe. 2 It is part of a larger project that will examine links between the boundary-making process and the repercussions of partition, particularly mass violence. 1 This article analyzes the problematic procedure and format of the body responsible for delineating that boundary through the province of Punjab, the Radcliffe Boundary Commission. Surprisingly, historians have paid little attention to the creation of the Indo-Pakistani boundary, a key element of the 1947 division. Border tensions between India and Pakistan have taken on a new magnitude since both countries carried out nuclear tests in May 1998. The 1947 partition of South Asia has had lasting repercussions not only for the region, but also for the larger international community.
0 kommentar(er)
