A glimpse into religious fundamentalism...
2002 - Godhra train burning, where a Muslim mob kills 59 Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya
The train was returning hundreds of Hindu activists from a pilgrimage to the disputed holy site of Ayodhya in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, which is claimed by both Muslims and Hindus.
The dispute over Ayodhya had been ongoing for several years. In 1992 the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), or World Hindu Council, organised a demonstration which resulted in the destruction of a 500-year-old Moghul mosque at Ayodhya.
The Hindus believe the mosque occupied the same spot where their god Ram was born. The destruction of the mosque sparked the most widespread rioting India has seen since partition, and resulted in the deaths of more than 3,000 people.
More than 14,000 Hindus had already gathered at Ayodhya to plan the construction of a temple, and set a deadline of 15 March for work to begin. According to the head of police in Godhra, Raju Bhargava, it appeared that the train fire was started by a gang of Muslims who were angered by pro-Hindu chanting on the train.
The VHP called for a state-wide strike to protest against the attack and the more militant members vowed to continue with the temple's construction.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
On this Day in History (Feb 26)
Mostly US-related...
International History
1952 - British Prime Minister Winston Churchill announces that Britain had developed its own atomic bomb.
1984 - US troops withdraw from Beirut. President Ronald Reagan had sent the troops as a peacekeeping force in August 1982.
1987 - Iran-Contra affair: The Tower Commission rebukes American President Ronald Reagan for not controlling his national security staff.
1991 - Gulf War: On Baghdad Radio Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein announces the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait.
1993 - World Trade Center bombing: In New York City, a truck bomb parked below the North Tower of the World Trade Center explodes, killing 6 and injuring over a thousand.
International History
1952 - British Prime Minister Winston Churchill announces that Britain had developed its own atomic bomb.
1984 - US troops withdraw from Beirut. President Ronald Reagan had sent the troops as a peacekeeping force in August 1982.
1987 - Iran-Contra affair: The Tower Commission rebukes American President Ronald Reagan for not controlling his national security staff.
1991 - Gulf War: On Baghdad Radio Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein announces the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait.
1993 - World Trade Center bombing: In New York City, a truck bomb parked below the North Tower of the World Trade Center explodes, killing 6 and injuring over a thousand.
Yesterday in History (Feb 25)
A historically significant date.
International History
1948 - The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia takes control of government in Czechoslovakia and the period of the Third Republic ends.
1956 -- Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev harshly denounces late Josef Stalin in a speech before the 20th Communist Party congress in Moscow.
1994 -- American-born Jewish settler Baruch Goldstein opens fire with an automatic rifle inside the Tomb of the Patriarchs in the West Bank city of Hebron, killing 29 Palestinian worshippers and injuring 125 more before he is subdued and beaten to death by survivors. Subsequent rioting kills 26 more Palestinians and 9 Israelis.
International History
1948 - The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia takes control of government in Czechoslovakia and the period of the Third Republic ends.
1956 -- Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev harshly denounces late Josef Stalin in a speech before the 20th Communist Party congress in Moscow.
1994 -- American-born Jewish settler Baruch Goldstein opens fire with an automatic rifle inside the Tomb of the Patriarchs in the West Bank city of Hebron, killing 29 Palestinian worshippers and injuring 125 more before he is subdued and beaten to death by survivors. Subsequent rioting kills 26 more Palestinians and 9 Israelis.
History of SE Asia
1986 -- 'People Power Revolution'. President Ferdinand E. Marcos flees the Philippines after 20 years of rule in the wake of a tainted election. Corazon Aquino assumes the presidency.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Searching for an Elusive Peace in the Middle East (H1 History)
This is mainly for the H1 Historians who have just completed the lectures for the topic,the Arab-Israeli Conflict. As discussed during lecture, the peace process in the Middle East can be described as a "history of failed peace talks", where attempts at peace negotiations could not result in enduring peace, in particular for the Palestinian issue. I stumbled upon this useful article in the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6666393.stm) that outlines the history of failed peace talks. It is a useful supplement to your existing materials. Do go in and take a read and share your comments here.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Some Thoughts on Reasons for Decolonisation (H2 History of Southeast Asia)
I was marking the H2 History holiday essays on Decolonisation over the weekend, and observed that many students, for the purpose of argumentation, downplayed either the role of internal conditions or the role of external developments, choosing to focus on one as the more important factor affecting decolonisation. In the process, these students were not able to highlight the nuances and complexities that were present during the decolonisation process.
Such was the complexity and fluidity of post-war Southeast Asia that both internal conditions and external developments interacted to give rise to decolonisation. The interplay of both factors does not allow for neat separation of which was more important than the other. One has to take into account the dynamics of the situations on the ground in the colonies, the priorities and capabilities (or lack thereof) of the colonial masters, and the unravelling international environment which was starting to be enveloped by the Cold War. As such, any good discussion of the reasons for decolonisation in an essay should focus on the three factors in order to deliver a nuanced and balanced account of the process.
The dynamics of the situation on the ground in the colonies should take centrestage as the returning colonial masters came back to a different Southeast Asia compared to the one they left during WWII. Besides facing the mammoth task of economic reconstruction and reassertion of political authority, the colonial masters faced more assertive nationalist groups, many of whom were armed. Looking at the broad spectrum of case studies, one can see the occurrence of anti-colonial wars in Vietnam (Viet Minh), Indonesia (Sukarno's Republicans) and Malaya (MCP), and of less violent but nonetheless obstructive strikes and non-cooperation in Burma. These examples of resistance forced the colonial masters to reassess their priorities, whether to stick around or decolonise. Of course, there were cases of placid and cooperative nationalist leaders who were willing to work with the colonial masters for constitutional advancements, such as in the Philippines and Malaya.
To this situation, one must add the colonial masters' priorities and capabilities. The colonial masters generally came back eager to "re-colonise" the region. However, they soon found themselves challenged by local and external (of Southeast Asia) developments. I have discussed the local context in the preceding paragraph. Apart from the United States, the European colonial masters faced economic problems back home in Europe and overstretch in their colonies. Whether they would continue their colonial enterprise hinged partly on their assessment of these challenges. While the British returned to Burma and Malaya with plans to reassert colonial control, in reality, the British faced challenges in policing the ground in Burma (control was in the hands of Aung San) which at the same time was of limited economic value to Britain. In contrast, Malaya contained valuable resources (tin and rubber) that were needed for reconstruction worldwide. Hence, the decision was made to disengage from Burma while remaining committed to Malaya until its independence. Dutch and French priorities were different from British ones. They were bent on retaking their colonies even at the expense of war. Indonesia was valuable because of oil and other primary resources while Vietnam was important to France for prestige reasons. For various reasons, Holland and France committed resources to fight colonial wars against the nationalists. In both cases, the outcome, i.e. which side would win, was not a predestined one.
The unravelling international circumstances added a third variable to the decolonisation process. American and Soviet/Chinese intervention in the region contributed to the pace of decolonisation. For example, in Indonesia's case, the Dutch were persuaded to leave Indonesia on the pain of losing the Marshall Aid despite being in a commanding position to defeat Sukarno's nationalists. In the case of Vietnam, the French were sustained in the war against the Viet Minh by American aid, likewise for the Viet Minh by Soviet/Chinese aid. The Cold War also helped to quicken the pace of decolonisation in Malaya with the choice of granting self-rule and independence to an anti-Communist multi-ethnic alliance as a strategy to combat the appeal of the MCP. Burma's independence was granted swiftly partly because India got her independence in 1947, making Burma's value as a defensive appendage to India irrelevant.
Hence, all in all, one should approach the issue of decolonisation by being sensitive to the three main factors and how they interacted with one another, as discussed above. In terms of writing, I also noticed a worrying trend of students quoting just one case study for each point they were making. Please note that the essays for Southeast Asian history are meant to be comparative. This means you need to compare at 2-3 case studies per main point you are making in the essay. Also, some students listed case studies from the onset without really highlighting the main points they are supporting i.e. the topic sentences were missing. Hence, such essays smacked of narration which is not good enough.
Such was the complexity and fluidity of post-war Southeast Asia that both internal conditions and external developments interacted to give rise to decolonisation. The interplay of both factors does not allow for neat separation of which was more important than the other. One has to take into account the dynamics of the situations on the ground in the colonies, the priorities and capabilities (or lack thereof) of the colonial masters, and the unravelling international environment which was starting to be enveloped by the Cold War. As such, any good discussion of the reasons for decolonisation in an essay should focus on the three factors in order to deliver a nuanced and balanced account of the process.
The dynamics of the situation on the ground in the colonies should take centrestage as the returning colonial masters came back to a different Southeast Asia compared to the one they left during WWII. Besides facing the mammoth task of economic reconstruction and reassertion of political authority, the colonial masters faced more assertive nationalist groups, many of whom were armed. Looking at the broad spectrum of case studies, one can see the occurrence of anti-colonial wars in Vietnam (Viet Minh), Indonesia (Sukarno's Republicans) and Malaya (MCP), and of less violent but nonetheless obstructive strikes and non-cooperation in Burma. These examples of resistance forced the colonial masters to reassess their priorities, whether to stick around or decolonise. Of course, there were cases of placid and cooperative nationalist leaders who were willing to work with the colonial masters for constitutional advancements, such as in the Philippines and Malaya.
To this situation, one must add the colonial masters' priorities and capabilities. The colonial masters generally came back eager to "re-colonise" the region. However, they soon found themselves challenged by local and external (of Southeast Asia) developments. I have discussed the local context in the preceding paragraph. Apart from the United States, the European colonial masters faced economic problems back home in Europe and overstretch in their colonies. Whether they would continue their colonial enterprise hinged partly on their assessment of these challenges. While the British returned to Burma and Malaya with plans to reassert colonial control, in reality, the British faced challenges in policing the ground in Burma (control was in the hands of Aung San) which at the same time was of limited economic value to Britain. In contrast, Malaya contained valuable resources (tin and rubber) that were needed for reconstruction worldwide. Hence, the decision was made to disengage from Burma while remaining committed to Malaya until its independence. Dutch and French priorities were different from British ones. They were bent on retaking their colonies even at the expense of war. Indonesia was valuable because of oil and other primary resources while Vietnam was important to France for prestige reasons. For various reasons, Holland and France committed resources to fight colonial wars against the nationalists. In both cases, the outcome, i.e. which side would win, was not a predestined one.
The unravelling international circumstances added a third variable to the decolonisation process. American and Soviet/Chinese intervention in the region contributed to the pace of decolonisation. For example, in Indonesia's case, the Dutch were persuaded to leave Indonesia on the pain of losing the Marshall Aid despite being in a commanding position to defeat Sukarno's nationalists. In the case of Vietnam, the French were sustained in the war against the Viet Minh by American aid, likewise for the Viet Minh by Soviet/Chinese aid. The Cold War also helped to quicken the pace of decolonisation in Malaya with the choice of granting self-rule and independence to an anti-Communist multi-ethnic alliance as a strategy to combat the appeal of the MCP. Burma's independence was granted swiftly partly because India got her independence in 1947, making Burma's value as a defensive appendage to India irrelevant.
Hence, all in all, one should approach the issue of decolonisation by being sensitive to the three main factors and how they interacted with one another, as discussed above. In terms of writing, I also noticed a worrying trend of students quoting just one case study for each point they were making. Please note that the essays for Southeast Asian history are meant to be comparative. This means you need to compare at 2-3 case studies per main point you are making in the essay. Also, some students listed case studies from the onset without really highlighting the main points they are supporting i.e. the topic sentences were missing. Hence, such essays smacked of narration which is not good enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
