Review the film The Day India Burned (produced by the BBC: 2007).
Assignment: Read through the following questions.
Please write an answer for one of the questions, and comment on someone else's answer to a different question:
1.) Did the British do enough during the time of Partition to prevent conflict? What could they have done differently?
2.) Why do you feel these tensions continue today?
3.) Why do situations, such as communal violence, escalate? (you may wish to define communal violence).
4.) Connect the events of this video in with the concepts portrayed in the novel Interpreter of Maladies.
I believe the tensions in India are still present today because of peoples inability to accept each other and their religious beliefs. When it comes to religion, I find that people defend their religion with a ferocity like I have never seen before. People also attack other religions with a ferocity that I have never seen before. People believe in God, or multiple God's or no God at all, and they cannot accept the differences in one anothers religion. I think this happens a lot because people don't understand antoher religion, for example many people are "scared" or have hesitations about the Muslim religion, they believe that only extremists practice this religion. This is not the case, but people don't know this, or don't want to know this. Every religion is unique and special in its own way, by they fight with each other to be the best instead of respecting each other and creating a peaceful world, which is what I believe religion should be about. I believe the tensions in India are being "blown-up" by peoples intolerance of differences people have in religion and everyday life.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReligion is a very sacred and important aspect in India and is a daily practice routine when everyone stops whatever they are doing to pray. However, the religion in India is divided primarily into Hinduism, Sikhism, and Islam. These religions have gone head to head in whose theory, ideas and faith is better. While religion is unique, as Michelle mentions, the people of India cannot accept the ideas of other religions as it may take away their ultimate pride of their own religion. Without reason, proof and etc, the people of India will not give up their own religion.
ReplyDelete(Off topic) For a long time, the world thought the Earth was flat, and no one dared speak out to prove this wrong. But when Christopher Columbus sails, he discovers that the Earth is rather round than flat.
Following this concept, the people of India will not change its mind without proof and since science/logic and religion are not compatible, nothing can be proven. If a religious group were to succumb to another religious group, they would be frowned upon because it would mean that they did not whole-heartedly believe in their religion. Therefore, the tension between the religious groups will keep rising because if one religious group calls it quits, they may seem inferior and nothing is worse than losing. The differences of religion should not affect a person and who they are but in India, it may be the case since religion is their lifestyle.
Communal violence is the violence against a specific ethnic group and is the type of violence that was committed in India.
ReplyDeleteThis situations are escalating because in the modern world a lot of morals and beliefs don't exist anymore and people need something that gives them safety and logic to live their lifetime.
One thing that can actually guide us through this is religion and/or cultural habits.
In this way this things become more and more important and so a population wants to believe that his religion/habits are the right ones and sometimes the find a way to solve this conflict just with violence.
Now this kind of violence is not so common in the modernized countries but it happened here too and now is still present in others countries.
@Michelle: as I wrote in my comment this kind of violence already took place and was even worst; For example the best example that I can think at are the crusades.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree instead with the off topic part followed by your conclusion. I think that that's exactly the problem and even if I think that the situation is gonna change I don't know how.
@Nicola
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nicola. However, I think that in modern world, morals and beliefs exist and for many people, morals and beliefs isn't consistent or constand therefore, it may not be a solid rock for one to feel safe with.
However, I do agree that religion is one of the many beliefs that can be a solid rock and can help guide people through life. The people of India are resulting in violence to fight for religion because of their patriotism to their beliefs.
Why do situations, such as communal violence, escalate?
ReplyDeleteWhile I believe that these situations are avoidable, they are usually caused by someone killing someone else, or wronging them, or angering them, dishonoring them, etc. That then is retaliated upon by another person, or group of people, who seek, as they believe it to be, justice. This is actually revenge. It escalates from there, because people all over the world STILL haven't realized that peace is the path to happiness, not mindless killing, or mindful killing. The problem starts with one injustice.
A single pebble can unleash a rockslide, and a single bullet can turn the tide of a war. A single injustice can start a war.
@Will: I totally agree with your point that communal violence escalates because of people seeking justice, in the form of revenge, from some injustice that was done unto them. I think religion inflames communal violence all around the world because of religious wars that occur even today. I think your last comment,"A single pebble can unleash a rock slide, and a single bullet can turn the tide of a war. A single injustice can start a war.", speaks volumes and is very powerful and very true to the current situation in India and other places in the world.
ReplyDelete2) I think these tensions still continue today because no effort has been made to repair the relationship between India and Pakistan. Only war and fighting come to mind when you think of the two countries. From an early age now kids are exposed to the after partition sentiment felt within both countries people towards the opposite. I think if someone began speaking out for repairs to be made between the two countries relationship perhaps some sort of revolution would take place, ending the war and violence.
ReplyDelete1) I think the British did not do enough to prevent conflict. I think it was very clear prior to Partition that tensions were running high, yet the British ignored it and continued to remove their troops. I think they were so concerned with their reputation and not being blamed for whatever came next, that they forgot to worry about the people whose lives would be directly affected by the change in government. Once the troops were removed, the British were useless in stopping the violence.
ReplyDeleteI think the most good they could have done to prevent the horrific violence would have been to not be in such a hurry to get out of India. I feel like if they had stuck around for a while it would have been possible for them to step in and protect those who required protection. Also, if they had come up with an alternative to Partition that would have made more people happy, the alternative may have saved a lot of lives.
@Taylor
ReplyDeleteI agree that efforts to repair the relationship between the countries should be made, however it could take (and probably would take) many years for the animosity to dissolve. I think advocating for at least a truce of some kind would be very beneficial to both nations, but it would only be the beginning of solving a very big problem.
These tensions still exist in that area of the world today due to an inability to resolve the original conflict that started the tensions over sixty years ago. In this area of the world religion is a distinct part of their everyday life and culture. Although we may look at differences in these religions and comments that each group makes as insignificant, to those who live by them they can be very offensive. People may be so offended that they feel that these comments have created tensions that are irreversible. Additionally, with every year that progresses new matters arise that only escalate the tensions and violence between the two groups of people.
ReplyDeleteIn the story "When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine", Mr. Pirzada and the girls family show a unique sense of friendship and fearfulness during partition. Instead of ending their ritual due to fighting in there home countries, they continue their relationship and are able to learn the difference between friends and religion and that they do not have to come individually. Instead, they are a force that can bring people closer to together over a common issue as was the case with Mr. Pirzada and the family.
@Jenny
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree that the British could have done more to avoid the chaos that followed their departure, the issues that were involved in partition were between the two groups of people. As you mentioned the tensions were already well established before British withdrawal. But, I disagree in that unless the British wanted to become embroiled in their own war, there was not much that they could do even if they had stayed. While neither getting involved in the issue nor leaving (like they did) are good options. in the end they chose the one in an attempt to leave unharmed. It can be seen in US History when we and other countries invade foreign territories we only find a irreversible situation. What often happens is that the invader, as it is often perceived, leaves with the blame and disgrace of being a failure.
I believe that the British did not do enough during the time of Partition to prevent conflict. After it became official, and India was divided into two countries, Britain decided to pull their troops out of India and return back to the UK instead of remaining for a bit longer and overseeing the safety of people during the migration. After World War II ended, Britain had become bankrupt and no longer had funds to keep an army in India. This played a big role, and I also think that because they thought they had an image to uphold, they pulled their troops out without thinking of the chaos that would occur as a result of Partition, which was inevitable because of the tensions that already existed. Something they could have done differently was leave the troops in India for a little longer and make sure the safety of the people was ensured before leaving India.
ReplyDelete@Sarah
ReplyDeleteI agree that these tensions still occur because the original conflict still has not been resolved. They can not seem to settle their differences because they live so strongly by their beliefs that any other belief that contracts or simply is different than their own is viewed as offensive and the tensions continue to escalate. What you said about how Mr. Pirzada and the family “learn the difference between friends and religion” will maybe someday set an example for the different religious groups to reconcile and these tensions will disappear.
Question 4: The tensions that accompanied Partition have gravely inflicted India and the surrounding areas for years. However, I feel that the magnitude of these tensions has not been recognized by the rest of the world, or at least, by nations that are not directly impacted by the hostility of the situation. This general lack of acknowledgment, or ignorance, is clearly demonstrated in “When Mr.Pirzada Came to Dine.” The young girl merely learns American history in school and has a very shallow grasp on other aspects of the world and its history, which she demonstrates when she incorrectly labels Mr. Pirzada as an Indian man. Additionally, the news reports on the strife between India and Pakistan became less detailed as the weeks passed, for the altercations did not directly involve or focus on the United States. As a result, it appeared as if the hostility had ended; however, as Mr. Pirzada’s presence demonstrated, lives continued to be lost and families continued to be destroyed. Thus, the tension and violence clearly exemplified in “The Day India Burned” contrasted with “When Mr.Pirzada Came to Dine” suggests how sheltered some countries can be in respect to their acknowledgement of worldly altercations and general events.
ReplyDelete@Stacy:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your statement about the British not doing enough with their involvement in Partition. Instead of abandoning the area, the British should have made an effort to remain in India to ensure that the new territories would be stable and capable of coexisting peacefully. In addition to your points, I believe that the British should have at least employed some native help when drawing the new territorial lines. However, they chose a man who had never traveled to India prior to Partition, and thus, had little knowledge, if any, of the religious and cultural tensions within the nation of India.
2) What the major reason for this tension still occurring in India is the hatred between the two. The initial spark of dividing the “borders” is essentially what the two still fight over as of today. I personally think if two opposite sides just don’t like each other, I don’t think it is fixable. If you just don’t like that person, I think you won’t like them throughout your life. The term rivalry is the perfect word to describe the situation in India. If they never get along, it would be really hard for them to finally agree on something. If you think about it, right here in Arlington, we are always going to be competitive and just have a natural “hatred” for A.C.; it’s never going to end.
ReplyDelete@Will
ReplyDeleteDefinitely, one spark can turn something completely upside down. What many people or groups want to do is be the best. If the answer is revenge, I’m sure many people would do it. I’m sure the battle between the borders is really creating jealously and hatred with each other. If the two sides find SOME way to resolve, everything can change directions. But as of this moment, I think it will take some time.
Tensions still exist in India today because of people's fear and confusion. The split occurred over sixty years ago, yet as generations continued, the fear and hatred between religions was passed on. When children grow up in a society where they are taught that their religion is better than another, it becomes natural to defend and fight for one's own beliefs. With their families only passing on what their older relatives had told them, there is no way to understand other religions or to consider the possibility of making peace, without feeling singled out. Perhaps it is not just the individuals who chose to have such extreme animosity towards the other countries, but they feel like they are defending their own religion. Since religion is something that is generally practiced or discussed with people who believe in the same principles as you, it becomes natural to want to defend your family and friends and your background, and to continue with the way things have been occurring for decades.
ReplyDelete@ Tess. I completely agree with the startling situation brought up in the chapter “When Mr.Pirzada Came to Dine” when the school children do not understand much history beyond that of the United States. One of the main reasons of learning history is to educate people of past situations in hopes of either preventing them from occurring again, or maybe alleviating things that still linger on, or at least to keep them from elevating. I think one of the movie's intentions was to bring to peoples attention the severity of the situation in India. While it may not seem to directly affect people in other countries, we all our connected in some way, no matter how small. Even if some people's or a country's only intention is to benefit themselves, then this would at least hopefully still impact them in some way.
ReplyDeleteDid the British do enough during the time of Partition to prevent conflict? What could they have done differently?
ReplyDeleteI feel that the British did not handle the situation in the best manner possible. Many innocent lives could have been saved, had the British and Indian Officials took a different more supportive approach, rather then just setting a set date of when the partition would be taking place and just leave right after. Had the British stuck around to keep law and order the transition for the people could have been a safer less violent one. In addition as stated in the video I don’t think it was right for the British to haste the whole process since that just added to the escalation of all the violence that proceeded. If the British had thoroughly thought out the whole process and just worked with the India till the very end, when everyone was on their prospective sides, many unnecessary deaths could have been prevented. But then again it is easy for us to just point fingers today, all these years later, but we are unaware of what was really running through the heads of those making the live changing decisions for the Indians.
@ Michelle
ReplyDeleteI couldn’t agree with you more, people our so caught up in portraying their religious views as superior that they just end up building hatred for those of other religions thus leading to more violence and disrespect. As you stated, “Every religion is unique and special in its own way,” I agree but something I feel that people lack in general is the idea of respect towards one another. This idea I know is portrayed in many religions, it is just mind boggling and sad that people aren’t able to live up to what their religions preach, and yet they go on about how their religion and way of life is better then others.
First of all, it is my personal belief that Britain should have never attempted to intervene in the affairs of other cultures. In other words, it would have been in the best interest of the Indian people had Britain not had imperialist ideals. But casting away this thought, Britain having pronounced herself as a maternal/paternal figure to her colonies, it might have been thought that she would at least make efforts to care for the future of the people subjected to her for so long. Instead Britain leaders cared only for their image and, fearful of being portrayed as the cause of massacres between the Hindus and Muslims, incited a speedier Partition. Britain leaders, wanting to leave India to herself as quickly as they could, sped up the Partition, an action that only increased tensions and stress and fear for the future among the peoples. As Randeep states above, many lives could very well have been spared if Britain had allowed more time for the Partition to unravel. More time would have led to a smoother steadier transition, and would have decreased tension and fright and confusion that ultimately led to the violence witnessed during the Partition.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, although poor Britain was exhausted from waging war against Nazi Germany, the colony of India was their responsibility. You don't run away from your responsibilities. What Britain did was childish. Yes, so they did have debts, so they were economically wasted, but nonetheless, they should have had the decency to supply or maintain troops in India to ensure a smooth transition. They should have put in more effort into Partition's success, and the fact that they were economically depleted is no excuse. I mean, come on, after all the efforts and wealth the people of India "gave" to them? They were not even capable of making sacrifices for them? Really?
1) I think that the British did not do enough to prevent conflict during Partition. If the British had though through the process more and had not been so hasty about it, a most of the violence of Partition could have been avoided. Also, if Partition was less violent, the relations between India and Pakistan would probably not still be so tense today. One mistake that the British made was to speed up Partition and leave India earlier than initially planned. I think this was an irresponsible and foolish choice, because it created unnecessary violence and led to the loss of many innocent lives. The British should have fully overseen Partition and not rushed back to England so quickly. Also, the British waited until the last minute to announce the borders of certain racially diverse areas. These delayed border announcements were a mistake because the tension caused a lot of uncertainty thus prompting violence and attempts at complete racial cleansing.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the British were still occupying India, many of the speakers in the video said that the British troops were nowhere to be seen and were not a voice authority amidst the violence. I think that a lot of violence could have been avoided if the British had made their presence stronger in conflict areas. Some of these areas were extremely violent and, according to the video, the British were not fully aware of the extent of this violence. If British troops had been in these conflict areas, the British government in charge would have been more aware of the situation and not as many people would have lost their lives.
@ Kenneth
ReplyDeleteI agree with you up to a certain point. True, India and Pakistan have been fighting for over sixty years due to intense hatred embedded in both sides. But I feel like there is more to the fight than what you claim. Underlying this hatred is an unwillingness to open up to their "enemy's" differences, an unwillingness to understand the other ones as equal beings. I believe that this IS a "fixable" situation; one that will require time and effort on both peoples' parts, but one that will reach a resolve. whether it be by complete destruction of one or both sides (such as colonists vs. Native Americans), or by a peaceful pact, or by an agreement to stop fighting to stop the loss of civilians (worked for North and South Korea for a while, why not here?). The mountainous land could be shared between the three religions if the peoples came to appreciate each other as equals. As long as no other power interferes in the conflict between Pakistan and India, as in does not wish to take them over, or does not seek to gain resources or wealth in the process, then the conflict will resolve itself. In the meantime we can hope that a resolve comes quickly, and that Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus will come to appreciate the differences in each other with the coming of globalization, maybe even stand united in the face of a speedily-changing world.
@Laura, That makes a lot of sense. I find it both extremely interesting and extremely tragic that there is still so much tension because of Partition in India today and the fact that hatred is something that can be passed on from generation to generation. There is still tension between India and Pakistan because of something that happened over 60 years ago, yet before the British made Partition an option the Indians all lived together relatively peacefully. This shows that this animosity doesn't have to be the way it is and that if people were willing to accept each other then they could live peacefully again. Hatered hilights how important education is in the world; it is important to educate people to be accepting and open to others' beliefs. I never though about it before, but what you said about it becoming natural to defend your friends and family makes a lot of sense. It is hard to change people's mentalities because a lot of their opinions etc are based on experiences they had with their families/growing up. In order to change the animosity that people feel towards eachother it would take generations.
ReplyDelete2) I think that these conflicts continue today because both of these cultures are heavily based upon tradition and upholding ideals that were created long ago. Although I do completely agree with some of the responses said above about why these tensions continue, I think that there really are multiple reasons for why this still goes on today. If you think about it, in that part of the world, a lot of things are done based upon traditions that their ancestors have set for them. This hatred for one another is something that will most certainly be passed down from generation to generation and has already become somewhat of a tradition to do so. In the film, when the man is talking about killing people and having zero remorse for doing so, I am sure, if he had children he would share his strong views with them and they would do the same with their own children. I'm not sure if these tensions will ever stop because they have already been passed down from one generation to the next and there's nothing stopping today's generation from doing the same.
ReplyDelete@Stacy. I do agree that Britain did not do enough to help during the time of partition. It seems to me that once the times really got tough, they left and maybe if they had not done this, things would not have gotten so bad. Although I'm not saying I think Britain was all bad, but I'm not even sure if Britain should have intervened in the first place if they were not prepared to be in it for the long haul. I'm somewhat undecided on whether or not a singular country should go in to another in order to offer guidance, and I think this might be something better suited to be handled on a global scale, with perhaps the UN. Overall, I think Britain should have gone for all or nothing, as opposed to what they ended up doing.
ReplyDelete3. I think that situations such as communal violence escalate because of the anonymity that comes from being in a mob. Particularly in cases involving tension based on ethnicity, it can be easy to convince oneself that one is acting on behalf of one's ethnic group, thus eliminating much of the personal responsibility for whatever crimes one may be committing. There is also a certain excitement and perhaps a thrill that comes from being involved in action on such a large scale. When individuals are passionate about what they are fighting for, they have a tendency to condone a level of violence that would not otherwise be accepted. There is a sense that one is fighting on behalf of a greater purpose, or a cause that is larger and far beyond any individual's comprehension, so any drastic action or brutal violence is attributed to that cause and not considered as a personal attack on another individual. Additionally, I think that it is fair to say that there is a certain level of fear involved with going against an angry mob of rioters or protesters. Thus, someone who would otherwise speak out against the violence might be too frightened or intimidated by the chaos to promote nonviolence. Particularly in communal violence, where the sides of the battle are defined by ethnicity, it is hard to take a moral stance and rise above the issue to promote peace. There is a sense of loyalty to one's ethnicity, and any perspective beyond that could be viewed as a betrayal, and quickly turn into a dangerous situation for those who speak out.
ReplyDeleteCommunal violence is defined as a situation where violence is perpetrated across ethnic lines, where victims are chosen based on ethnic groups. Indeed, Partition of India is a prime example of communal violence. But why does this escalate and grow out of control so unbelieveably quickly? One of the main reasons is because people who originate from different ethnicities, religions, etc have been taught a particular way all of their lives, which makes it difficult to break from their original belief and agree with someone else's idea of god or way of life. Of course, one cultural group believes in a certain way than another, which is great. Afterall that is what makes the world so culurally diverse and interesting. And every person has the right to believe/say that "we are the best" because that is how they have been raised to view and honor their traditions. Unfortunately though, such strong cultural ideals can cause disagreement, frustration, and soon enough violence. Heated debates over religion can rapidly create a more hostile environment which can result in murder. Murder can lead to mass killings and that can off set full-out war and destruction.
ReplyDelete-Think of communal violence as a snow avalanche. The first shots or angry confrontations between two groups can trigger massive damage and dangerous conditions for many people as can a small snowball that creates a huge mass of rolling snow that can result in death and utter chaos.
The after effects of such violence can lead to lingering tension and hardship (which still goes on today in India). It is hard to recover and repair ties between two ethnic groups that have such unchanging mentalities on religion. This hatred is what fueled communal violence in the past and still does in some situations today.
#2- Tensions in India continue today because of deep-rooted prejudice that has been in existence since before partition. The tension between the Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus continues because each group has a set image of what each group is. These sentiments have been passed down through each new generation, and the feelings continue to be cemented in the lives of Indians and Pakistanis today. It is very difficult for people to stand up to the ideas that they have known for their whole lives. Even though partition happened in 1946, the after effects are still felt today. The conflict has not been dissolved, and people are still upset with what happened so long ago.
ReplyDelete2) The partition of India, as displayed in the film “The Day India Burned” was an extremely violent and difficult experience for all of the groups involved. When trying to tear a nation apart it is inevitable that there will not only be opposition, but also that there will be intense emotion attached to everything going on. Being uprooted from ones home, having to fight in a civil war, and being told that you have no control over what is going to happen in your life are very hard things to handle, and understandably cause conflicts that last for centuries. I believe that these tensions still continue today because the conflict and emotions associated with the partition are so strong that they have been passed down from generation to generation. There are also major religious differences between Indians and Pakistanis that make it hard for them to get along in the first place. Religion and one’s homeland are two very important spiritual aspects to life, so it is not surprising that there is still tension surrounding the partition that brought these differences to the surface.
ReplyDelete@Tess
ReplyDeletePeople definitely need to be more educated on the subject of partition. I only knew the very basics until watching the movie “The Day India Burned”, and I now see that it is a huge issue that caused the death of many people. I think that because many people do not think that it has anything to do with them, because it is happening in India and Pakistan. Living in the USA, we often overlook world events because we think that they are not important, but everything that happens has an effect on our country. This is clearly shown in “When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine”. The young girl is being raised in the United States, but her parents are still deeply connected to India, because it is where they are from, and where their family is. The young girl does not have the same connection, but she learns through her parents the issues in India and Pakistan. I agree that because the events did not directly involve the United States, the young girl did not know about the event until her parents introduced the subject of partition to her.
@ Erin
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your interpretation of why communal violence escalates as it did during the partition in India. Because the people participating in the violence have so much hatred for the other group this type of violence might be “easier” for people because they have emotion behind what they are doing. I thought the comment on how the “anonymity” of the other group may cause the violence to escalate was very interesting, It is as if the people taking part in this communal violence just put the face of one person of that ethnicity on everyone, making them feel as if it doesn’t matter who they are brutally killing because they are all one in the same. Communal violence may be different than other types of violence, like in wars where people are fighting over land or weapons, because there is a spiritual connection to what they are fighting for. As you had said, when people have a connection to their cause for the violence they seem to be able to justify their actions much easier. Also, I think the ‘gang mentality’ that you mentioned is also very relevant to communal violence because it is a lot harder for an individual to speak out against a whole ethnicity of people rather than just a small group or one other person. I think that the lack of desire for peace in India at the time definitely helped promote the communal violence during the partition. Everyone was so consumed with the divisions of land, culture, and religion, that the violence just became second nature to them.
2. I believe that these tensions due to Partition continue today because it very difficult to break away from traditions and standards that were put into place such a long time ago. Cultures such as these are very much based in religion and are also very family oriented. Because of this, I believe that the generations following Partition most likely continued the negative outlook that their parents and grandparents held. It is simply the natural thing to do. When one grows up in an environment where the belief is that once religion is superior over another, that is not just going to stop on its own, it will continue to be passed on through the generations. It is why, today, there is still unrest in that part of the world between the countries and the cultures.
ReplyDelete@Tess – I believe that in order to achieve even a semblance of global peace or unity, people throughout the world must start educating and familiarizing themselves with other cultures’ histories and pasts. How can we even begin to comment on or pass judgments on a country or culture if we know nothing about what they have gone through in the past as a people? Instead of maintaining our ignorance, such as what was demonstrated in “When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine” when the little girl did not know about the tensions and differences between India and Pakistan, we need to start learning about what has gone on throughout the world, rather than just focusing mainly on American history and very limited world history. By teaching about conflicts such as Partition, people will be able to go off into the world and make better, more informed decisions and opinions.
ReplyDelete@Erin: I strongly agree with your analysis of communal violence and think that people are easily swept up in a cause that everyone is passionately enforcing, such as ethnic cleansing. It is impossible to escape the kind of fear that comes with not being part of a group that is so strong and can cause so much damage and that prevents people from standing out against such widespread violence, such as in India. Once part of such a group, individual morals are insignificant as compared to the well-being of the group and this leads to people not questioning the groups actions but participating strictly based on loyalty. Being a part of a group eases the fears of people in such war-torn countries as India during the partition and offers a sense of bravery, which then encourages more thoughtless violence, which continues to escalate until there is nobody left to fight.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this posted before so here it is again:
ReplyDelete3. Genocide is a sub-category of Communal Violence, in which members of various ethnic groups are both the instigators of violence as well as the victims. Communal violence exploits the idea of mob mentality and participants are stripped of their identities in order to become part of the mob. Since membership is based on ethnicity, it is impossible to avoid being labeled and losing ones individualism because ethnicity is now a person's identifier to other ethnic groups, regardless of their actually participation in any violence. Therefore, once conflict has been determined to be between ethnic groups, as opposed to other reasons, anyone of the involved backgrounds is immediately a forced participant. How many people would allow themselves to be attacked because of their ethnicity and refuse to fight back to promote nonviolence? Although only a few individuals may be the root of fighting, once it has been established that anyone and everyone is a target, suddenly everyone also becomes a participant. The two are not mutually exclusive in communal violence and therefore the only direction for that kind unavoidably large-scale violence to progress is to escalate.
3) I think that communal violence can escalate rather easily. Though I agree with many of the points that my classmates have made, I believe that the main cause of this is the result of two opposing groups wanting to benefit not only themselves, but their group as a whole. It may seem simple and rather evident, but it makes sense; as a part of one group, if an opposing force attempts to attack or threaten any single member of the favored group (from that individual's perspective), it is only natural to try and protect the victim(s). Quite often, the method of defense will emerge in a rebel against the previously attacked force. Though the severity of one's aggression may not be as recognizable in the beginning, as the tensions increase between opposing groups, simultaneously so will the anger.
ReplyDelete@Bettina
ReplyDeleteI think that you bring up a good point, as did others who commented on this topic. When it comes down to it, who's really to tell any one person what they can or cannot believe in? Of course it is predictable that superior powers will enforce and essentially demand compliance of all those in any particular "society". In terms of the Partition of India though, which was created nearly sixty-five years ago, many of those who believe in what they do simply do it because it is all they have known. The majority of people living today who have an opinion on this topic were not present at the time and therefore, in my opinion, can not be overconfident with their beliefs. This is not to say that I agree or disagree with the events that took place, but simply that it easy not an easy task to change any one person's beliefs or opinions and because people have become so accustomed to life as it is, few people will bother to initiate any change.
@Bettina;
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with what you wrote about the difficulty of breaking away from family-oriented discriminations. From a young age, children base their religious and political views off of what they witness in their parents' preferences. Even in a democratic nation like the United States where one has the freedom to change religion or side with a different political party, it seems somewhat rare that children who come from an extremely liberal or conservative family would change their views to a radically different perspective. In India, where I think there is generally a stronger emphasis on family hierarchy and paying respect to one's elders, it is probably even more difficult to break free from the perspectives of one's family. The religious prejudices that have been established for centuries in India cannot disappear because they are built into the culture and traditions of India's people. It seems that the best solution is to learn to deal with these prejudices in a more peaceful way, instead of remaining passive and hoping that they will disappear. Perhaps future citizens of India and Pakistan will develop more accepting beliefs, but until then, they must find a way to cooperate.
3) I think situations such as communal violence escalate because there is a certain point where tension has to be released and violence is an appropriate way to release tension to some people. To me, communal violence means that there is some factor of ethnicity added into the violence. The victoms and the people that are provoking the violence are basing their actions upon opposing ethnicities. The Sheikhs and the hindus in the movie exhibited this communal violence with the opposing muslims. Both groups are looking to do what is best for their own side and not looking at how the violence not only destoys the opposition, but their own people. It is equally disruptive to both sides, yet both sides fail to recognize this because they are so caught up in winning for what they believe and for their own cause; therefore communal violence escalates quickly and is fatal. It is a cycle that may not stop unless someone interferes.
ReplyDelete@ Kenneth
ReplyDeleteI do believe that some situations are unfiaxable and some people will never like eachother but I believe that is entirely because of effort. If people put effort into fixing a situation it is very fiaxable. The example you used, with A.C. and AHS is not as much of a comprabale issue because we ar erivals based on something as superficial as sports. Rivialries in this case can be created for fun or to make things interesting. In the case of the boarder lines the issue is much more serious and even though there still remains a great deal of tension it is still fixable with effort. For example, America was enemies with Britain while trying to gain Independence, but now we rely heavily on eachother and have many of the same values. Things do change with time and effort.
I think the tensions still exist today because their religious differences still have not been settled. It is similar, in a way, to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Though not as visible in the United States (because of our long standing seperation of church and state),religion is a major cause of divide, even in today's day and age. It is difficult for people to put aside their differences when God is involved, and for that reason tension still exists 70 years after partition. Their is also remnants of cultural clashes from the time of Partition. Hindus persecuted Muslims, and Muslims persecuted Hindus. With these memories still fresh in many people's minds, it can hard to forgive and forget. However, as a new generations move forward in the world, there is a good chance that these tension can one day be resolved.
ReplyDelete@Torrie
ReplyDeleteI very much agree with your first statement that eventually we reach a point where tension needs to be released and that violence is an accessible outlet for this tension. I think that idea is truly at the heart of any communal violence. However, I disagree with your thought that communal violence involves some element of ethnicity. I think that many of the major examples of communal violence did involve ethnicity, such as the L.A. riots of the early 1990s, and thus we have this idea that some sort of ethnic difference is needed. Communal violence, though, can be caused from any tension. As long as their is heated disagreement, there will always be the possibility of communal violence.
I do not think the British did enough during Partitioning to prevent conflict between India and Pakistan. Based on the video, the British powers in India set a date that they would leave, and it gave plenty of time to set up a new government in India. However, when they left almost a year prior to the date they specified, it left India and Pakistan in a conflict. With no established governments, it was a frenzy trying to relocate the different religious populations to their proper new country. They knew violence was coming between the two countries because of their decision, but the did not want to be held responsible. The violence seen in India was mainly caused by the British decision to leave India earlier than expected. Had they stayed until they said they would, the powers in India and Pakistan would have had a better opportunity to cope with the situation and come up with a response that would be beneficial to the greatest number of Indians and Pakistanis.
ReplyDelete@Sean
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say the tensions still exist because of religion. Throughout history, this has been shown to be a true dividing factor, causing many wars and conflicts, like the Crusades, and even the Holocaust. Religious tensions will never end, and just like in India, conflicts such as this will continue. I also agree when you say it is less visible in the United States; I cannot think of any conflict in our history dealing with religion that comes even close to the violence and tensions seen in India and Pakistan
2. I think it’s hard to end tension that has been going on for years. The tension between the two still persists today because the hatred has been passed down for so many years. When children are born they are just exposed to the hatred so that’s what they grow up believing. This makes it hard to stop the tension because no one wants to be the one to give in so they just continue disliking each other. There is no main reason for the continued tension it is just what each generation has known their whole lives. For example, in the video they would talk about all the violence and killing yet you would see no remorse. I believe this is because it is what they are now, unfortunately, accustomed to so the violence does not faze them as much. Because of this I don’t think the hatred will stop anytime soon because it is now just what everyone has become adapted to.
ReplyDeleteI think that these tension do still continue today because we hear in the news and in class of the controversies that continue to arise as to where the boarders lie and which territories belong to which coutry. The conflicts that still continue have much to do with people acceptance of one another. I understand the point of seperation of the countries but not the point of making each country a dominant religion. There is no point as to why people couldnt just stay where they were and practice what they wanted. It would cause less conflicts if people just accepted the differences between eachother and left things how they were., and because of this, coflicts continue today.
ReplyDelete@Ashley
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Ashley said in response to question 3. Communal violence is violence based upon ethnic groups. Like what Ashley was saying, this escalates so fast because it ethnicity is what is engrained into any child when they are born. This makes it especially difficult to see another’s view because your view is all you have learned so its not like you will readily accept something that goes against what you have learned. One small argument against two different ethnic groups set off an all out hatred that is hard to be stopped. This is why communal violence can escalate so fast because it is two groups that believe strongly in their culture and values.
@ Henry Kaempf
ReplyDeleteI agree that the British because not wanting to be held responsible did leave the countries with many conflicts. They left much earlier then they said which would not help the countries solve issues or even become strong countries.I think they left them in dissary and with no establihed governments there is clearly going to be riots and fighting among any groups. They shouldve done more which would prevet such a big conflict between the countries.
@Henry
ReplyDeleteI agree for the most part with your statement, but I believe that if enough people actually tried, they could end the conflicts between religions. The religions themselves are not the causes of the conflicts; rather, it is some of the people who practice the religions, and the distortion of the written and verbal records of those religions over time. For example: I highly doubt that the holy figures of Islam, Christianity and Hinduism, (assuming they existed, as I have no concrete proof of it), EVER said to any of their followers "Anyone who does not follow this religion, or who believes in a different set of ideas that those who call this religion their own, is less than an animal, and deserves to be killed" or anything even close to that. It was, and still is, the deadly combination of an individual who is both a fanatical and has enough power to act upon it that causes the religious conflicts in the world. It starts as one person, then two, then three, then four, five, six, ten, twenty...100...1,000...10,000...100,000...1,000,000; it takes only a small number of people acting in a similar fashion to incite an entire crowd of people to act in a way that they never would have done alone. People start to subconsciously 'think' (read 'rationalize their actions') that they as an individual can't possibly have any impact on the situation they are in, so they begin to act without a conscience. Crowd psychology is a scary thing.
@ Sarah. I completely agree with what you said about tensions that still go on today. I like that you said it is difficult for a person to stand up and stop all the anger and bitterness toward one another when the easiest thing is to continue to hate eachother because that was what you were taught to believe. I think that, like you were saying, they have become accostumed to all the violence and it is just a way of life for them today. Though the world has been a lot more open to change over past decades, it has still been a challenge for those who don't embrace the idea of acceptance. If people were not so "one-sided" then maybe the unnecessary hatred would fade away. But we know that won't happen.
ReplyDelete#1) I do not think the British did enough at all to prevent conflict during partition because all that they were concerned about was getting British citizens out of the country. Now I understand with the British government wanting to protect its own people and look out for their best interests, but for the longest time, India was also considered part of Britain. In a way, they are just abandoning their people of India and leaving them to figure everything out for themselves. Some may argue that this has been done in the past, and it has; for example when the United States was created and the colonies depended on each other. However, the United States was starting on fresh soil with new ideas and a new system. When something has already been established for hundreds of years and all of a sudden is completely different from what the people know, turmoil is inevitable. The fact that the British only gave the Hindus and Muslims two months to accept this idea is absolutely absurd. Walking away was one of the most cowardly things that they could have done and that is just what they did. (Taylor King)
ReplyDelete@ Sean
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Sean that religious differences separate socities in countless ways. I just find it so sad that in this day and age, conflicts that have last thousands years may never see an end. It almost makes sense though that some of these problems may never end, because if one group of people thinks a certain way about another group, how many people are actually going to want to change that view; no matter how awful it may be. In religion, people are taught a certain way, and with many generations involved in a religion at one time, it can seem almost impossible to change the entire view of the group. Also no matter what happens, someone will not agree with the change, so they will pass it onto their family and the hate and violence may never compeltely come to an end. (Taylor King)
Well, I feel like the issues still continue today because people refuse to look at themselves as anything other than their religion, and refuse to think of others as anything but their religion. The issue with this is that there is so much labeling going on in this society that many people forget that those they are labeling are real people. Putting a label on someone dehumanizes them and makes it more acceptable to hate them. For the conflict to end, people in India and Pakistan need to think of others not by their religion, but rather by the fact that they are all human and they were "born this way". And above all, people need to stop being so stubborn and learn to accept others' differences. This is much easier said than done and I do not think that the conflict is going to end anytime soon.
ReplyDelete@Sarah Verrier
ReplyDeleteI think you make a really strong point in that a lot of the issue has to do with how children are raised in these countries. People are not born hateful, but rather are taught to be hateful by those around them. It seems like there needs to be a generation that goes against the values of their parents for the conflicts to end. These societies are very traditional and I do not see that happening in the future, but the current mindset of hate must be stopped.
2) In India and Pakistan there have been efforts made by the people and other countries to fix what has happened. Sadly, that cannot fix the tension between the two groups of people. People cannot forget the millions of lives that had been lost in partition. Those people that died were part of families and the rest of the family that lives on holds hate for the people that killed their family members. The only thing that could ever change the tensions between the two groups would be if the people let go of their hate towards each other. Instead they pass on the hate to their children; through stories, opinions, and facts. The new generation of both India and Pakistan will grow up and will have been taught to hate the other from what they did to their relatives. Also if people are not able respect each other’s religious beliefs the fight between the two countries will never end. People make such a big deal about religion when there are so many common factors in each one. India and Pakistan decided that religion makes them different people but in reality they are just afraid. They are afraid because they did not take the time to learn about the others religion and to understand how they are really not all that different from each other. Another reason the tensions continue today is because of the fear each group feels towards each other. I am not sure why both groups don’t realize that they both lost so much in the fighting and if they continue to fear each other than the fighting will never truly stop. The fear will be passed down through generations.
ReplyDelete@Michelle
ReplyDeleteI agree with you to an extent. I think you made good points about the acceptance of religious beliefs. When I answered this question I too thought the fear of other religions caused some tension. I do however think that is not the strongest reason for the tension to continue. I think much of the tension has to do with the opinions of the generation that were in partition down to the new generations. If the generation before had not passed the hate down to the new generation the fighting would have ceased. But since the same emotions keep getting passed down there will never truly be peace.
I feel as if the British really didn't care about the well-being or safety of the India and Pakistan. They left because their business was deteriorating and because of this by having no profit they removed India from their formerly imperialized colonies list. They could have done a better job had they stayed and made partition go a bit more smoothly. They could have done this by regulating and maintaing authority until Pakistan established itself as a nation. These communism tensions still continue because the pride of each nation is at a level that is unparalleled. Both nations' citizens are extremely patriotic and hold nationalism with its upmost respect. And @Emily I think the hate isn't amongst Indians and pakistanis as mug as it is amongst the religious groups there is a lot of tension from the past from both their histories. Thy also do not fear each other at all and he biggest thing about this is that each side will go at any distance to kill for their country or even for their people (whether it is religious or nationalistic). Interperator of maladies relates to the movie directly because it shows animosity between the two nations. Even having a meal with somebody of another nation was made extremely awkward. The Das's view on others such as Americans is paralleled to how Americans see Indians. Not in the best light all the time.
ReplyDelete2/ I believe that the tensions between India and Pakistan still exist today, because the problems are deeply rooted and deal with religion. The extreme discrimination a lot of the Pakistani people felt toward the Indians and vice versa has been part of a set of ideals that are passed down from one generation to the next. People have a propensity to inherit a similar set of ideals to that of their parents', because the have been exposed to these beliefs their whole life. This passing down of beliefs and customs can be demonstrated in things such as modern day political beliefs, religion, and cultural morals. Unfortunately, racism and prejudices are also often passed down from one generation to the next. Although partition occurred 70 years ago, the associated hate and tensions still exist, because people have inherited it. I think the tension between Pakistan and India still exists at such a great extent, because the discrimination was originally based off of religion. Differences in religion causes dissent regularly, and when decades of tension and newly formed cultural norms are added, it can be extremely difficult to suddenly rid these feuding countries of their problems. The religious aspect makes the problems between Pakistan and India deeper than just border disputes or disagreements in nationality. Hopefully the future generations of India and Pakistan will develop more accepting and progressive ideals in the near future, although I would not be surprised if the solution comes very gradually.
ReplyDelete@Henry
I agree withe Henry, the British did not do enough before they left India. They left almost a year earlier than previously stated, creating chaos between the two countries. The video showed that they studied maps and the specific demographics of many cities and regions to decide where the best border line would be. However, I do not think that they did this as carefully as they should have. They also should have made sure that two stable governments were in place, before fleeing. I think the British's actions demonstrate their selfish imperialistic mind-set. They were clearly only concerned with economic benefits and prestige. I think leaving before the established date was what made the problem that much worse. If the British had ensured stables authorities in the two countries, less violence and tensions would have occurred. The British also did nothing to prevent the impending conflict. They did not make sufficient plans for the new governments or work to remedy the problem when it was occurring or before it started. Forming two nations based on their own desires, and then leaving before ensuring their stability demonstrates the selfishness and cowardliness of the British. If the British put more effort into helping the societies they destroyed, then the conflicts surrounding Partition may have been avoided.
-Shannon D.
I think the largest reason why tensions in India and Pakistan remain elevated today is that Partition separated these two dominant groups, one of which felt under-represented in Congress, leaving the initial conflict essentially unresolved. Perhaps even if the countries were to be divided, the dynamic would be more stable and amiable if the root cause of distress was addressed by the prevailing rulers, the British. While the Muslims felt they were not given the same rights as the majority Hindus, major conflict could have been avoided by having the British intervene and evaluate the representation of Muslims in Congress. By not stepping in an effective/meaningful way, the British were almost admitting to the obsolete nature of their colonization of India. From there it makes sense that the British would want to leave, but, of course, the manner in which they did leave was not ideal and left this impending conflict to the Hindus and Muslims to figure out, or abandon while moving to separate, arbitrary areas as defined by the Radcliffe line. In the decades since the Partition of India, representation in a central government has obviously become a moot point, but the underlying contempt and distrust each group maintains has not been discussed in earnest. Overall individuals, and to a greater extent, governments are unwilling to move on and cultivate productive and trusting relationships.
ReplyDelete-Holly
I feel like tension is still around today because people are never willing to forgive and forget. Because of this they still hold animosity towards each other and are not willing to admit there wrong doing. After hearing all of the stories told by the people about the killings and such i feel like there is no way there wouldn't be tension after something like that, because hatred for a certain race or religion can be passed down from generation to generation and if families keep passing this hatred on the tension will never subside.
ReplyDelete@Henry
I agree with what Henry had to say, with the British leaving a year earlier it created a lot of chaos between the countries. This chaos and animosity towards the countries could have been prevented if the British had taken the time to help them establish running governments instead of picking up their bags and leaving. They chaos between trying to relocate people could have been made easier if they were to have helped set up stable governments within India and Pakistan.
@Whitney
ReplyDeleteI think you make a good point about how once a conflict is deemed to be based on ethnicity, it is hard to avoid participation if you identify as one of the involved ethnic groups. Having a group may offer some feeling of protection, given the anonymity and illusion of an unbreakable mob, but you're right to say that as much as you are a nonviolent participant, you are a target, which in all likelihood will involve violence. Avoiding violence is particularly difficult in a situation like this because it can easily be construed as a weakness, fear or insufficient confidence in the ability of the group to sustain itself in the most primal of ways. The classic example being Ghandi, it's clear that nonviolence is a noble cause that many were willing to follow and revere retrospectively, but many more were either too afraid or used it to take advantage of the Hindus. The last little thing that sparked my interest was your point that all involved become instigators and victims. I think to a great degree this is true and what I don't know, but am curious about, is how to assign blame, or to really just figure out the central causes of unrest and violence when so many dictums are relayed between allies and shot across ethnic barriers.
2) Today, tensions still exist between India and Pakistan because little effort has been made to resolve the original problem. It was not a very good solution to begin with, dividing a country on the already tense lines of religion. If the people, in India and the rest of the world, were more accepting and tolerant of other's religions and varying viewpoints, there would be a lot less conflict everywhere. It is easy for us to comment on this, having practically nothing to do with the situation and all of us being fairly open-minded to different religions. Religion and tradition are very important to the culture of India and I can understand why this would create conflict. People do not want to detract from their own religion by accepting another without reason or concrete proof. Until people can accept people's differences and stop trying to change them, there will always be religious and other conflict in throughout the world.
ReplyDelete@Elizabeth
I definitely agree that with communal violence, there is a certain sense of togetherness that is created. Often people join in with the crowd just to fit in and stand up for themselves and those similar to them, even though they may not agree with that side of the issue or even fully understand the issue. With the will to blend in and an issue as large and controversial as partition, it would be nearly impossible for the violence not to escalate.
-Shannon Bartlett
for question one, i belive that the British did not do enoght to help the people of India. The British have had many other collines thought the world and they have seen before happens when their is no order and confusions is set in place. The british should of gave the Indians and the Packitians more time to transition and to proved shelter, protection and food.
ReplyDelete@ sha nay nay
I belive that the tenshin is cause by the fact the two sides are not trying hard enoght to work out their problems. For example the British colonized America for about 100 years. America won their independce. It cost many lives but now in the 20th centery and the 21th century we have aliied ourselves with the British and helped them fight during two world wars.
To come together or at lest find some common ground the more has to be done by the government and the people of both countries
I feel that these issues continue today because people, everybody as a whole, aren't willing to put there differences aside. Many people feel that just because another person has a different belief it makes them an enemy when in reality it's not true. Somebody from another religion may have more common qualities rather than someone of the same religion. India and Pakistan are still dealing with These tensions because they don't want to settle their differences and they are making that choice to live in war and not peace. Just as in the story with Mr.Prizada, the young girls family and Mr.Prizada put their differences aside and supported eachother during the partition with India and Pakistan.
ReplyDelete@Shannon. I completely agree with you on that aspect. There will always be religious conflict and tension until people become more accepting of other religions. Everybody has their belief and their beliedbis always the "right" belief. Anybody that believes otherwise automatically becomes the enemy. It's a harsh thought but when you think about it its true.
ReplyDeleteMostly everyone in this world is quick to judge others and it is not something that we might actually want to do, but its in our nature. Every culture has there own religious beliefs and for this reason we should not criticize others for them. If someone wants to believe something they should be proudly able to. Although this isn't the case, and its because people are stubborn. This the reason why the tension between India and Pakistan is still present today. Hopefully one day they can put aside there differences and move on, but until then I believe its going to be an endless cycle.
ReplyDeleteTo Sarah Kranz:
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with what your saying. These people are getting to caught up on irrelevant issues. Because of this they can't think clearly and are not able to see what both countries need to do to move on and continue successfully.