Democratic Institutionalization - Essay Example

Question A1. The 1947 Partition of India The present India, Bangladesh and Pakistan were once united as a subcontinent occupied by Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs under the rule of the British Raj. The current location of these countries, their status and their relationship with each other have been greatly influenced by the events of 1947 at the time of Independence from the British and the ensuing partition of the former British India Empire. The empire was split into two independent states of the Dominion of Pakistan and the Union of India under what has come to be referred to as the 3rd June Plan or Mountbatten Plan. The dominion of Pakistan was split into the present Pakistan and Bangladesh. The partition of 1947 covers split of Indian Empire into the Union of the India (Republic of India today) and the Dominion of Pakistan (Oberst et al.). Arguments have been raised on whether the partition was inevitable or not. Many arguments point towards inevitability. This paper takes the position of inevitability of the partition and discusses evidence to support the position. Many historians’ argue that the partition was unavoidable all along because of religion that was the principal conflicting factor that destroyed the idea of a united India to continue after the rule of Raj. The two predominant religions at the time were Hinduism and Islam. The two religions were viewed so opposed to each other that coexistence within a united India would not have been possible (Malik 67). Hinduism religion had dominated for at least four thousand years with its belief in many gods and firm caste system. On the other hand, Islam was a relatively new religion and was viewed as a religion of invasion, conquest and conversion. Its belief in existence of one God, equality of worship and rigidity of orthodoxy differed with the multidimensional Hinduism. These religious differences partially account for the savagery the two groups were involved in during 1946-1947. Hindu hatred on the effect of Islam and specifically Moghul rule during the period 1526 -1712 revealed itself in a resurgence of militant Hindu nationalism that saw departure of Britain from the subcontinent as a justification for vengeance and elimination of Islamic influence. These religious differences were also manifested on economic, social and political interdependency as good relations between the two groups in rural communities was remote. This further intensified the inevitability of partition (Talbot and Singh 98). The inevitability of the partition can also be argued from the point of view that during the period 1857 to 1947, the Britain had the final say of what a united India was to be. This fact and the timeline of the departure of Raj made partition unavoidable from the beginning. The British viewpoint in 1947 was the lack of desire for a united India, which contributed to the partition. As in all cases, the subcontinent was a product of the different dynasties and ideologies that governed it and similarly some Britain introduced values that should have enlightened the native population increased the possibility of division which in a way impacted on the inevitability either directly or indirectly because at several instances the British exploited the tensions that existed within India (Talbot and Singh 135). Tensions within India were common at the time and throughout the history. For example, the ancient religious differences perpetually provided conditions for economic tension between communities. For instance, in Calcutta, Muslims Direct Action Day resulted into Muslims invasion on Hindus money lenders and shops. Most of the ethnic cleansing that that occurred in Punjab originated from economic frustrations as Muslims eliminated Sikh land owners and money lenders from West Punjab, and Sikhs eliminated Muslims from East Punjab. These tensions were exploited by the new leaders of India to build up their power bases. This gave rise to partition as the only remedy to the power struggle they encountered following the departure of the Raj. (Talbot and Singh 273). Britain had made attempts to partition India along communal lines that yielded the partition of Bengal In 1905.The Britain had then faced opposition from the Congress, then a secular organization that advocated a united India. The partition of Bengal intensified the idea of partition because for the first time it was demonstrated that regions could be partitioned along communal lines. This generated tension between Muslims and Hindus over dominance, and it is no surprise that a just a year later the Muslim community created the All India Muslim League. During the 1900s, the League and the Congress became more aware of the imminent withdrawal of the British Raj. Identity without the Raj was being defined through religion lines, region and finally by the country (Malik 238). By the 19th Century, religious conflict was depicted through several paramilitary groups such as RSSS, who were in were semi-fascist paramilitary groups. Consequently, Muslims became more suspicious of living in a Hindu-dominated India in response to the Hindus new strategies All of a sudden, the idea of power or no power founded on population preferences became crucial. This posed a threat to the possibility of a united India and was aggravated by the British census which provided communal statistics. Census was an imperial device and prior to the late 19th century; there was no conclusive demographic map of India. The census provided an outline of boundaries comprising communities based on their language, religion and heritage. The census was exploited by politicians and extremists, and it provided the basis for independence and the subsequent partition (Malik 320). With the evidence of the census, the peak of inevitability of partition was 1937. With the failure of Jinnah and Nehru to reach a consensus on a political census on a political structure, the concept of Pakistan, a communal split favouring Muslims, was conceived and was cemented with the Lahore Resolution (1940). Nehru advocated a centralized state, influenced by Marxist ideas and advances by Russia. Partition of India was best for the congress from a political perspective since a centralized state would mean that the Hindus would dominate. Jinnah and the Muslims advocated a federal India where provincial assemblies would balance the centre and also account the areas where the Muslims were dominant. However, the congress opposed this idea because a federal India would have given Muslims excessive influence in the two most affluent Bengal and Punjab province (Inder Singh 387). Additionally, during the period 1900 to 1930s, there were several murders, plunders and rapes taking place within India particularly in rural regions. At the start of the 1930, a psychological trauma dominated, presenting partition in a positive way as it was beginning to become evident that it was the only feasible method to stop the heightened violence and bloodshed that was happening and to speed the departure of the Raj. This explicates how tensions could be kindled so easily through communal conflicts and violence which broke out from time to time. In addition, the pervasive bloodshed that took place in Calcutta in 1946 and Punjab in 1947 clearly contributed to the inevitability of partitioning of India (Inder Singh 359). The inevitability of the partitioning can also be attributed to the influence of western educated politicians such as Gandhi. These politicians had observed the benefits that the Britain had gained from its secularism and the potential benefits the secularism could bring to India. In addition, in 1930s, India was proving too expensive for Britain to continue ruling. The Britain needed a faster and cost effective way of exiting India. This implies that the Britain did not have time to consider India’s best interests but rather the quickest possible route out of India, partition (Inder Singh 373). Although religion played a major role in the inevitability of partition, the influence of the Britain also played a role in this inevitability. In fact, the partition was not a strategy to reduce religious tensions, as widely presumed but rather an outcome of the British policy of Divide and rule. The policy was a measure the British had instituted to maintain control on their Indian Empire. During the period 1857 to 1900, there were prospects of a united India without British rule as seen by the mutiny of 1857 that involved both Muslims and Hindus alike. The British perceived this as a threat to its power because a united India would easily overthrow its rule. The divide and rule policy allowed the minority Britain to continue governing India’s 300 million population. The divide and rule policy that had succeeded points towards the inevitability of partition after the departure of the British (Malik 300-307). In summary, the partition of India was inevitable. Partitioning happened because of Muslim and Hindu religious tensions and conflicts that yielded so brutal violence in some regions of India. The influence of British on political western educated political leaders also contributed to inevitability of partition. Further, the Britain policies such as a divide and rule policy and the failure of political leaders to reach a consensus after the elections of 1937 meant that the partition was inevitable from this moment. The activism for partitioning was marked by violence upon millions of people in regions that had coexisted for many years. Question B3. Democratic Institutionalization in South Asian Countries Since independence, democratization has been irregular in the South Asian countries. India has maintained a reasonable democratic system. Pakistan has mainly been authoritarian. Nepal and Bangladesh have had periods of both democratic and authoritarian rule. Sri Lanka has been democratic but exclusionary where Tamils have been left out in the political systems. In the recent years, the country has drifted to authoritarian rule. Different factors spanning from the post-independence period to the current period explain the democratization and authoritarian rules in the South Asian countries Factors Strengthening Democratic Institutionalization Structures of political parties In the period of transition from colonialism, the structure of political parties can be attributed to democratization of some countries such as India in the South Asia region. The Congress movement spearheading of freedom struggle was instrumental in enhancing the influence of its leadership and establishing its legitimacy among the wider Indian public. It did this by being inclusive. The party incorporated Muslims in India outside Kashmir during the post-independence period. This integration with a wide section of the heterogeneous society of India empowered elite actors during the period of transition to democracy. Pakistan and Sri Lanka had no proper integrated national parties to arbitrate between the state and the society and faced challenges to transit to democracy (Kothari 70). Structures of Ethnic Diversity in the State The other factor to explain the democracy in India relative to the other four South East Asia countries is the structure of ethnic diversity in the state. Transition theorists traditionally argued that a shared national identity has to agree for democratization to occur. Although India is a perfect example of a heterogeneous society that has been able to democratize its institutions even without a shared national identity, the specific structure of this heterogeneity was fundamental. In 2004, India had recognized eighteen languages in its constitution and many more dialects existed. Hindus made up 83 percent of the total population, Muslims 11 percent, Sikhs and Christians 2 percent each. Instead of hindering democratization, this conspicuous diversity has strengthened India’s democratization because the many identities reduce the possibility for persistent and intractable conflict (Manor 463). Leaders and Institutions From 1950 mid-1960, democratic institutionalization can be attributed to the personal commitment of Nehru to democracy. In addition, India gained from the presence a well-functioning civil service. The civil service was the most instrumental institution of the state having been inherited from the British. India built its new civil service on this British base. The civil service played an important role to creating an effective government and political stability. (Adeney and Wyatt 13). Social Movements Social movements strengthen any nation’s democracy. Many social movements dominate the political landscape of India. The movements mobilize principally around identity issues such as language, religion and caste and there are others that are founded on specific interests such as environment, women rights and economic issues. The two sets of social movements work at the grassroots and focus mainly to alter local realities, usually, by altering the consciousness of different groups. These myriad movements enhance India’s democracy and ensure temporary and minimal slippages away from democracy (Muni 64). Power of the People and Civil Society The power of the people and influence from the international community can be credited as important drivers behind democracy in the modern days. Nepal is a good illustration of people’s power to democratize. The Maoists of Nepal had been spearheading a violent insurgency to create a republican political order and social and economic revolution ever since 1996.Their strategy changed from a violent one to a peaceful struggle for democracy. For about three weeks, in 2006, approximately nine million people demonstrated in the streets all over Nepal under the Maoists and Seven Party Alliance (SPA) against authoritarianism by the monarchy. Civil society has also influenced the modern democracy phases in South Asian nations. Civil society organizations sustained struggle for democracy in Pakistan and Nepal at a time when political parties lacked the courage to fight autocratic rulers. In Bangladesh, civil societies groups and other NGOs agitated for democracy in 2000s but most credit goes to political parties and student/youth constituencies struggle for democracy (Muni 69). International Community The international community has also been instrumental to democratization of South Asian nations. After 2002, the King of Nepal tried to suppress democratic processes but the international community, specifically the USA, India and the European Union tried to prevent him. The external responses initially entailed persuading him to restore democracy but later evolved to supporting his rivals to oust him. India gave restoration of the democratic processes as a condition for restoration of army supplies and other aids to Nepal. When India failed in its diplomacy, it moved to support a united front between the Maoists and SPA. The two groups formed a coalition in India in 2005 to partner in launching peaceful struggle for oust of the dictatorial monarchy and establishment of absolute democracy in Nepal (Muni 75). Factors Weakening Institutional Democratization and Promoting Authoritarianism Constitutional Basis Since its independence from Britain, Sri Lanka has had three constitutions, and each has played a significant role to the erosion of political democracy that was once a characteristic of the island’s government. After the declaration of the second republican constitution of 1978, the country has grown into an authoritarian state based on the constitution. The present deterioration of democratic institutionalization is primarily linked to the changes brought to the state by the 1972 and 1978 constitutions. The direct constitutional changes facilitated repressive legislation and repressive states practices during the 30 years period of civil war in Sri Lanka. Additionally, the exclusionary form of government of Sri Lanka where Tamils are left out aggravates the weakening of democratic institutionalization (Guneratne). Military Rule Both Pakistan and Sri Lanka have experienced significant military regimes which provided a conducive environment for authoritarianism. At the behest of senior military figures, Pakistan civilian governments have been removed from office. For example, in 1999, General Pervez Musharraf ousted Prime Minister Sharif in a coup and the 2002 elections were marred with irregularities. Military regimes in some South Asian countries have been responsible for countries’ ills, politicization of public administration, allowing corruption, the police force, erosion of press freedom, lawlessness, fear and the general climate of violence (Adeney and Wyatt 2) Culture Some scholars contend that democratization is a subject of civic culture. Some have argued that there is a correlation between religious culture of the country and its level of democratization. Consequently, the alleged incompatibility of democracy and Islam comes into perspective. This incompatibility could explain the erosion of democratization in the Islam dominated South Asian countries such as Pakistan while others like India where other religions dominate have a thriving democracy. However, this explanation is contentious since Pakistan and other Islam dominated countries have had had phases of reasonable democracy (Adeney and Wyatt 3) Initial Political Consensus Nepal and Pakistan face fragility of democratic institutions because the political consensus made during the periods of struggle for democratization have now been wiped out by pressure of the struggle for power. For example, the consensus reached between SPA and Maoists has weakened over the years due to disagreements over which party is stronger than the other. In the struggle for power, promises and commitments have become irrelevant. In addition, those removed from power have worked over the years to discredit the newly democratic institutions. For example as at 2009, the ousted king of Nepal had started to become politically active, and the army, which was dedicated to the monarchy was unwilling to submit to the Maoist government. In Pakistan, army is still been perceived as the actual source of power despite an elected government (Muni 6). In conclusion, democratic institutionalization has been reasonably successful in some South Asia countries due to post-colonial period and contemporary factors. However, some countries have experienced acute challenges due to military regimes, culture and authoritarianism based constitutions that have repressed democratic institutionalization. It is essential for, leaders, activism groups, the international community and other groups to peacefully advocate democratic institutionalization. The political parties and civil society also need to deliver development through good governance. Further, the government need to integrate the cultural diversity of its people in its systems in order to curtail emergence of extremist groups founded on power marginalization. Works Cited Adeney, Katherine, and Andrew Wyatt. Democracy in South Asia-Getting Beyond the Structure-Agency Dichotomy. Political Studies 52.1 (2004): 1-18. Print. Guneratne, Arjun. The Constitutional Basis of Authoritarianism in Sri Lanka - South Asia Journal. Southasiajournal.net. Nap., 2014. Web. 9 Oct. 2014. Infer Singh, Anita. The Origins of the Partition of India, 1936-1947. 1st ed. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1987. Print. Kothari, Rajni. Politics in India. 1st ed. Boston: Little, Brown, 1970. Print. Malik, Yogendra K. Government and Politics in South Asia. 1st ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2009. Print. Manor, James. Ethnicity ‘and Politics in India. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) (1996): 459--475. Print. Muni, S.D. The New Democratic Wave and Regional Cooperation in South Asia. 1st ed. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2009. Print. Oberst, Robert et al. Government and Politics in South Asia. 7th ed. West View Press, 2014. Print. Talbot, Ian, and Gurharpal Singh. The Partition of India. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Print. Read More