Will India Become a Superpower?

“India has never been a symbol of unity of Hindu-Muslim civilization. It is not possible for the British Government to create homogeneity between Hindu and Muslim culture and civilization as the two systems are distinctively opposed to each other. There is no way other than the partition of India”

Disputes over land seem to be a catalyst for almost every hostility and war since the dawn of time. The addition of politics and religion into the matter only serves to aggravate an already tense situation. Kashmir knows this all too well. The conflict between Hindus and Muslims seems to be an ever reoccurring battle. This is also evidenced in population battles. Hindus make up the social majority of the population of India by almost eighty percent. Feelings of tension and uneasiness are a natural reaction to being dominated by a majority and are a problem unto itself.

It became evident that the British could maintain the empire only at enormous cost. At the end of the Second World War, they saw the writing on the wall, and initiated a number of constitutional moves to effect the transfer of power to the sovereign State of India. For the first and perhaps the only time in history, the power of a mighty global empire 'on which the sun never set', had been challenged and overcome by the moral might of a people armed only with ideals and courage.

Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.” As a civil rights leader, Gandhi understood the true meaning of prejudice and even though he lived decades ago, his words remain true to this day. Starting with events hundreds of years ago, races have been segregated, even though the people here today never experienced those actual events the division between races is still prevalent. Sherman Alexie illustrates a four-century old conflict between whites and Native Americans through both sides. The theme “even after hundreds of years, grudges can be held through generations” is present in the novel Indian Killer by Sherman Alexie, as seen through 1990s Seattle and the conflict of John Smith's thoughts.

o. Now today, India is made up of multiple identities, but “if your allegiance is to India, then you are Indian”( Wood, 245).

(Document 5) This shows that even though Britain gave education to Indians they only gave it to who could afford it and hardly anyone could. Lalvani claims that over the 200 year span of British imperialism, India’s religions felt safer and less discriminated against. ( According to Dr.Lalvani) Although the British thought this was true it actually was not. Christians were mocking and discriminating against Muslims and Hindus. (Gandhi) Similarly Hinduism believes in nonviolence so when the protest at Amritsar took place the Indians were brutally slaughtered while being unarmed. (Gandhi) Because of their non-violence beliefs the Hindus had no defense and were killed by what they thought was their

Throughout the years, the colonized inhabitants of a conquered nation have responded to the threat of imperialism by encouraging violence and rebelling against their captors. This behavior is shown when Moulavy Syad Kutb Shah Sahib writes about the Sepoy Mutiny in India and when he states in Document 2 that, “We must unite in their slaughter for by this alone will the lives and faith of us both be saved.” [..] Perhaps the English may try to assure the Hindus that they have consented to give up killing cows from respect for the Hindu religion. But no sensible man will be gulled by such deceit, for the promises of the English are deceitful.” This passage demonstrates how Sahib promotes violence through a letter and encourages the Muslims and

Throughout the years many historians have compilated and examined why Indian people were so desperate to gain back their independence from the British Empire during their rule over India, from 1612 to 1947. The reasoning can most definitely be found as the British discriminated against Indian people as they believe that they were inferior; it is no surprise that Indian people fought so hard for their independence. Throughout the British Raj, they placed and put forward unbelievably racist acts and laws which discriminated against Indian people. Which of course led to Indians to rebel against the British rule and which the British reacted with causing massacres. Explaining the nationalistic many India’s felt during the British Raj.

Afzal’s death further infuriated the Kashmiri people. Yet again not only were curfews put in place by the police, but violators executed. At this point, the Kasmiri people have been subjected to 20 years of military occupation. Strides had been made – in 2014 India was going to give Kashmir and Jammu back some of their rights by allowing elections. Executing Afzal Guru seemed to reverse all of their efforts.

Mr. Cook makes a strong case in his attempt to understand the causes and contributing factors behind the segregation along race, class and gender lines which were so prevalent in British ruled India, but also strictly observed within Britain and her other colonies. In “Conflicting Ideologies in British India, 1875-1900” he cites factors both specific to India, in particular the suppressed revolt of 1857, and those more external, like the “hardening racism” in Europe. The substantial losses, both financial and in human lives, associated with the revolt of 1857 resulted in a significant decline in trust and an increasing hesitancy to risk “antagonizing Indian sensibilities”. Since the revolt was viewed as retaliation for British attempts to Westernize India, this fearful reluctance to continue along the path previously envisioned by some which ultimately resulted in Britain’s empowerment, modernization and civilizing of the native Indians to a place of independent governance and administration, became less appealing but also served as additional justification for European society’s changing perception of race. The elite Anglicized Indians had not only dared to challenge British authority and administrative processes, but they had dared to utilize their Western teachings to do so. This clearly barbaric application of treasured knowledge, which the British perceived they had bestowed upon the fortunate Indians as a gift, was viewed as further proof of the inability to

Indians were becoming politically active in the late 1800s. During this period, they founded institutions that would help end colonial rule. In 1885, Indian modernists formed the Indian National Congress to reform Hindu and Muslim practices that did not match up to their liberal ideals and to change British Indian policies that were opposed to democratic ideals. However, many internal issues within the Indian culture were obstacles to independence. Most notably are the differences in language groups. Despite these problems, a nationalist movement took root within the country that ultimately led to the creation of India and Pakistan in 1947. There were three principles to this movement that helped the movement succeed.

By 1921, India began a series of cultural, social, and political movements in order to achieve independence from oppressive British rule. During this time, the Indian Nationalist Movement rose to extreme prominence, which demanded non-discriminatory laws, equality, peaceful religious relations, and Indian independence. The most notable leader of the Indian Nationalist Movement was Mahatma Gandhi, who was renowned for his ability to lead peaceful civil protests and enact change among the classes. Gandhi denounced the excessive taxation and social discrimination that was taking place. He led various campaigns that resulted in citizens boycotting British products, schools, offices, and government establishments and formulated a constitution that promoted India's development as an independent nation. By the mid-twentieth century, India was able to gain freedom through a nonviolent exchange of power. According to Worlds Together, World Apart, "India achieved political independence involved without an insurrection....Anti-colonial elites in the Indian National Congress party negotiated a peaceful transfer of power from British rule..." (Tignor 756) However, as the development of a national identity continued, religious and cultural conflicts and divides were drastically intensified between Hindus and Muslims. Disputes over which culture, language, religion, and classes would be

Throughout time the country of India and it’s citizens have been subject to large-scale violence on a national and international level. Events such as the Partition and 9/11 have impacted people of Indian nationality in insurmountable ways. People of Indian nationally have not only been experiencing violence in their own country, but also in the other countries around the world that they have migrated to over time. Post 9/11 Indians and Indian-Americans were victims of hate crimes solely based on their appearance due to the Western image of Muslims and Islam.

The present government, much like Savarkar, is subtley, or not-so-subtley, trying to create a Hindu rashtra. This leads to many asking the question – “is mainstreaming Savarkar as a national hero and propagating his work a part of the BJP's unfinished agenda?”9 Echoing Savarkar's thoughts, the BJP claims that “Hindutva is not a religious concept, but rather, it is cultural nationalism.”10 However, it is evident that the phrase “cultural nationalism” is a mere euphenism to cover the ideology of promoting a Hindu rashtra. Ghar Wapsi – an attempt to re-Hinduize converts, or convert non-Hindus to Hinduism is rampant, even more so after the new rightist government came to power. Consumption and posession of beef has been criminalized in a bid to protect the Hindu 'gow mata', and please the elite Hidutva propagating Hindus who form a considerable share of the vote bank. Government officials have been caught saying that all non-Hindus are 'illegitimate children', bringing to mind Savarkar's claim that all Hindus have common blood. Intolerance today is not as subtle as Savarkar's disregard for those who converted to Islam and Christianity. Rationalists such as Kalburgi are being killed for offending 'Hindu sentiments.' Education is being saffronized in order to indoctrinate the Hindutva ideology into young minds. Despite critisicm from rationalists, the government continues to do so and defends their actions by stating that “we must value everything that is 'Indian', as it is our inherent strength.”11 History is being re-written to glorify the Golden Age of Hinduism. This re-written history, talks about how 'outsiders' (Muslims and Christians) infiltrated the land, diluting the purity of the nation. This goes hand-in-hand with Savarkar's explanation of a Hindu being one who considers the land to be his pitrubhumi and punyabhumi, and that once upon a

The Partition of India in August, 1947 was a significant event in history that accounted for the separation of one of the world’s oldest civilization into two, independent nations – Pakistan and India. Like many other wars in history, The Partition of India was instigated by religious, political and social conflict. This resulted in violence, discrimination and the largest human displacement in contemporary history. While the Partition was well-studied, much of our understanding was focused on the political side of history, not the human side of it. This was why oral history played an important role in manifesting the complexity of a historical event. Our focus here is Maya Rani’s testimony from Butalia’s book, The Other Side of Silence: