Analysis of the Gospel of John

Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity died on the cross so that sinners may be saved - according to John the “beloved” .Chapter 19 of the gospel of John is written by John the “beloved” and tells of what happened after Jesus’ arrest and before his resurrection- his crucifixion.
The death of Jesus has had a great impact on the world- it is because of his exemplary sacrifice for the lives of perfect strangers that many Christians around the world dedicate their lives for caring for other-physically, mentally and spiritually. Professors spend half a lifetime analyzing the life of Jesus and sinners find consolation and peace when they hear of the Messiah’s sacrifice. The reason why Jesus died on the cross is summed up very well in John 3:16- “For god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” This verse gives hope to all those who believe, regardless of their past.
The details mentioned in John’s account of the condemnation, crucifixion and burial of Jesus are such that only an eyewitness could have retold what happened. Small conversations that took place after Jesus’ crucifixion- “When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, ‘Dear woman, here is your son’ and to the disciple, ‘Here is your mother’.” (Jn 19 vs. 26-27)- are also recorded in John’s account. This shows that John was indeed present at the site, because he mentions himself as being addressed to by Jesus, and if he wasn’t witnessing the scene he would not have mentioned other followers of Jesus who witnessed the crucifixion such as his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene.
The crucifixion of Jesus, according to John, happened on the eve of that year’s Passover, and indecently the eve of Sabbath too. After being sentenced to crucifixion, “In John, Jesus carries his own cross as was customary (but cf. Mark 15:21 and parallels), to the place of his execution, Golgotha (v.17). Its site may now be marked by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre” (Smith 983). This shows that the places mentioned in this chapter are true and that they do in fact exist today. This quote also tells us that the customs during that time was very similar to that day and age, and so Jesus was crucified because he was condemned to die the death of a traitor, which in those days, under the Romans, was one of the gravest crimes committable.
After being nailed to the cross, and experiencing the highest degree of physical pain possible, Jesus was offered a drink of
John’s account in chapter 19 also includes Jesus’ questioning by Pontius Pilate- the 5th Roman prefect of Judea under Tiberius. Pilate had absolute authority over the non-Roman citizens of the province and was not very popular among the Jews, and so when faced with the decision to save or condemn Jesus, he chose to let the Jews decide. In my opinion, Pilate made this decision to win over the favor of the Jews. When Pilate heard that Jesus “claimed to be the Son of God” (Jn 19vs.7), he “was even more afraid”, and soon tried to save Jesus, but when the Jews told him that if he let Jesus go, he was “no friend of Caesar” and that “anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar” (Jn 19vs.12), Pilate handed Jesus over to the Jews. He refused to save Jesus when he had the chance.
Ultimately the reason why Jesus died on the cross is mentioned in chapter 20- he died so that “we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and through him we may have eternal life.”

‘Revolution’ by The Beatles

Revolution’

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah

ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right

First heard in 1968, ‘Revolution was an inspiring song composed by John Lennon, though officially, the credit is given to both Lennon and Paul McCartney. The Beatles released three different versions of this song- ‘Revolution’ (August 1968), ‘Revolution 1’ (November 1968) and ‘Revolution 9’ (Nov 1968). Even though ‘Revolution’ was the last to be produced, it was the first to be released. Revolution was released as a single and ‘Revolution 1’ and ‘Revolution 9’ were part of the ‘White Album”. ‘Revolution’ and ‘Revolution 1’ were quite similar in the wording (one line was different). However after complains about the original- ‘Revolution 1’ being really slow, Lennon began composing a tune “as loud raucous as anything the Beatles had released.” The result was a high aggressive song with a distorted tone that became highly popular during that time. Revolution 9 was quite different from both Revolution and Revolution 1. The only part that was recognizable was the repeated shouting of “all right, all right, all right.”

This song is also said to be a highly political song. Some say the Beatles were talking to hippies during the Vietnam was telling them that violence and hate were not the way to go about resolving the conflict. Inspired by their time in a “a transcendental meditation camp with The Maharishi” in Rishikesh, India, the Beatles wanted to go back to that idealism of the early 60s when people like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King were the general public’s role models and their messages of peace and nonviolence everyone’s weapon. Rishikesh, a holy town that is a popular pilgrimage spot for Hindu devotees, is filled with ‘sadus’-holy men, who spend most of their time meditating and cleansing themselves of anything unholy. Inspired by the sadus’ long meditation periods and the messages of peace and godliness presented by them, the Beatles were convinced that such a world would achieve more that world where destruction and chaos was caused by the government itself and so came back from the India with ‘Revolution’ in mind. During that time, the hippies started protesting against the Vietnam War with violence, and in response to their violence, the government started taking harsh action against hippies in general, making the hippies even angrier. Soon Gandhi and Martin Luther King were replaced by new ‘revolutionaries’ like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. The hippies, after facing opposition from the government felt that peace wasn’t working and so they might as well give violence a try. Even though the word Revolution is only mentioned in the song once, it is clear that the Beatles wanted to tell the hippies who had “strayed from the peace” that that peace would accomplish more and was the right way to go about starting a ‘Revolution’. Rioting was the popular way of voicing the ‘public’s’ opinion, but if everyone began pursuing nonviolence and truth, a real Revolution would take place. The Che Guevara T-shirt wearers and other ‘new age’ hippies were protesting against the Vietnam War by causing destruction, and sending out messages with hate. Using their popularity during that time, the Beatles made it clear that they were not going to have anything to do with those who said they wanted to “change the world” with violence. By trying to make sure that the Americans knew that their ideal world was turning towards violence, the Beatles were hoping that once people saw the error of their ways; they would want to go back the values of the 1960s. However, in the slow version of ‘Revolution’- ‘Revolution 1’, instead of just singing “you can count me out”, he sings “you can count me out…in”. This has made many people say that the song actually has a double meaning and that Lennon still wasn’t sure if he against destruction.

Recently, Nike used this song for a commercial, and many Beatles fans went crazy because such a politically inspiring song used to promote shoes. Fans felt that Nike was disrespecting Lennon’s legacy. A few fans today feel that this wasn’t only referring to a political revolution but also to a “mini revolution that the Beatles themselves were leading in the British recording industry.” Always arguing about what was permissible and what was not and trying to introduce new sounds into their music. However, even though is message that the Beatles is sending out is, to some people, not clear, many have been inspired and most agree that this song applies to today’s world also.

A.P US History Essay on the First five presidents.

George Washington, the first president of America was successful in terms of establishing nationhood because everyone believed that he was the best choice for their country- he was, after all the “founding father” of the United States, and everyone knew of his efforts in gaining independence for America and saw him as the main person involved in creating the new nation. His belief that “there is no nation if there is division”, made him want to unite the different states, so that citizens of the United States of America saw themselves as Americans, not as people from different states. Washington was also successful in implementing a spirit of constitution. He put down the Whisky Rebellion in 1794, which was one of the few times when the federal government exercised military rule against citizens of the United States of America. He also established the Cabinet, a Secretary of State, a Secretary of War, and the first set of Judges among other things. By giving these people important places in the governance of the country, Washington was underlining the fact that America was a democratic country, and that he was not an autocrat. By introducing the first set of Judges, who could intervene when the constitution was challenged, Washington was saying that the power of the leader was in the hands of the ‘American people.’ However, taking all this into consideration, one can argue that Washington cannot be compared to other presidents because was the only unopposed, unanimous choice. He is remembered more for what he did before America gained independence, than for his efforts as the 1^st president.

John Adams was not very successful as a president. His introduction of the Naturalization Act¹, the Alien Act + the Alien Enemies Act² and the Sedition Act³ in 1798- because of his fear of not being reelected at the end of his term- widened the tension between the Republicans and the Federalists, and resulted in a lesser sense of nationhood than before. Adams brought about more division in the country when he supported the north more than the south. Also, because Adams did not make an effort to bring the nation forward, no other states joined the United States under Adams’s rule and the country was breaking apart. In the midst of all these blunders, Adams lets Impressment- the “act of conscripting people to serve in the military or navy, usually by force and without notice”⁴- go on.

Adams did not do so well in terms of implementing a spirit of constitution either. He did not try to compromise for the best of everyone and instead sought after his own ends. In terms of domestic compromise, Adams did not compromise on the Virginia and Kentucky Resolution as he did not, as a federalist, approve of statehood and this goes against the constitution. Internationally, Adams does not find a way to resolve the issue between France and Britain by remaining neutral, instead he sees the British as more beneficial ally (because of British occupation of Canada. If he did come up with a treaty with both the British and the French which said that America would not get involved in any of their disputes, the U.S. could have avoided the war of 1812. Most of Adams’s actions were focused on increasing federal control - not much emphasis was placed on individual state rights, and by doing this he was angering the state rightists and also went against the fourth article of the constitution which “requires the United States to guarantee to each state a republican form of government”⁵.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were thought of as ‘able presidents’ because they came after John Adams who, as a president did an abysmal job. Unlike Adams, they were both states people, and saw themselves as Virginians rather than Americans. Thomas Jefferson did increase the idea of nationhood with the Louisiana Purchase because the Americans were given more territory to call their own; however, Jefferson was not sure if purchase constitutional. However, Jefferson denied citizenship to the Native Americans, and pushed them towards the west. James Madison did not try to compromise with the Federalists and instead, after the Hartford Convention announced that the Federalist Party was unpatriotic, thus failing to implement a spirit of constitution. By weakening the Federalist Party, Jefferson managed to prevent New England from seceding- which increased the sense that all the states were part of a collective nation. Jefferson was also the one to declare war against Britain in 1812, which was not for the best of the country and went against the constitution because by declaring war, the U.S was not protecting the states from invasion and violence (article four of the constitution). “Mr. Madison’s War” as the War of 1812 was called by New England Federalists was successful in implementing a spirit of constitution- there was a “growth of national identity and [a] huge surge of patriotism.⁶”

James Monroe is arguably the most successful revolutionary president in terms of implementing a spirit of constitution and establishing nationhood. He was the choice of all the Americans except one for re-election- he was the choice when they had a choice- unlike Washington. By coming up with the Missouri Compromise in 1818, Monroe instilled the spirit of the constitution- he compromised so that no one was overly upset and most people happy. Monroe worked with the opposition to resolve conflicts. When he became president, he went on a tour on New England, and met many Federalists. Even though the Federalist Party was dying in terms of popularity, Monroe, in compromising and spending time with the members of the party, showed that he was caring and that people that belonged to other parties were also part of the nation. The Oregon Dispute between the U.S and U.K was handled well by Monroe. Spain and Russia had given up their claim diplomatically and no violence was used. Had James Madison been in Monroe’s places, there would most likely have been a war. Monroe made sure, by compromising, that the best decision was made- one that benefited most people and harmed none. During Monroe presidential terms, territories were seen of as an integrated part of the country and Florida joined the United States. In 1823, Monroe came up the Monroe Doctrine, which said that America would not interfere in European disputes as long as they stayed out of the Americas. Any dispute that extended into the Americas would be seen of as hostile. By coming up with the Doctrine, Monroe was underlining the fact that America was an independent, sovereign nation that could take care of it self -this increased nationalism in the country. The Era of Good Feelings was a time when there was no political unhappiness that took place in the U.S⁷. People were happy with Monroe’s decisions and no one attacked him for his policies.

To be a president who is successful in terms of establishing nationhood and implementing a spirit of the constitution, one has to see themselves collectively as part of a nation. Monroe, unlike Jefferson and Madison, did not see himself as a man from some state, but as an American. John Adams saw himself solely as a federalist, not as an American. George Washington’s term was glorified by his role in the revolution and so cannot be described as the most successful. After analyzing the first five presidents, one can conclude that creating divisions is the key to an unsuccessful leadership term and that compromising is the better way of handling matters.

U.S.’ motives for involvement in 1st Gulf War. (Operation Desert Storm)

On the 2^nd of August, 1990, Saddam Hussein - the leader of Iraq- and the armed forces of Iraq invaded and occupied the oil-rich country of Kuwait. The purpose of this invasion was to annex Kuwait as it was considered part of Iraq by the Iraqis. As a result, the United Nations ‘sanctioned an embargo on Iraq’ and asked various nations to provide troops in case of any ‘military need’. The next few months consisted of various diplomatic games and sanctions brought about by the Americans, and finally, on the 16^th of January 1991, Operation Desert Storm began with a joint strategic air attack on Iraqi forces in the emirate of Kuwait. This air attack also extended to ‘installations’ in Iraq itself- both industrial and military. Out of the 690,000 troops deployed against the armed forces of Iraq, 425,000 were American and 265,000 were British, French, Egyptian and Saudi Arabian.

The leaders of the United States of America chose to be involved in the Gulf conflict and so convinced the U.N and other nations that their interference was the best move for the people of Kuwait. The United States’ motives for involvement in the Gulf War are still widely debated. The U.S. claimed it wanted to bring peace to the Middle East and offered military aid to a country in need- Kuwait. Also, the U.S. had made a treaty with Kuwait a few years ago, and had promised it help. On the other hand, many scholars and members of Bush’s opposition claim that the U.S. had its eye on oil resources in the Middle East, and wanted to maintain its influence in the Middle East and so maintain its hold on Middle Eastern Oil. The second possible motive is more likely to have been the real one as the U.S. did not come to the aid of other countries outside of the Middle East during various other post- cold war conflicts. Also, before Iraq invaded Kuwait, the U.S. had stated that it would not involve itself in any Arab conflict. When Saddam Hussein planned to cut the production of oil and at the same time increase the price of oil in Kuwait, the Bush Administration must have decided it could not have that and remembered the treaty with Kuwait and went to its aid.

According to some people, The United States government’s claim that they involved themselves in the Gulf War because they wanted to help and liberate Kuwait was to an extent justified. In a speech to all Americans involved in the Gulf War, General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S Central Command said, "Soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines of the United States Central Command, this morning at 0300, we launched Operation DESERT STORM, an offensive campaign that will enforce the United Nation’s resolutions that Iraq must cease its rape and pillage of its weaker neighbor and withdraw its forces from Kuwait. My confidence in you is total. Our cause is just! Now you must be the thunder and lightning of Desert Storm. May God be with you, your loved ones at home, and our Country.” (Schwarzkopf, United States Navy records). Kuwait was a weaker country and the United Nations had passed a resolution against the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. As a permanent member of the United Nations, America was inclined to help by sending troops as part of a United Nations Coalition. America’s philanthropy towards Kuwait could be seen of as a privileged country helping a country in need fight for its right to remain an independent state.

However, according to war critics, the most important reason for the U.S.’ involvement in the 1^st Gulf war was that the single most important commodity in the world-oil- came from the Middle East- “[Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait] excited the major powers only because it took place in the region which contains 65 per cent of the world’s known oil reserves and 25 percent of current oil production.” (Freedman, 180).The leaders of the U.S. feared that if Iraq, after annexing Kuwait, decided to expand their territory to include other major oil-producing countries, like Saudi Arabia, oil in the U.S. would become very expensive. The chance that Iraq would dominate the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and so gain a lot of power internationally would become very high if Saddam Hussein kept expanding his territory. This would mean that Iraqi leaders would control oil prices. Higher oil prices in the United States, meant that there would be less political popularity among citizens, and a very low chance of a re-election for President Bush Sr.

Another possible reason for the U.S.’ intervention in the Middle East is its alliance with Israel. The U.S. and Israel had been allies since Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land and now Saddam Hussein threatened to bomb Israel with chemical and nuclear weapons if troops were sent out against the Iraqi army. The U.S. probably felt that it was their duty to ‘take care’ of the nation they had helped establish. Even though Israel did not ask the U.S. to protect them during the Gulf War, the U.S. army stationed their troops in Israel and later on, a land attack was launched from there. In terms of Israeli involvement in the Gulf War, however, the U.S. – for the sake of allies who were Israel-hating Arabs- asked Israel to not participate in the war.

Operation Desert Storm is also said to have been initiated by America because the U.S. wanted to show its power in the Middle East. There were obviously consequences that would arise if Saddam was successful and decided to take-over most of the Middle East, but at the same time, if Saddam lost all his power, Iran would be the most powerful country in the Middle East. Iran was an anti-U.S. country and would make sure America lost its influence on the Middle Eastern region.

The vast majority of the people of the United States supported the Gulf War initially. The reason why there wasn’t much opposition from the American public in the beginning was because, during the war, the media coverage was biased against the Iraqis. Because of this, the American people were unopposed to their government liberating a country that was home to so many cute-faced children from the tyrannical rule of the Saddam Hussein- the intimidating, bearded, Islamic dictator. The media encouraged such hate for Saddam and love for Kuwait in the American people before the war that “out of every 10 Americans, five said the time had come to move from talk to military action, six wanted to humiliate Saddam, and seven said [Saddam] would be the winner if he was allowed to withdraw from Kuwait and remain in power in Iraq. Given the arithmetic, Bush is probably right in his own calculation that if the coalition scores quickly in a short war and with relatively few casualties, the country will stand for him” (Newsweek, 12). The media covered injured Kuwaitis and brave American soldiers- failing to report on the “retreating Iraqis [who] were buried alive with tank bulldozers and burnt alive with napalm bombings - the only use of chemical weapons during the war - thus violating the Geneva Conventions covering chemical warfare.” (Fingrut, Part IX). To gain more popularity for the war, George Bush Sr. tried to stir up patriotism- “I ask only that all of you stop ad say a prayer for all the coalition forces…who this very moment are risking their lives for their country and for all of us.”¹ However, as the war progressed there was a period of recession in America when companies were going bankrupt and the value of the dollar dropped and the ‘American people’s’ support of Operation Desert Storm came to an end. Americans started questioning the war, the necessity of it and its benefit to the ‘American people.’ The advantages and disadvantages of the war were weighed against each other, and many Americans became resentful of the American government.

One can come to many conclusions as to why Bush Sr.’s government disguised the reason for America involving itself in the Gulf war. Perhaps there were some elements of truth in Bush’s disguise, maybe the decision-makers of America did care about the emirate of Kuwait, halfway across the world—but its highly unlikely. The most likely theory explaining the government’s deception is that Bush wanted to gain popularity and so went through the war. In the modern world, especially in the United States, most presidential candidates spend their entire life campaigning for themselves- trying to win over citizen’s votes, and most presidents do everything in power to ensure that get re-elected. In terms of economy, citizens would be happy if oil prices went down; in terms of patriotism there would be more ‘love’ for Bush and his government because the height of patriotism in a country is usually during a war with another country and in terms of politics, the leader of a country that is on the winning side of the war, always gains a ‘hero’ status among his own people. Operation Desert Storm, in the beginning made Bush Sr. very popular among his people, but the end of the war made him unpopular- the recession that happened angered many people and Bush Sr. did not get re-elected as president for a second term. His reason for involvement in the Gulf Conflict was mostly because he wanted to maintain America’s hold on part of the Middle Eastern Oil, and be seen as the liberator of Kuwait, and thus gain popularity for himself.

Works Cited:

Brinkley, Alan. “The Gulf War.” American History, A Survey. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, 2003.

Freedman, Lawrence & Karsh, Efraim. “The Oil Weapon.” The Gulf Conflict. London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1994.

Schwarzkopf, General H. Norman. “Thunder and Lightning”. Department of the Navy—Naval Historical Center. Washington: 16^th January 1991. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/desert_storm.htm

Fingrut, David. “And the Final Score Is:” Outright Disinformation Scheme. Toronto: 1993.

Newsweek. Operation Desert Storm. January 28th 1991.

American War of indipendence- advantages and disadvantages

The American War of Independence or the Revolutionary War lasted seven years, and resulted in the colonists gaining independence. Having settled in the Americas in the early 1600s, the British had created many restrictions for the American people and by mid 1700’s had introduced many Acts which angered the colonists. The colonist’s resentment of these acts 1[1], led to the Revolutionary War.

The colonists could not have won without the many advantages that they had- The Americans were in their home country and their resources were close by; the American Patriots believed in the importance of the war. Also, the British were at that time, rivals with the French and other world powers, and as a result Britain’s rivals provided aid to the Americans. Even with out these advantages, Britain could have won the war, if it were not for some serious errors in calculation and other mistakes on their part.

The American War of Independence is said to have begun in April 1775 with battles at Lexington and Concord, near Boston. It was at the Battle of Concord that the first shot was fired. At the start of the war, the colonies in America were not united and only joined together later on that year, during the Second Continental Congress, to defeat a common enemy. Even at that stage Georgia had not accepted the invitation to join the congress, but most other member colonies were slowly moving toward a sense of one, sovereign nation. At the congress meeting, the members decided that arms should be taken up against the British and so they made preparations for a war. They appointed George Washington as the commander in chief of the American forces when they realized that they needed to unite their different armies to stand a chance against the British. The member appointed a committee² 3[2] to draft a Declaration of Independence.

The Battle of Bunker Hill was the first major battle that took place between the British and the colonists. The clash, which took place on Breed’s Hill resulted in a British victory. However, the losses on the British side were heavier than that on the American side. A few months later, an American commander, Benedict Arnold joined forces with Richard Montgomery and attacked the British dominated city of Quebec and was defeated. The British had been waging war from Boston- an indefensible place thickly populated with Patriots, and after realizing the disadvantage having Boston as a base, they moved to Halifax, Nova Scotia on the 17^th of March, 1776.

America celebrated its unofficial independence on the 4^th of July 1776, when the Congress approved the Declaration of Independence. This event united the Americans and although the sense of one united nation still did not fully exist, the colonies were now to be recognized as one country, not as different states.

After independence a lot of problems arose because the states remained independent and self- governing; there was not enough money and this led to a post war depression. The Congress were not ready to govern a whole nation and were not able to deal with the financial problem well. The confederation did not have any power to tax and had an enormous debt to pay off. It was only able to request states to help pay off the debt. They received one-sixth of the amount they had requested.

With the arrival of 32,000 British troops in New York harbor in August of 1776, the British were much more powerful in terms of man power. Under the command of William Howe, the British fought several battles against Washington’s 19,000 men and defeated them. These losses on the part of the Americans, led to British occupation of New York City in September of 1776. The war took a turn for the better for the Americans when Washington crossed the Delaware river in December and captured Trenton and dispersed a group of Hessians4[3], and then moved on to win the Battle of Princeton and gain control of Princeton College. However, Washington could not keep his hold on Princeton and Trenton for long.

The American gained another victory in August of 1777 when a group of American German farmers under Herkimer defeated the British under St. Leger at Fort Stanwix. Even though the Americans were not as organized as the British, the British made themselves easy targets by wearing red coats and always marching in groups. However, British officer, William Howe defeated Washington at the Battle of Brandywine Creek and on September 11^th and occupied Philadelphia. Washington, defeated a second time at the battle of Germantown, spent the winter at Valley Forge. On October 17 of the same year, the Americans, driven by their want for independence, succeeded in a series of small battles which resulted in John Burgoyne, a British officer surrendering to American commander of northern forces, Horatio Gates at Saratoga, NY. This victory for the Patriots boosted the spirits of all Americans, and also resulted in a treaty between France and the United States.

Foreign aid played a very important role in the course of the war. France on the 6^th of February 1778 recognized the United States as a sovereign nation and this eventually led to other countries offering aid to the Patriots. Apart from the French alliance in June, France sent large amounts of ammunition and other needed supplies to the Patriots.

There was a change in command of the British forces when Sir Henry Clinton replaced William Howe as General in July. Clinton moved his troops from Philadelphia to New York and stayed there for a year.

The morale of American troops was at a low when, in December of 1778, the British occupied Savannah, GA; in May 1780, the British had captured Charleston, SC and in September 1780, American General- Benedict Arnold was caught in an attempt to betray the Patriots and cede West Point to the British because he saw the war as pointless. However, there was a boost in the morale of the American troops when French troops arrived at Newport, RI, to aid the American cause. Also, in October 1780, Washington named Nathanael Greene as commander of the Southern army.

In March of 1781 Lord Cornwallis, (British commander in the south), clashed with Greene at Guilford Court House, North Carolina; this resulted in Greene’s withdrawal from the battle, and Cornwallis deserting his Carolina campaign. Cornwallis moved his troops to Yorktown, and was soon surrounded on land and sea by Americans, led by George Washington, and the French, led by Count Jean Baptiste de Rochambeau and Admiral Francois Joseph Paul de Grasse. Cornwallis did not stand a chance against the joint American-French force and on the 19^th of October surrendered the British Army. This marked the end of fighting; however, the British still maintained its rule over Savannah, Charleston, Wilmington and New York. At this time, the British had defeated France in West Indies which meant that the Americans could no long rely on the French Navy for help. At this stage the Americans were not sure of their victory as their alliance with France prevented them from making a treaty with the British. There was a standstill for some time, and Americans, looking for a solution, signed a preliminary treaty with the British. A final decision was made, and the Treaty of Paris was signed on September 3, 1783. As a result of the treaty, France and Spain agreed to end hostilities with the British and the British agreed to grant the United States a “clear-cit recognition of its independence and a generous though ambiguous cession of territory- from the southern boundary of Canada to the northern boundary of Florida and from the Atlantic to the Mississippi.”5[4] (141, American History, a Survey).

Gaining independence, for the Americans had many advantages. Above all, the United States was an independent country and the citizens did not need to pay the taxes that they had earlier been forced to to under the British. Also, Women rights improved a little and there was religious freedom. With advantages, there were some disadvantages as well- even though the states were independent; there was more state loyalty than national loyalty as the states had their own governments and sometimes chose to ignore the laws of constitution. Also there wasn’t enough money and the Confederation Congress ran into enormous debt.

The War of Independence resulted in a great victory for the Americans, and set an example to many other colonies. Even though the British outnumbered the Americans, the passion the Americans had for their cause, and their determination for independence was the main reason why they won.

Khilafat Movement

The Khilafat Movement, a political campaign for the protection of the Ottoman Empire and the Caliphate, played a significant role in creating Indian History in terms of Indian Independence. The Khilafat Movement began after World War I, in the 1920s when talks discussing the possibility of a partitioned Ottoman Empire began. Muslims felt that a partitioned Empire would diminish the “Ottoman emperor’s status as the Caliph¹” However, after the Treaty of Sevres in August 1920, the terms of which declared a partitioned Ottoman Empire², and the Ataturk’s abolition of the position of the caliphate, a world wide Sunni Muslim movement began. The loudest of these movements took place in India where Muslims began a non-cooperation movement against the terms of the treaty with Turkey.

Maulana Mohammad Ali Jouhar, a prominent Muslim cleric and journalist preached resistance to the British and called for support for the caliphate- because of this he was put in prison for four years. Jouhar and his brother, Maulana Shaukat Ali, Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, Hasrat Mohani, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Dr. Hakim Ajmal Khan formed the All India Khilafat Committee (AIKC). The aim of this committee was to bring unity among Muslims in India and to use the members’ influence as national leaders, to protect the caliphate. In 1920, the AIKC published the Khilafat Manifesto- calling for Muslim Unity and the Indian Muslim community’s support in holding the British accountable for the protection of the caliphate. Also in 1920, the AIKC formed an alliance with the Indian National Congress. Gandhi, on behalf of the Congress promised to fight for the Khilafat cause, and the Khilafat leaders, in return promised to fight for Swaraj. The Khilafatists soon became a major part of the Gandhi-led non-cooperation and peaceful civil disobedience movements. Because of the Khilafatists’ alliance, the Congress was able to make sure that no conflicts arose between the Hindus and the Muslims- followers of both religions were united in their joint struggle. As the alliance between the Khilafatists and the Congress became stronger, the leaders of both groups “grew personally close” to each other. In terms of achievements, Khilafat leaders- “Dr. Ansari, Maulana Azad and Hakim Ajmal Khan founded the Jamia Millia Islamia [towards the end of] 1920 to promote independent education and social rejuvenation for Muslims”³ Campaigns of huge protests, acts of civil disobedience and non-cooperation were held in the early days and for a while it seemed like the campaigns were successful, however, the differences between the Hindus and the Muslims soon began to pose problems and the Congress-Khilafat bond became weaker. Political parties such as the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha, that represented different religions, were against the Khilafat campaign and the alliance between the Congress and the Khilafatists. Jinnah of the Muslim League termed the Khilafat movement as a “religious frenzy” while members of the Hindu community saw the movement as “Islamic fundamentalism based on a pan- Islamic agenda.”

Muslim leaders urged Indian Muslims to emigrate to Afghanistan because India was a ‘Dar al-Harb’ – a land without a Muslim majority and without Muslim rule. Afghanistan was, however, in the eyes of the Muslim leaders a ‘Dar al-Islam’- a land with a Muslim majority and Muslim rule. In the same year (1920), 18,000 Muslims from the Sindh region made the journey to Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, Indian refugees were not granted shelter, and were deported back to British India. These deported Indians were harassed by the Hindus when they returned. In the southern part of India, the Malabar region was home to many Muslims- most of whom were peasants. On their return from Afghanistan, Muslims found that Hindu landlords had confiscated their land and “refused to return their property.” This dispute led to the Moplah Rebellion. During the rebellion, Hindus and British authorities were attacked by armed Muslims and soon the Hindus and British retaliated- many thousands were killed on both sides. The peace that Gandhi and other Khilafatists had achieved between the two religious communities was destroyed. What angered the Muslims even more was that the Congress supported the Hindu landlords and the British in their effort to crush the rebellion with violence. Because of the Congress’ bias, Maulana Mohammad Ali Jouhar and his brother, Maulana Shaukat Ali removed themselves from the Congress and Gandhi’s company. The Ali brothers felt that Gandhi’s non-violent stand would not lead to much change, and broke all ties with him after 1922. As the months progressed, the Khilafat movement weakened after much talks, and little progress. The leaders were unsure of their loyalty- some wanted to make the Congress their priority, others the Muslim League, and still others the Khilafat cause. With so much division between the leaders, the Khilafat Movement was crushed when Mustafa Kemal, the Turkish revolutionary overthrew the Ottoman rule and established a secular, republic government that was sympathized with the west. There was nothing the Khilafatists could do, and so they had to abandon their movement.

With a dissolved AIKC, the leader chose to either maintain loyalty to the Muslim League or the Congress. The Ali brothers joined the Muslim League and Dr. Ansari, Maulana Azad and Hakim Ajmal Khan joined the Congress. All these former Khilafat leaders soon became advocates for their parties, and in the future were labelled ‘freedom fighters’.

Bibliography:

• http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A033
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khilafat_Movement
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamia_Millia_Islamia
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliph

Influence of Mahabharata on Indian History

Mahabharata, one of the world’s longest epics and perhaps the most influential tale ever written, is a story of rivalry between two Kshatriya families. Whether everything mentioned in the book took place in reality, one can never really say for sure. The only known facts are that the epic was known throughout the world more than 4,500 years ago¹ and that Kurukshetra and Hastinpura² are two places that exist even today. Indian culture is so intertwined with the Mahabharata that its influence has taken over the significance of the epic’s historical accuracy.

The first mention of the caste system, which is practiced even today, is in the Mahabharata. The caste system is a hierarchal system where one is born to a level and cannot advance out of it in that particular life. The main aim of a Hindu is to fulfill his duty, according to his birth status. The concept of dharma is stressed by Krishna in the Mahabharata and is a major part of the Bhagavad-Gita. Today, higher class citizens, justify their mistreatment of lower class citizens by saying that it the duty of the Shudras to serve those in the higher classes. This idea is brought about by the Mahabharata and is the cause of inequality that exists in today’s India.

Most of the past leaders of India have been Hindu; their values and customs, a majority of which is drawn from the Mahabharata, greatly affect how they do their job and how they present themselves. Many popular political parties have fundamentalist Hindu leaders, who hold seats in the Lok Sabha, and these leaders greatly affect the way areas are governed. The Bhagavad Gita was a great influence on the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi who said, “When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see not one ray of light on the horizon, I turn to the Bhagavad-Gita, and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. My life has been full of tragedies and if they have not left any visible and indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teachings of the Bhagavad-Gita."

Indian Literature, religion, folklore and philosophy are closely knit with the Mahabharata. The epic is known as the oldest piece of literature, or the father of Indian literature. Often, when parents tell their children stories with morals, they tell them of small stories that are mentioned in the Mahabharata, like the story of Ganga and her abandonment of her children. Also, as Mahabharata is a major text for Hinduism and more than ¾ of the total percentage of Indians are Hindus, the influence of the epic on Indian religion is great, and forms the basis for many religious practices. Many Indians today, start their day by doing Puja and presenting offerings to their main God. Krishna, who was Arujuna’s charioteer during the war at Kurukshetra, is a popular main God among many Hindus.

The role of women in today’s society has also been influenced by the Mahabharata. A wife in the Mahabharata committed Sati and over the next few millennia, it had become the tradition for wives to cremate themselves with their husbands when their husbands die. In some conservative areas, women are forced to do Sati. Also, in terms of a woman’s honor, most Indian husbands are very sensitive- even though women are not seen of as equal, they are usually given respect. Of all Indian women, mothers are most respected and usually never argued with traditionally; promises made on a person’s mother are considered most binding in India. These traditions come from the Mahabharata- the Pandavas obey their mother Kunthi’s every command, and never treat her with any disrespect. Also, a lot of what happens in the Mahabharata, and the reason for most of Bhima’s vows, comes as the result of Draupadi’s (the Pandavas’ wife) dishonor.

India is known for its morals and the dedication of the citizens in following their religion. It can be argued that the basic Indian moral code comes from Hinduism- Indian values such as keeping one’s promise no matter what, fighting for honor and justice and never backing away from a fight are values that can be learnt from the Mahabharata. Bhima makes many vows against those who dishonor Draupadi and he fulfills these vows and makes sure that nothing stops him in his goal. Yudhistira felt that he was obligated to accept Duryodhana’s challenge as it wasn’t in a Kshatriya’s dharma to turn away from challenge. Also, when the Pandavas tried to avoid war with the Kauravas, they tried to negotiate, saying that if the Kauravas did not give the Pandavas any land, they would be forced into a war for justice.

In conclusion, the Mahabharata has been most influential in Indian History, contributing mostly to culture and the way of popular life in India. Whilst one reads the book, one cannot refrain from agreeing that the book can be quite influential on a person, and a lot of what happens in India can be associated in some way or the other with the Mahabharata.

Bibliography

• “Gandhi’s Faith “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi
• “Mahabharata”.White, Charles S.J. World Book (Deluxe Network); Search by topic. 29^th October 2007.
• Narayan, R.K. The Mahabharata. Vision Books. 1^st Edition 2004. New Delhi.
• Pargiter, F.E., Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, London 1922. Repr. Motilal Banarsidass 1997.
• J. Brockington, The Sanskrit Epics, Leiden (1998).
• Alf Hildebeitel, The Ritual of Battle, Krishna in the Mahabharata, SUNY Press, New York 1990.
• E. W. Hopkins, The Great Epic of India, New York (1901).

Freedom at Midnight - an Indian History Textbook?

'Freedom at Midnight' by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, is an intriguing book on Indian Independence. Detailed character outlines make the book a good read- an insight is gained on the various leaders and rebels who contributed in important and trivial ways to the forming of the Indian nation. However, the assumption that this book can be substituted for a history text book is absurd.

Beginning with Louis Mountbatten's appointment as 'Viceroy of India' in 1947 and ending with Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's death in 1948, Collins and Lapierre have managed to retell India's freedom struggle in a way that is both informational and interesting. One learns of the British's early involvement in India, the rise of Sikhism and the decline of the Mughal Empire and the influence of each of these happenings on each other. 'Freedom at midnight' gives great insight to conflicts that arose in the name of religion¹ and to the intimate details of the life of Gandhi in a way that has not been done before, including his assassination by Nathuram Godse. The book also describes India's first steps as a new nation, the shakiness with which it emerged, and the problems that the new nation, under Jawaharlal Nehru, faced. One is faced with new information in this novel that is quite interesting like the person² who drew the division between India and Pakistan had never been to India in his life.

However, Collins and Lapierre's account seems like it is written from Lord Mountbatten's point of view, with Mountbatten portrayed as a “dashing” individual, Mohammed Ali Jinnah a “cold and austere man” and Britain a “parent” to India. The authors lay the blame for Partition on Jinnah, who (rightfully) feared that Muslim representation in a largely Hindu nation would be minimal. The authors failed to mention the fact that the Congress was not willing to share power with Muslims in areas where there was a Hindu majority.

The era of the British Raj is glorified, with beautiful images of lives that were probably lived only by the British. There is not much mention of the overworked, overtaxed Indians, who were cheated of their wealth apart from the repeatedly highlighted notion that most Indians were 'ignorant, illiterate and incompetent', and their “Rajas” eccentric characters. Even after independence, the authors mention that India's leaders were not capable of leading the nation and their call to the British for help. Mountbatten's work, however is praised and he is seen of as the 'hero' of the book - the reason for this is that the authors depended very heavily on interviews with Mountbatten and information from his personal papers and thus present a very biased view of Indian Independence. The authors have chosen to side with Nehru on the Partition issue, describing Nehru is an idealized way while almost spitting at Jinnah and the Muslim League. For a history text-book to be complete there should be some mention of literature, art and technology- which is missing in 'Freedom at Midnight'.

The book is also not accurate in its pre- independence facts. The authors say that Islam was introduced to India “after the cohorts of Genghis Khan and Tamerlane had battered their way down the Khyber Pass to weaken the Hindus' hold on the Gangetic plain.” Lapierre and Collins have confused the Mughals with Islam, for Tamerlane was not Muslim³. Even though there lines are not vital in understanding India's Independence, it leaves the book an untrustworthy source; for one cannot be sure of other facts mentioned either.

In conclusion, although the book is very well written, the authors have made their primary source Mountbatten- relying on their interview with him for most of their facts. Because of this prejudice, 'Freedom at Midnight' cannot be taken as an accurate source for Indian History. For an Indian History student, this book will provide a balance to other accounts of the war of Independence, but at the same time, solely, it will not give the reader a complete picture of India's Independence.

Relation between India and China after the 70s

China and India, the two major world powers of tomorrow, have a complicated history of relations. Today, even as an emerging superpower, the Chinese has high respect for India’s soft power in fields related to information technology, pharmaceuticals, education and entertainment. Even though tensions over Tibet exist, India cannot deny the fact that it has benefited from the peace, security and economic growth in China in the 80s and 90s. After all, “no casual Indian visitor to China fails to be affected by the goodwill shown to him or her.” This essay will focus on the major conflicts that have taken place after the 1970s.

In the last two decades, the Chinese government has been focusing on economic development, reunifying the motherland, and opposing hegemonies. In 1982, Deng Xiaoping stabilized internal politics after the death of Mao Zedong with a series of reforms. This age was soon known in China as the reform era. Deng believed that if a country was economically stable, then the country would automatically be politically and socially successful. By increasing its economic performance, and the world’s dependence on Chinese economy, China has made sure that it has made allies with major world powers, most importantly the United States. As part of the various reforms, 1989 saw the normalization of relations between China and the Soviet Union, two countries with a history of ugly conflicts. With China on an upward journey towards becoming a superpower, India grew more jealous of China’s success in molding its speedy economic growth with a strong international status. India soon began to see China as an economic threat more than a military threat. Also, because of China’s “dense relationship” with superpowers, India was scared that China would not attach priority to its relationship with India, or worse, would not respect it. With all the allies China has and with India’s history of not choosing sides in external conflicts, India’s fear is that China will decide to use its influence against India. Being more suspicious of China’s success, Indians feel that the “utilization of external circumstances to benefit domestic, social and economic growth was China’s consistent strategy from the 80s.”

In 1998, India launched a series of nuclear weapon tests. One of the major reasons cited for running these tests was the fear that China was going to use its nuclear weapon capability and assist Pakistan in a war against India. Around that time statements were released by top officials claiming that China was not only a threat or rival but also an enemy. China took offense to the reasons India gave to justify the nuclear weapon tests and this led to conflicts that only ended after leaders of both countries affirmed that neither country viewed the other as a threat.

In the past decade, India has been trying very hard to become a permanent member of the UN. Using its status as “the world's largest democracy, and the second most populous country”, India has made it clear that it deserves a permanent position in the UN. By supplying a large amount of troops for UN–mandated peace-keeping missions, India has also proved that it is committed to accomplish the goals of the UN, and will contribute significantly to the international community. To achieve its goal, India has to get support from Russia, US, UK, Japan and China and in 2004, Germany, Japan, Brazil and India made a pact saying they would support each other’s claim to permanent membership in UN’s Security Council. In 2006, Relations between China and India progressed positively when Hu Jintao (President) and Wen Jiabao (Premier) voiced their support for India playing a bigger role internationally. After a visit to India that year, Tang Jiaxuan (Foreign Minister) released a statement saying that China would “not be an obstacle for India in its bid for permanent membership in the UN’s Security Council.”. China, however, made it clear that it did not support Japan’s request for permanent membership in the Security Council. Up to now however, nothing much has happened in terms of resolving the situation. Because China is a permanent member of the UN, members of the Security Council will support China always. Thus, giving the Chinese a clear advantage in terms of allies.

A long term conflict that is yet to be resolved is the issue over the border between China and India. Claiming 1/6^th of pre-independence Kashmir- the Aksai Chin area and the state of Arunachal Pradesh, China had, two decades ago, refused to compromise on the issue. China also refused to adhere to the boundaries set by the Line of Actual Control (LAC). India, desperate to reach a consensus, tried their best to come up with a deal that would be acceptable in China’s eyes. However, after a crisis over the Sumdorong valley in 1987, India lost hope. It did not think a deal would ever be made that would resolve the conflict. However, the next year, the prime minister of India at that time, Rajiv Gandhi, paid a visit to China. After a period of long talks, the 1993 and 1996 talks took place. These talks proposed “peace, tranquility and confidence building measures.1[1]” Even though these talks did not end in a solved border dispute, it did open the way for more talks and stronger ties between the two Asian giants. In 2000, the first exchange of maps took place and since then a series of talks has taken place. Both China and India realize that the conflict needs to be solved before tensions on both sides lead to worse relations. Recently, in Jan 2008, just few days before Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was scheduled for a visit to China, the Chinese “protested Indian movements into Sikkim” by sending troops into Indian territories and disturbing the peace.

After the Tibetan protesters in Lhasa led a demonstration, Sino- Indian relations have become more strained. In 1959, India gave the Dalai Lama, leader of Tibetans, and his followers, refuge in Dharamsala, Himachal Pradesh, and permission to form a “government-in-exile” there. Since then, India has enjoyed popularity in its move to help refugees, and the tourism that Tibetan culture lures. However, with recent clashes between the Chinese and the Tibetans, India was put in a sticky situation. It was caught “between maintaining good relations with China, its powerful neighbor, and allowing the Dalai Lama and his followers, who are based here, to keep their cause alive.” By making sure that the Tibetan settlement was not brought up during talks between Manmohan Singh and Hu Jintao, India and China have managed to maintain good relations with each other.

Other conflicts between China and India have created obstacles in maintaining good relations between the two future superpowers. One such conflict is the one over river water. The Tibetan plateau is the source of most major rivers in Asia. China, India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Bhutan, Nepal, Cambodia, Pakistan, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam depend on freshwater from the Tibetan Plateau for their livelihood. In India, of all the major rivers, the only one that does not begin in the Tibetan plateau is the Ganges. Recently however, reports said that China was planning to build dams and divert the water to rice/paddy fields in China. This caused uproar among other nations and threatened to become a full-fledged dispute, however, these plans were not carried out and peace was held by a thin line.

To make sure that India maintains good relations with other superpowers; India cannot afford to ruin relations with China. The Chinese have managed to form close allies with the US and other European countries and so gaining an automatic advantage against India, should a conflict arise. Because of this focus on economic progress and international reputation, China has a future of power. India needs to be wary of the dangers of such a powerful neighbor, and at the same time protect those who take refuge in India.

Bibliography

• YARDLEY, JIM; SENGUPTA, SOMINI. "Two Giants Try to Learn to Share Asia." New York Times. 13 Jan 2008. 110. eLibrary. Proquest CSA. WOODSTOCK SCHOOL. 19 Mar 2008. <http://elibrary.bigchalk.com>.p
• PTI news agency, New Delhi, in English 0502 13 Jan 08. "Indian PM arrives in China." BBC Monitoring South Asia. 13 Jan 2008. eLibrary. Proquest CSA. WOODSTOCK SCHOOL. 19 Mar 2008. <http://elibrary.bigchalk.com>.
• http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Chinas_lack_of_clarity_on_LAC_angers_India/articleshow/2736007.cms
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharamsala
• “In India, Balancing Refugee Care and Relations With China”; Sengupta, Somini;The New York Times :03-19-2008
• http://www.buddhapia.com/tibet/hype.html

Train to Pakistan- Religious Tensions in India

The constitution of India proclaims India to be a “secular” nation, where each citizen has the “liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship.” However, India has, time and again proved that it cannot live up to its constitution. Even before the constitution was thought of, India has always been divided on the basis of language, culture and religion.

Religion is the most common reason for conflict in India. Over the years, followers of the two dominant religions in India- Hinduism and Islam- have refused to live together in peace. Muslims condemn Hindu idol worship, and Hindus criticize the Islamic idea of Jihad. In this way, fundamentalists of both religions create problems by insulting the other religion. For them, there is no place for compromise or co-existence. For the most part there is not much faith in the government. Hindus and Muslims believe the leaders of India favor the people of the other religion. According to the Hindus, the Congress only focuses on giving more privileges to the Muslims minority. The Muslims however say that the government’s only aim is to rebuild temples and please Hindus. This mentality has resulted in the formation of religion based communities in each settlement.

One of the main reasons for the India’s partition was politics. With the formation of the Indian National Congress, Muslims felt that they did not have fair representation in Hindu- majority Congress. This led to the formation of The All India Muslim League (AIML) in 1906. As the idea of independence of India seemed more likely, various leaders proposed different scenarios that would resolve the conflict. Alama Iqbal was one of the first to propose the division of India. He felt that the only way the Muslims would have ‘fair’ representation in the government was if they were a separate nation. A few years later, Iqbal and a few others convinced Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who until then had pushed for religious unity, that the Muslims really needed a new nation. Jinnah swayed and switched his allegiance to the AIML. He argued that the Congress was “insensitive to Muslim interest.” It was not only the Muslims who pushed for a division between Hindus and Muslims. Veer Savarkar, leader of a Hindu fundamentalist organizations- the Hindu Mahasabha stated, “India cannot be assumed today to be Unitarian and homogeneous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main — the Hindus and the Muslims.¹” There were people like Gandhi and Nehru who insisted that a split India would be the worst thing for the nation. Gandhi believed that the two groups could live in peace. He said, “My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God.” However, because of the influence of the political influence of the Muslim League and Hindu fundamentalist groups, Muslims and Hindus turned against each other and the Partition of India happened.

Historically, Leaders like Aurangzeb, Jinnah, Baal Thackeray and Veer Savarkar have made the division more pronounced. They made sure that Hindus and Muslims identified themselves as different, rival groups. The destruction of Hindu Temples by Muslim kings and the mistreatment of Muslims by Hindu officials have made both sides thirst for revenge. India was exposed to Islamic culture 1000 years ago. An Afghan ruler, Mahmud of Ghazni razed through India, “leaving a trail of looted towns and wrecked Hindu temples.” Mahmud of Ghazni was the first in a long line of Muslim rulers who imposed his beliefs on Hindus and destroyed their (Hindu) sacred sites. The Mughals—the last dynasty of monarchs to rule India, adopted a policy of “allying themselves with Hindus when convenient [and] obliterating Hindu influence when necessary.” The British used their ‘Divide and Rule’ policy to make sure that animosity between the two groups remained. Just before granting Independence to India, they supported the Muslim League’s claim for the formation of Pakistan. By drawing a line giving the most Muslim populated areas to Pakistan, the British left the Indian Subcontinent in a state of terror.

The Partition of India in 1947 was the climax of Hindu-Muslim tensions. The conflict “led to the displacement of an estimated 10 million people, loss of land and property, widespread abduction, rape and violence and most shockingly, the murder of an estimated million people in some of the most horrific slaughters of the 20th Century.²” Those who escaped were scarred by memories of the communal killing that took place on both sides. Hindus escaping to India and Muslims escaping to Pakistan left their life-long homes and rushed to a land that would accept them. Both were angry at each other and their government. On Indian soil, Hindus and Sikhs felt that the Congress was granting the Muslim League’s every wish, whereas, Muslims felt that they were being forced out of their own country. Also, Hindus and Sikhs, still smarting from harsh Mughal treatment, decided that this was an opportunity to get revenge. Thus, finding reasons from history to hate each other, Muslims and Hindus began their butchery of each other.

Set during this time of partition, Train to Pakistan, by Kushwant Singh tells the story of a village, Mano Majra. Situated near a set of railway tracks that carried trains from Pakistan to India and vice versa, Mano Majra is at first depicted to be a happy village, with its inhabitants living at peace with each other. Half of the villagers were Sikhs and the other half Muslim. The story is told from different angles- Sikh, Muslim and communist. As rumors of tensions between Muslims and Sikhs or Hindus reached them, the Sikhs promise to defend their Muslim brothers with their lives. However, young Sikh activists from outside the village came to Mano Majra and encouraged Sikh villagers to hate the Muslims because of what other Muslims had done to Sikh men, women and children. The activists implored the villagers to murder their own Muslim neighbors as they left on their train to Pakistan.

The book also highlights the role of government officials in the Partition of India. Corrupt and manipulative, the District Magistrate himself- the very embodiment of Justice in India- is portrayed as an immoral man who used his position to get the best ‘entertainment’ in town. The magistrate at one point chose to arrest an innocent man for the murder of a Sikh landlord. Making matters worse, the official put the accused- Iqbal, down as a Muslim. The fact was, Iqbal was neither Muslim nor Sikh but a communist. However, official records revealed that a Muslim had murdered a Sikh landlord.

The so-called ‘law enforcers’ were bent on exploiting the ignorance of the villagers. Because the local government held sole responsibility over the region, nobody questioned the actions of the ‘police’. The inhabitants of Mano Majra were officially notified of the situation the night before the government transported Muslims from that area to Pakistan. Muslims who until then lived in perfect harmony with the Sikhs were being told to pack their bags and flee for their lives.

Singh also conveys to the reader the fact that officials who were supposed to maintain peace in an area did nothing to make sure that the exodus of Muslims and Hindus was non-violent. Most of the villagers of Mano Majra were uneducated. Because of this, when educated men came and told them that all Muslims were evil, most of them were gullible enough to believe them. Government officials, who knew that the educated men were rallying the Sikhs against the Muslims, did nothing to break up the group. The villagers didn’t believe life was significantly different from British rule. In fact, to them freedom from the British did not mean that their lives would change forever, for as one villager put it, “Freedom is for the educated people who fought for it. We were slaves of the English, now we will be slaves of the educated Indians—or the Pakistanis.” (Singh, 48) In their ignorance the villagers did not know about the killings that were going on around them. When rumors of violence between Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs reached them, they were shocked and refused to believe that anything like that could happen in their village. And, when told about the mass Muslim migration to Pakistan, one Muslim remarked, “What have we to do with Pakistan? We were born here. So were our ancestors. We have lived amongst [Sikhs] as brothers” (Singh, 126).

In conclusion, even though religion was a major cause of Partition, it cannot be asserted as being the sole reason. Without historical or political reasons, Partition could have been avoided or at least brought about without the communal violence. It was because of previous religious chasms created by previous leaders of India that there so much division between Muslims and Hindus or Sikhs. If both the Muslim League and the Congress joined forces and made sure that the migration was controlled, millions of lives could have been saved. Even today, tensions between Hindus and Muslims exist. However there is still hope for India- A hope that a time will come when one does not meet a Hindu, Muslim or Sikh but an Indian. All India needs to do is live up to the preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of India.

Bibliography:

• http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/printed-books/train-to-pakistan-khushwant-singh/1072819/
• http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/aug2007/partition_india.html
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_to_Pakistan
• Sengupta, Somini, "Bearing Steady Witness To Partition's Wounds," an article in the Arts section, The New York Times, September 21, 2006, pages E1, E7