Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

14

The actual decision of how to divide the country - how to draw the partition line - was the work of, Sir Cyril Radcliffe, chair of the Border Commissions. There were two border Commissions. One for Punjab and the other for Bengal. Each commission had 4 representatives. Of which, 2 were from the Indian National Congress and the other 2 were from the Muslim ...


14

The partition of India was undertaken per the Indian Independence Act of the British Parliament, taken after consultation with the main interest groups. Gandhi agreed to the partition reluctantly; other groups, such as the Muslim League, enthusiastically.


12

Frankly a country made up of two large population lobes completely separated by 3000 kilometers of relatively hostile neighbor (or twice that in ocean) is bound to break up eventually. It just logistically can't work out very well, and culturally they are bound to start going their separate ways. I'm unaware of any country like that in history that lasted ...


12

According to Freedom at Midnight by Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins (I have a link to Wikipedia but have read the book multiple times), the idea for Pakistan came from Choudhary Rahmat Ali, a student studying in England who pitched the idea to Mohammed Ali Jinnah at a dinner. Choudhary Rahmat Ali is also credited with coining the name "Pakistan". Jinnah ...


11

Frankly, Korea's history has been so defined by external powers that it would be difficult to imagine what things would have been like without them. You are getting seriously into realms of speculative history. For the most part, the reason people band together into large states or countries is so that they can deal with other such large entities. So it is ...


11

One reason is because of the poor topography, and the lack of good transportation. Take the southern cone, for instance. The Andes Mountains divide Argentina and Chile. They also divide Colombia and Venezuela further north. One kind of wonders why Uruguay and Paraguay are separate entities from Argentina, until one realizes that they formed around ...


11

You have several ways to go about it. First, a set of powerful nations will recognise and guarantee the independence up to going to war over the state. This is generally the peaceful way as everyone comes to an agreement that this is what should happen. Some countries (such as Poland) were re-made after a war and given independence again. India could ...


9

Summary Strong perpetual rulers after independence from Spain led to the eventual breakup of early alliances. Explanation First we must consider the political subdivisions of the Spanish Empire in the Americas when Napoleon invaded Spain in 1808 (Peninsular War): Viceroyalties: governed by viceroys (representatives of the monarch) New Spain: roughly ...


8

Of the three answers Jayaraj's answer is the most appropriate. Other answers are purely technical. Those answers are akin to saying the US President is elected by the state electors ignoring the fact that the election by state electors is mostly a formality after the people of the United States have voted. Jinnah didn't stop with just threatening violence. ...


7

Scotland was "ruled" by Edward Long Shanks, then under Robert the Bruce became free. In 1707, Scotland opted to join with England. The group chosen to discus the acts of union were chosen by a pro union Duke of Queensberry, and were mostly pro union. Another case I remember reading was about Eadric Streona. He was a traitor for both the English and the ...


7

It is very clear that Brazil declared independence from Portugal, and not the other way around. That is why it is celebrated in Brazil and not in Portugal. There was a fairly short war of independence, fought on Brazilian soil between the Brazilians and the Portuguese garrisons, later reinforced by additional troops sent from Portugal. This shows that ...


6

Probably the more appropriate answer is strike actions in general, as also Gandhi did a long hunger strikes himself. Labour strikes date back at least to the strikes of Deir el-Medina: In about the 25th year the reign of Ramses III (c. 1170 BCE) the laborers were so exasperated by delays in supplies they threw down their tools and walked off the job ...


6

The least bloodshed occurs when the stronger country is willing to grant independence without a fight. As between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, when Slovakia wanted to leave, "the feeling was mutual" on the Czech side. Some divorces are "amicable." Britain granted independence to far away Australia early in the 20th century. It had previous experiences ...


6

There is no formal process by which one country would declare its independence from another country. However, the most common form has been to simply declare your intentions to operate as an independent entity and then hope that the international community will recognize your claim. Historically, this has been done by a number of countries. In South ...


6

I'll provide a few comparisons; this is an interesting question that deserves a book length treatment. My apologies if in my attempt to be brief I oversimplify either side. The American revolution occurred at the beginning of the British imperial age; the first Indian rebellion occurred during the height of Imperial power. The American revolution occurred ...


6

Primarily I think the mentality of the revolutionaries in each situation is the biggest deciding factor of what happens afterward. The US's forefathers had very clear goals with very clear intentions. Many of them were not just intelligent, but practical. As well as being rather lucky. The forefathers of the US and much of it's post-revolution population ...


5

Re: Is there a way for countries to become legally independent without the bloodshed? Montenegro's recent split from Serbia would be a good point to start. Very recent and very peaceful. After Yugoslavia broke up in 1991, the republics of Serbia and Montenegro established a federation called the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). They established a new ...


5

Apart from the fact that they were both Muslims, the people of the former East and West Pakistan were basically different people. The people of West Pakistan were more Caucasian and spoke Urdu, while the people of East Pakistan were more "Asian" and spoke Bengali. In the latter respect, the people of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) were more like their ...


5

According to the history archives of the UK Parliament, India became a "dominion" within the British commonwealth at midnight on 15th August 1947. At this time, India's new ministers and members of the constituent assembly took an oath to serve the new country, and the new office of the Governor General was created. (Wikipedia says without citation that the ...


5

In Indian political thought there were two basic competing organizing theories, rather simply called The Two Nation Theory and the single Indian nation theory (or Greater India). The basic idea behind the single nation theory is that Muslims and Hindus and many other religous communities as well are all intertwined alongside various languages and religous ...


4

Going out on a limb here, and feel free to disagree, but what about the growth of the early Church? The growth of the Church in early centuries was a form of independence movement, inasmuch as early Christians simply wanted to practice their faith without fear of persecution. Also, the growth of the church (emphasis on the small "c"), meaning the local ...


4

Patel himself withdrew from the race on Gandhi's request. As for why this request was made by Gandhi, this is a matter of speculation since Gandhi would rarely give reasons for his decisions. People speculate that it could be due to either Patel's close relations with the Hindu right-wing, and his acrimony with the leftist leaders. Though Nehru had never ...


3

If you study Brazilian History as well (I am Brazilian and I have read some very good Brazilian history books), you see that in Brazil many of the provinces had separatists feelings, in several occasions along the time. I will not mention examples, but there are dozens of rebellions that happened along the XIX century. And even in 1930 we had an armed ...


3

What evidence leads you to believe that the post-independence United States was not corrupt: Senators were appointed/elected by state legislatures until adoption of the 17th Amendment in 1913. In the opinion of James Madison, the Senate was intentionally established to protect and preserve the rights of landowners (perhaps, read slave-owners) from the ...


3

One reason that is often cited is the system of indirect rule used by the British. In the American colonies, the colonist were first of all, mostly from the UK. Americans have many similarities to the British even today, but there are cultural differences too. The American colonists were mostly allowed self-rule as long as they paid taxes to the king and ...


2

The argument arises from the fact that the royal family of Portugal fled to Brazil in the early 1800s when Napoleon took over Portugal. They then ruled from Brazil for around 12 years before the King returned to Portugal and his son was left as regent. It turned out to be a good move since the son's son, Dom Pedro II is widely considered one of the best ...


2

How about Canada? Now, it wasn't exactly an independence movement, but here goes. After the American War of Independence Britain's empire was diminished substantially, leaving Canada as England's chief North American possession. Yet, there were still many French settlers in Canada, and they did not get along very well with the British. In 1791, British ...


2

Some time after the unification of China by Qin, Ren Xiao and Zhao Tuo were sent to colonise the barbarian region of Nanyue around present day Guangzhou. Zhao Tuo succeeded Ren Xiao around the time when revolts began to occur against Qin, eventually signalling Nanyue's independence by declaring himself King and raiding surrounding provinces. When Liu Bang ...


2

Sardar Patel got off to a "bad start" with Gandhi. "Upon hearing of Mohandas Gandhi, he joked to Mavlankar that Gandhi would "ask you if you know how to sift pebbles from wheat. And that is supposed to bring independence." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sardar_Vallabhbhai_Patel It's true, per one of the comments that they took a liking to each other later, ...


2

To have widespread corruption you need to have a big state so that you have a lot of politicians and bureaucrats that can be corrupt, or you have to have valuable natural resources, so there is a big incentive for corruption. The newly created USA did not have any of these. Hence there was not really that many people to corrupt, nor that much reason to be ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible