I found this interesting in a study on South Asia : Profound were the differences in the nationalist movement that brought independence to each country upon the withdrawal of the British. There are three trajectories : 1. The non-violent Congress movement built over three quarters of a century on the basis of a strong, nearly subcontinent wide organisation led by Gandhi during the quarter century preceeding independence. 2. The militant Pakistan movement led by Jinnah with the history of a mere decade of organisation. 3. The peaceful granting of Independence to Sri lanka that limited the building of a strong nationalist movement there.
Nepal on the other hand, never experienced direct British rule.
All three countries arrived at Independence with shared commitment to slogans of 'democracy' and 'secularism', although they differed on other fundamentals. The latter included for example, the centrality of the state in development : greatest in India, least in Sri Lanka where the state commitment was not to development in the Indian sense, but rather to social welfare; and Pakistan, lacking any ideology of state development, rather more concerned with building an army capable of confronting India as needed.
In all states in the region, the original commitment to secularism as an ideology has been battered and largely displaced with the rise of Hindu nationalism in India, recognition of Islam as the state religion and the rise of Islamic movements in Pakistan, and budhist demands for official recognition in Sri Lanka, accepted soon after independence.
Nepal, on the other hand, which was an officially Hindu state from 1962 to 2006, has, with the establishment of a secular republic, gone In the other direction.
Acknowldegement : Excerpted from the Routledge Handbook of South Asian Politics.
Nepal on the other hand, never experienced direct British rule.
All three countries arrived at Independence with shared commitment to slogans of 'democracy' and 'secularism', although they differed on other fundamentals. The latter included for example, the centrality of the state in development : greatest in India, least in Sri Lanka where the state commitment was not to development in the Indian sense, but rather to social welfare; and Pakistan, lacking any ideology of state development, rather more concerned with building an army capable of confronting India as needed.
In all states in the region, the original commitment to secularism as an ideology has been battered and largely displaced with the rise of Hindu nationalism in India, recognition of Islam as the state religion and the rise of Islamic movements in Pakistan, and budhist demands for official recognition in Sri Lanka, accepted soon after independence.
Nepal, on the other hand, which was an officially Hindu state from 1962 to 2006, has, with the establishment of a secular republic, gone In the other direction.
Acknowldegement : Excerpted from the Routledge Handbook of South Asian Politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment