Asia
Overview
Postwar Japan
The conflict between the United States and Japan during World War II utterly devastated Japan. Following this conflict, Japan demilitarized its government and society under US occupation and staged a remarkable economic revival. By the 1970s, Japan emerged as one the largest economies in the world.
Learning Objectives
Examine the transformation of Japanese government into a pro-western constitutional political system.
Analyze the causes for Japan’s economic recovery after World War II.
Key Terms / Key Concepts
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution: a clause in the Constitution of Japan outlawing war to settle international disputes involving the state
Japan Self-Defense Forces: the unified military forces of Japan established in 1954 and controlled by the Ministry of Defense
keiretsu: a set of companies with interlocking business relationships and shareholdings; an informal business group that maintained dominance over the Japanese economy for the second half of the 20th century
San Francisco Peace Treaty: a treaty predominantly between Japan and the Allied Powers officially signed by 48 nations on September 8, 1951 that ended the Allied post-war occupation of Japan and returned sovereignty to Japan
V-J Day: a term used to refer to the day on which Japan surrendered in World War II, in effect ending the war
Yoshida Doctrine: a strategy named after Japan’s first Prime Minister after World War II—Shigeru Yoshida—that declared the reconstruction of Japan’s domestic economy with security guaranteed by an alliance with the United States
zaibatsu: a Japanese term for industrial and financial business conglomerates whose influence and size allowed control over significant parts of the Japanese economy from the Meiji period until the end of World War II
The 1947 Japanese Constitution
The loss of World War II placed Japan in the precarious position of a country occupied by the Allied, primarily American forces, which shaped its post-war reforms. These reforms included the Constitution of 1947, with Article 9 outlawing war as a means to settle international disputes involving the state.
Japan surrendered to the Allies on August 14, 1945, when the Japanese government notified the Allies that it had accepted the Potsdam Declaration—a statement that called for the surrender of all Japanese armed forces during World War II. This date, known as Victory over Japan or V-J Day, marked the end of World War II and the beginning of a long road to recovery for Japan.
U.S. President Harry Truman appointed General Douglas MacArthur as Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP) to supervise the occupation of Japan. During the war, the Allied Powers planned to divide Japan among themselves for the purposes of occupation, as was done with Germany. Under the final plan, however, SCAP was given direct control over the main islands of Japan (Honshu, Hokkaido, Shikoku, and Kyushu) and the immediately surrounding islands, while outlying possessions were divided between the Allied powers.
On September 6, Truman approved a document titled “US Initial Post-Surrender Policy for Japan,” which set two main objectives for the occupation: eliminating Japan’s war potential and turning it into a western-style nation with pro-American orientation. The Japanese emperor was permitted to remain on the throne, but was ordered to renounce his claims to divinity, which had been a pillar of the State Shinto system. Allied (primarily American) forces were set up to supervise the country. MacArthur was technically supposed to defer to an advisory council set up by the Allied powers but in practice he hardly did so.
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution
The wording of the Potsdam Declaration (“The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles…”) and the initial post-surrender measures taken by MacArthur suggest that neither he nor his superiors in Washington intended to impose a new political system on Japan unilaterally. Instead, they hoped to encourage Japan’s new leaders to initiate reforms on their own. Already in 1945, however, MacArthur’s staff and Japanese officials were at odds over the most fundamental issue, the writing of a new constitution. Emperor Hirohito, Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara, and most of the cabinet members were extremely reluctant to take the drastic step of replacing the 1889 Meiji Constitution, which outlined a form of mixed constitutional and absolute monarchy, with a more liberal document.
In late 1945, the Japanese Prime Minister, Shidehara appointed Jōji Matsumoto, state minister without portfolio, head of a committee of constitutional scholars to suggest revisions to the1889 Meiji Constitution. This Matsumoto Commission’s recommendations were quite conservative. MacArthur rejected them outright and ordered his staff to draft a completely new document. Much of this work was done by two senior army officers with law degrees, Milo Rowell and Courtney Whitney, although others chosen by MacArthur had substantial influence. Although the document’s authors were non-Japanese, they took into account the Meiji Constitution, the demands of Japanese lawyers, the opinions of pacifist political leaders, and especially the draft presented by the Constitution Research Association, private group of Japanese lawyers led by Takano Iwasaburo and Suzuki Yasuzo. MacArthur gave the authors less than a week to complete the draft, which was presented to surprised Japanese officials in February 1946.
The MacArthur draft, which proposed a unicameral legislature, was changed at the insistence of the Japanese to allow a bicameral one, with both houses being elected. In most other important respects, the government adopted the February draft, with its most distinctive features: the symbolic role of the Emperor, the prominence of guarantees of civil and human rights, and the renunciation of war. That last clause became one of the most symbolic components of Japan’s new constitution. Known as Article 9, it outlaws war as a means to settle international disputes involving the state.
The source of the pacifist clause is disputed. According to the Allied Supreme Commander Douglas MacArthur, the provision was suggested by Prime Minister Shidehara, who “wanted it to prohibit any military establishment for Japan—any military establishment whatsoever.” Shidehara’s perspective was that retention of arms would be “meaningless” for the Japanese in the post-war era, because any substandard post-war military would no longer gain the respect of the people and would actually cause people to obsess with the subject of rearming Japan. Shidehara admitted to his authorship in his 1951 published memoirs, where he described how the idea came to him on a train ride to Tokyo. MacArthur himself confirmed Shidehara’s authorship on several occasions. However, according to some interpretations, the inclusion of Article 9 was mainly brought about by the members of the Government Section of Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, especially Charles Kades—one of Douglas MacArthur’s closest associates. The article was endorsed by the Diet of Japan in November 1946. Kades rejected the proposed language that prohibited Japan’s use of force “for its own security,” believing that self-preservation was the right of every nation.
It was decided that in adopting the new document, the Meiji Constitution would not be violated, but instead remain the law of the land in name. Thus, the new Japanese constitution was adopted as an “amendment” to the existing Meiji Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Article 73 of that document. Under Article 73, the new “revised” constitution was formally submitted to the Imperial Diet by the Emperor.
Japan's Post-WWII Growth
Although Article 9 intended to prevent the country from ever becoming an aggressive military power again, the United States was soon pressuring Japan to rebuild its army as a bulwark against communism in Asia, after the Chinese Civil War and the Korean War. During the Korean War, U.S. forces largely withdrew from Japan to deploy to Korea, leaving the country almost totally defenseless. As a result, a new National Police Reserve armed with military-grade weaponry was created. In 1954, the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) were founded as a full-scale military in all but name. To avoid breaking the constitutional prohibition on military force, they were officially founded as an extension to the police force. Traditionally, Japan’s military spending has been restricted to about 1% of its gross national product, although this is by popular practice, not law, and this figure has fluctuated. The JSDF slowly grew to considerable strength, and Japan now has the eighth largest military budget in the world.
All the major sectors of the Japanese society, government, and economy were liberalized in the first few years, and the reforms won strong support from the liberal community in Japan. Shigeru Yoshida served as prime minister in 1946 – 47 and 1948 – 54; he played a key role in guiding Japan through the occupation. His policies, known as the Yoshida Doctrine, proposed that Japan should forge a tight relationship with the United States and focus on developing the economy rather than pursuing a proactive foreign policy.
Although the Japanese economy was extremely weakened in the immediate postwar years, an austerity program implemented in 1949 by finance expert Joseph Dodge ended inflation. Under this austerity program, tax increases and government budget cuts decreased government debt. In 1949, the Yoshida cabinet created the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) with the mission of promoting economic growth through close cooperation between the government and big business. MITI sought successfully to promote manufacturing and heavy industry and to encourage exports. The factors behind Japan’s postwar economic growth included technology and quality control techniques imported from the West, close economic and defense cooperation with the United States, non-tariff barriers to imports, and long work hours. Japanese corporations successfully retained a loyal and experienced workforce through the system of lifetime employment, which assured their employees a safe job. The Korean War (1950 – 53) proved a major boon to Japanese business. And, by 1955, the Japanese economy had grown beyond prewar levels and became the second largest in the world by 1968.
Japan became a member of the United Nations in 1956 and further cemented its international standing in 1964 when it hosted the Olympic Games in Tokyo. Japan was a close ally of the United States during the Cold War, although this alliance did not have unanimous support from the Japanese people. Japan also successfully normalized relations with the Soviet Union in 1956, despite an ongoing dispute over the ownership of the Kuril Islands, and with South Korea in 1965, despite an ongoing dispute over the ownership of the islands of Liancourt Rocks. In accordance with U.S. policy, Japan recognized the Republic of China on Taiwan as the legitimate government of China after World War II; it then switched its recognition to the People’s Republic of China in 1972.
Japanese Economic Policies after World War II
Japan’s impressive economic growth after World War II depended on a number of factors, including the nation’s prewar experience, the advantageous conditions of the post-war occupation by the Allied forces, the high level and quality of investment that persisted through the 1980s, a well-educated and disciplined labor force, economies of scale, and global politics.
Japan experienced dramatic political and social transformation under the Allied occupation in 1945 – 1952. US General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of Allied Powers, served as Japan’s de facto leader and played a central role in implementing reforms, many inspired by the New Deal of the 1930s. The occupation sought to decentralize power in Japan by breaking up the zaibatsu—industrial and financial business conglomerates in the Empire, whose influence and size allowed control over significant parts of the Japanese economy. The occupation also transferred ownership of agricultural land from landlords to tenant farmers and promoted labor unionism. Other major goals were demilitarization and democratization of Japan’s government and society. The cabinet became responsible not to the Emperor but to the elected National Diet. The Emperor was permitted to remain on the throne but ordered to renounce his claims to divinity. Japan’s new constitution guaranteed civil liberties, labor rights, and women’s suffrage. The San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 officially normalized relations between Japan and the United States. The occupation ended in 1952, although the U.S. continued to administer a number of the Ryukyu Islands, with Okinawa the last to be returned in 1972.
The zaibatsu had been the heart of economic and industrial activity within the Empire of Japan and held great influence over Japanese national and foreign policies. Under the Allied occupation after the surrender of Japan, a partially successful attempt was made to dissolve the zaibatsu. Many of the economic advisors accompanying the SCAP administration had experience with the New Deal program and were highly suspicious of monopolies and restrictive business practices, which they felt to be both inefficient and a form of corporatocracy (control of society by business corporations) and thus inherently anti-democratic.
In the aftermath of the war, about 40% of the nation’s industrial plants and infrastructure were destroyed and production reverted to levels of about 15 years earlier. U.S. assistance after World War II totaled about $1.9 billion during the occupation, or about 15% of the nation’s imports and 4% of gross national product (GNP) in that period. About 59% of this aid was in the form of food, 15% in industrial materials, and 12% in transportation equipment. A variety of U.S.-sponsored measures during the occupation, such as land reform, contributed to the economy’s later performance by increasing competition. Finally, the economy benefited from foreign trade because it was able to expand exports rapidly enough to pay for imports of equipment and technology without falling into debt. New factories were equipped with the best modern machines, giving Japan an initial competitive advantage over the victor states, who then had older factories.
The early post-war years were devoted to rebuilding the lost industrial capacity, with major investments made in electric power, coal, steel, and chemicals. By the mid-1950s, production matched prewar levels. Released from the demands of military-dominated government, the economy not only recovered its lost momentum but also surpassed the growth rates of earlier periods. Between 1953 and 1965, GDP expanded by more than 9% per year, manufacturing and mining by 13%, construction by 11%, and infrastructure by 12%. In 1965 these sectors employed more than 41% of the labor force, whereas only 26% remained in agriculture. Millions of former soldiers joined a well-disciplined and highly educated work force to rebuild Japan.
Japan’s highly acclaimed post-war education system contributed strongly to the modernizing process. The world’s highest literacy rate and high education standards were major reasons for Japan’s success in achieving a technologically advanced economy.
The mid-1960s ushered in a new type of industrial development as the economy opened itself to international competition in some industries and developed heavy and chemical manufacturers. Whereas textiles and light manufacturing maintained their profitability internationally, products such as automobiles, electronics, ships, and machine tools assumed new importance. The value added to manufacturing and mining grew at the rate of 17% per year between 1965 and 1970. Growth rates moderated to about 8% and evened out between the industrial and service sectors between 1970 and 1973 as retail trade, finance, real estate, information technology, and other service industries streamlined their operations.
Oil Crisis
Japan faced a severe economic challenge in the mid-1970s. The 1973 oil crisis shocked economies that had become dependent on imported petroleum. During this time, Japan experienced its first post-war decline in industrial production, along with severe price inflation. The recovery that followed the first oil crisis revived the optimism of most business leaders, but the maintenance of industrial growth in the face of high energy costs required shifts in the industrial structure.
Although the investment costs were high, many energy-intensive industries successfully reduced their dependence on oil during the late 1970s and 1980s and enhanced their productivity, as changing price conditions favored conservation and alternative sources of industrial energy. Advances in microcircuitry and semiconductors in the late 1970s and 1980s led to new growth industries in consumer electronics and computers and to higher productivity in established industries. These adjustments increased the energy efficiency of manufacturing and expanded knowledge-intensive industries. Additionally, the service industries expanded in an increasingly postindustrial economy.
Factors of Growth
Complex economic and institutional factors affected Japan’s post-war growth. First, the nation’s prewar experience provided several important legacies. The Tokugawa period (1600 – 1867) bequeathed a vital commercial sector in burgeoning urban centers, a relatively well-educated elite, a sophisticated government bureaucracy, productive agriculture, highly developed financial and marketing systems, and a national infrastructure of roads. And the buildup of industry during the Meiji period to the point where Japan could vie for world power was an important prelude to post-war growth from 1955 to 1973 and provided a pool of experienced labor.
More important to successes were the level and quality of investment that persisted through the 1980s. Investment in capital equipment, which averaged more than 11% of GNP during the prewar period, rose to about 20% of GNP during the 1950s and to more than 30% in the late 1960s and 1970s. During the economic boom of the late 1980s, the rate still hovered around 20%. Japanese businesses imported the latest technologies to develop the industrial base. As a latecomer to modernization, Japan was able to avoid some of the trial and error needed by other nations to develop industrial processes. In the 1970s and 1980s, Japan improved its industrial base through licensing from the US, patent purchases, and imitation and improvement of foreign inventions. In the 1980s, industry stepped up its research and development, and many firms became famous for their innovations and creativity.
Japan’s labor force contributed significantly to economic growth. Before and immediately after World War II, the transfer of numerous agricultural workers to modern industry resulted in rising productivity and only moderate wage increases. As population growth slowed and the nation became increasingly industrialized in the mid-1960s, wages rose significantly although labor union cooperation generally kept salary increases within the range of gains in productivity.
The nation also benefited from economies of scale. Although medium-sized and small enterprises generated much of the nation’s employment, large facilities were the most productive. Many industrial enterprises consolidated to form larger, more efficient units. While the zaibatsu were dissolved after the war, the keiretsu—large, modern industrial enterprise groupings—emerged. The coordination of activities within these groups and the integration of smaller subcontractors into the groups enhanced industrial efficiency.
Finally, circumstances beyond Japan’s direct control contributed to its success. International conflicts tended to stimulate the Japanese economy until the devastation at the end of World War II. The Russo-Japanese War (1904 – 5), World War I (1914 – 18), the Korean War (1950 – 53), and the Second Indochina War (1954 – 75) brought economic booms to Japan, as militaries needed supplies and created a demand for Japanese goods.
The American-Japanese Relationship during the Cold War
Japan has remained one of the strongest and most reliable allies of the United States since the post-World War II occupation of the country by the Allied forces, despite ongoing tensions over the U.S. military presence on Japanese territories and economic competition between the two countries. In legal terms, the official end of Allied occupation with the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1952, finally placed Japan’s relations with the United States on equal footing, but this equality was initially largely nominal.
As the disastrous results of World War II subsided and trade with the United States expanded, Japan’s self-confidence grew, which gave rise to a desire for greater independence from United States influence. During the 1950s and 1960s, this feeling was evident in the Japanese attitude toward United States military bases on the four main islands of Japan and in Okinawa Prefecture, which occupied the southern two-thirds of the Ryukyu Islands.
The government had to balance left-wing pressure advocating dissociation from the United States with the claimed need for military protection. Recognizing the popular desire for the return of the Ryukyu Islands and the Bonin Islands (also known as the Ogasawara Islands), in 1953 the United States relinquished its control of the Amami group of islands at the northern end of the Ryukyu Islands. However, it made no commitment to return Okinawa, which was then under United States military administration for an indefinite period as provided in Article 3 of the peace treaty. Popular agitation culminated in a unanimous resolution adopted by Japan’s legislature in 1956, calling for a return of Okinawa to Japan.
Military Alliance and New Challenges
Bilateral talks on revising the 1952 security pact began in 1959, and the new Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security was signed in Washington in 1960, despite the protests in Japan of left-wing political parties and mass demonstrations. Under the new treaty, both the US and Japan assumed an obligation to assist each other in case of armed attack on territories under Japanese administration. It was understood, however, that Japan could not come to the defense of the United States because it was constitutionally forbidden to send armed forces overseas under Article 9 of its Constitution. The scope of the new treaty did not extend to the Ryukyu Islands, but appended minutes to the treaty made clear that in case of an armed attack on the islands both governments would consult and take appropriate action. Unlike the 1952 security pact, the new treaty provided for a ten-year term, after which it could be revoked upon one year’s notice by either party. The treaty included general provisions on the further development of international cooperation and improved future economic cooperation.
Both countries worked closely to fulfill the promise of the United States, under Article 3 of the peace treaty, to return all Japanese territories acquired in war. In 1968, the United States returned the Bonin Islands (including Iwo Jima) to Japanese administration control. In 1971, after eighteen months of negotiations, the two countries signed an agreement for the return of Okinawa to Japan in 1972.
A series of new issues arose in 1971. First, Nixon’s dramatic announcement of his forthcoming visit to the People’s Republic of China surprised the Japanese. Many were distressed by the failure of the United States to consult in advance with Japan before making such a fundamental change in foreign policy. Second, the government was again surprised to learn that without prior consultation, the United States had imposed a 10 percent surcharge on imports, a decision certain to hinder Japan’s exports to the United States. Relations between Tokyo and Washington were further strained by the monetary crisis involving the revaluation of the Japanese yen. These events marked the beginning of a new stage in relations, a period of adjustment to a changing world situation that was not without episodes of strain in both political and economic spheres, although the basic relationship remained close.
The political issues between the two countries were essentially security-related and derived from efforts by the United States to induce Japan to contribute more to its own defense and regional security. The economic issues tended to stem from the ever-widening United States trade and payments deficits with Japan, which began in 1965 when Japan reversed its imbalance in trade with the United States and for the first time achieved an export surplus.
New Global Factors
The United States withdrawal from Indochina in 1975 and the end of the Vietnam War meant that the question of Japan’s role in the security of East Asia and its contributions to its own defense became central in the dialogue between the two countries. The Japanese government, constrained by constitutional limitations and strongly pacifist public opinion, responded slowly to U.S. pressures for a more rapid buildup of the JSDF. It steadily increased its budgetary outlays for those forces, however, and indicated its willingness to shoulder more of the cost of maintaining the United States military bases in Japan. In 1976, the United States and Japan formally established a subcommittee for defense cooperation, and military planners of the two countries conducted studies relating to joint military action in the event of an armed attack on Japan.
Under American pressure Japan worked toward a comprehensive security strategy with closer cooperation with the United States for a more reciprocal and autonomous basis. This policy was put to the test in 1979, when radical Iranians seized the United States embassy in Tehran, taking 60 hostages. Japan reacted by condemning the action as a violation of international law. At the same time, Japanese trading firms and oil companies reportedly purchased Iranian oil that became available when the United States banned oil imported from Iran. This action brought sharp criticism from the U.S. of Japanese government “insensitivity” for allowing the oil purchases and led to a Japanese apology and agreement to participate in sanctions against Iran in concert with other allies.
Following the Iran hostages incident, the Japanese government took greater care to support U.S. international policies designed to preserve stability and promote prosperity. Japan was prompt and effective in announcing and implementing sanctions against the Soviet Union following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. In 1981, in response to United States requests, it accepted greater responsibility for defense of seas around Japan, pledged greater support for United States forces in Japan, and persisted with a steady buildup of the JSDF.
Close TIes and New Challenges
A relatively new stage of Japan-United States cooperation in world affairs emerged in the 1980s with the election of Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone, who enjoyed a particularly close relationship with US President, Ronald Reagan. Nakasone reassured U.S. leaders of Japan’s determination against the Soviet threat, closely coordinated policies with the United States toward such Asian trouble spots as the Korean Peninsula and Southeast Asia, and worked cooperatively with the United States in developing China policy. The Japanese government welcomed the increase of United States forces in Japan and the western Pacific, continued the steady buildup of the JSDF, and positioned Japan firmly on the side of the United States against the threat of Soviet expansion. Japan continued to cooperate closely with United States policy in these areas following Nakasone’s term of office, although the political leadership scandals in Japan in the late 1980s made it difficult for newly elected President George H. W. Bush to establish the close personal ties that marked the Reagan years. Despite complaints from some Japanese businesses and diplomats, the Japanese government remained in basic agreement with U.S. policy toward China and Indochina. The government held back from large-scale aid efforts until conditions in China and Indochina were seen as more compatible with Japanese and U.S. interests.
The main area of noncooperation with the United States in the 1980s was Japanese resistance to repeated U.S. efforts to get Japan to open its market to foreign goods, as well as change other economic practices seen as adverse to U.S. economic interests. Furthermore, changing circumstances at home and abroad created a crisis in Japan-United States relations in the late 1980s. Japan’s growing investment in the United States—the second largest investor after Britain—led to complaints from some American constituencies. Moreover, Japanese industry seemed well-positioned to use its economic power to invest in high-technology products, in which United States manufacturers were still leaders. The United States’ ability to compete under these circumstances was seen by many Japanese and Americans as hampered by heavy personal, government, and business debt and a low savings rate. The breakup of the Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe with the end of the Cold War forced the Japanese and United States governments to reassess their longstanding alliance against the Soviet threat. Some Japanese and United States officials and commentators continued to emphasize the common dangers to Japan-United States interests posed by the continued strong Russian military presence in Asia.
India after World War II
Immediately following World War II, British India secured its independence and became partitioned into the countries of Hindu dominated India and Muslim dominated Pakistan, which caused many issues for the peoples who had to relocate. Additionally, in the decades following the war, India faced the challenges of feeding its large population and preserving its democracy, while remaining unaligned (neutral) during the Cold War.
Learning Objectives
- Examine the causes of the partition of British India.
- Analyze the consequences of this partition for the history of Indian subcontinent.
- Identify the economic and political challenges facing democratic India during the Cold War years.
Key Terms / Key Concepts
All India Muslim League: a political party established during the early years of the 20th century in the British Indian Empire that strongly advocated for the establishment of a separate Muslim-majority nation-state: Pakistan
Direct Action Day: August 16, 1946, originally announced by the Muslim League Council to peacefully highlight the Muslim demand for a separate state, became a day of widespread riot and manslaughter between Hindus and Muslims
Green Revolution: a set of technology research and development initiatives occurring between the 1930s and the late 1960s that increased agricultural production worldwide, particularly in the developing world, by the late 1960s
Indian National Congress: one of two major political parties in India, founded in 1885 during the British Raj that became a pivotal participant in the Indian independence movement
Naxalism: ideology associated with, as well as an informal name given to, communist groups that follow Maoism and were born out of the Sino-Soviet split in the Indian communist movement
Partition of Bengal: a 1905 division of Bengal that separated the largely Muslim eastern areas from the largely Hindu western areas; an event that initiated the divide between Muslims and Hindus in India
Two-Nation Theory: argues that the primary identity and unifying denominator of Muslims in the South Asian subcontinent is their religion, rather than their language or ethnicity, and therefore Indian Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nations, regardless of ethnic or other commonalities
vote bank: a loyal bloc of voters from a single community that consistently backs a certain candidate or political formation in democratic elections
vote bank politics: the practice of creating and maintaining loyal blocs of voters through divisive policies
Partition and Religious Tensions in British India
The partition of British India into Hindu-dominated India and Muslim-dominated Pakistan was a victory of the Muslim League’s vision of a separate state for Indian Muslims. It resulted in the biggest population relocations in history, as well as massive unrest and political tensions that continue until today.
Indian society under the British rule was, in fact, very diverse and did not easily match the predominant nationalist paradigms of what a nation should be. In general, the British-run government and British commentators consciously used the term “people of India” and avoided speaking of an “Indian nation.” This was cited as a key reason for British control of the country; they employed the logic that since Indians were not a nation, they were not capable of national self-government. While some Indian leaders insisted that Indians were one nation, others agreed that Indians were not yet a nation while recognizing that they could become one. Because the territory consisted of multiple religious, linguistic, and ethnic backgrounds division could be easily based on one of the existing differences. In this multitude of cultures, the main factor of division would become religion, specifically a growing divide between the two largest religious groups: Muslims and Hindus.
The political event that sowed the seed of division was the partition of Bengal. In 1905, then-Viceroy Lord Curzon divided the largest administrative subdivision in British India—the Bengal Province—into the Muslim-majority province of Eastern Bengal and Assam and the Hindu-majority province of West Bengal (present-day Indian states of West Bengal, Bihar, and Odisha). Curzon’s act, the Partition of Bengal, would transform nationalist politics in the territory.
The Hindu elite of Bengal, who owned land in East Bengal that was leased out to Muslim peasants, protested staunchly. The Hindu protests against the partition of Bengal led the Muslim elite in India to organize the All India Muslim League in 1906. The League favored the partition of Bengal since it gave them a Muslim majority in the eastern half. The Muslim elite expected that a new province with a Muslim majority would directly benefit Muslims aspiring to political power. Due to Hindu protests, the British government rescinded the partition of Bengal in 1911. To placate Muslims, King George V announced that the capital of British India would be moved from Calcutta to Delhi, a Muslim stronghold.
While the Muslim League was for decades a small elite group, it grew rapidly once it became an organization that reached out to the masses, gaining hundreds of thousands of members in regions with significant Muslim populations. Muslim League leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah was then well-positioned to negotiate with the British.
With the outbreak of World War II in 1939, the Viceroy Lord Linlithgow declared war on India’s behalf without consulting Indian leaders, leading the Indian National Congress provincial ministries to resign in protest. The Muslim League, in contrast, supported Britain in the war effort and maintained its control of the government in three major provinces: Bengal, Sind, and the Punjab.
Two-Nation Theory
Jinnah repeatedly warned that Muslims would be unfairly treated in an independent India dominated by the Congress. In 1940 in Lahore, the League passed the “Lahore Resolution,” demanding that “the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.” As the Congress was secular, it strongly opposed having any religious state and insisted there was a natural unity to India. It repeatedly blamed the British for “divide and rule” tactics based on prompting Muslims to think of themselves as alien from Hindus. In response, Jinnah rejected the notion of a united India and emphasized that religious communities were more basic than an artificial nationalism, proclaiming the Two-Nation Theory.
The Two-Nation Theory argues that the primary identity and unifying denominator of Muslims in the South Asian subcontinent is their religion, rather than their language or ethnicity; therefore, Indian Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nations, regardless of ethnic or other commonalities. This ideology was directly linked to the Muslim demands for the creation of Pakistan.
Partition of British India
In 1942, with the Americans supporting independence for India, Winston Churchill—the wartime Prime Minister of Britain—sent an offer of dominion status to the Indian National Congress. With dominion status, India would have become self-governing, but with the British monarch as the nominal Head of State, just as in Canada and Australia. In return, the Indian National Congress would support the British war effort. Not wishing to lose the support of the allies in India, the British had already secured, including the Muslim League, the offer included a clause stating that no part of the British Indian Empire would be forced to join the proposed post-war Dominion. As a result of this provision, the proposals were rejected by the Indian National Congress, which since its founding as a polite group of lawyers in 1885, saw itself as the representative of all Indians of all faiths. In 1942, the Indian National Congress initiated mass public protests, which became known as Quit India Movement and demanded the immediate orderly withdrawal of the British out of India. With their resources and attention already spread thin by a global war, the nervous British government in response, immediately jailed the Congress leaders and kept them in jail until August 1945. The Muslim League was now free for the next three years to spread its message. Consequently, the Muslim League’s ranks surged during the war.
In 1946, new elections were called in India. Earlier, at the end of the war in 1945, the colonial government announced the public trial of three senior officers of Subhas Chandra Bose’s defeated Indian National Army (INA) who stood accused of treason. This army had supported the Japanese in the war in a bid to win independence from Brtish rule. Now as the trials began, the Indian National Congress leadership, although ambivalent towards the INA, chose to defend the accused officers. The subsequent convictions of the officers, the public outcry against the convictions, and the eventual remission of the sentences created positive propaganda for the Congress, which only helped in the party’s subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed August 16, 1946, the Direct Action Day with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day violent Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout British India.
The “Direct Action” was announced by the Muslim League Council to show the strength of Muslim feelings both to British and to the Indian National Congress because Muslims feared that if the British just pulled out, they would surely suffer at the hands of overwhelming Hindu majority. This resulted in the worst communal riots that British India had seen.
As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. With the British army unprepared for the potential for increased violence, the new viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, advanced the date for the transfer of power, allowing less than six months for a mutually agreed plan for independence. In June 1947, the nationalist leaders, including Sardar Patel, Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad on behalf of the Congress and Jinnah representing the Muslim League, agreed to a partition of the country along religious lines in stark opposition to Gandhi’s views. The predominantly Hindu areas were assigned to the new state of India and predominantly Muslim areas to the new state of Pakistan. The plan included a partition of the Muslim-majority provinces of Punjab and Bengal. With the speedy passage through the British Parliament of the Indian Independence Act of 1947, at 11:57 p.m. on August 14, 1947, Pakistan was declared a separate state, and just after midnight, on August 15, 1947, India became a sovereign state. Both Pakistan and India had the right to remain in or remove themselves from the British Commonwealth. In 1949, India decided to remain in the Commonwealth.
Consequences of the Partition
The great majority of Indians remained in place with independence, but in border areas millions of people (Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu) relocated across the newly drawn borders. In Punjab, where the new border lines divided the Sikh regions in half, there was much bloodshed. In Bengal and Bihar, where Gandhi’s presence assuaged communal tempers, the violence was more limited. In the riots which preceded the partition in the Punjab Province, it is believed that between 200,000 and 2 million people were killed in the retributive genocide between the religions. UNHCR estimates 14 million Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims were displaced during the partition. It was the largest mass migration in human history. According to Richard Symonds, at the lowest estimate, half a million people perished and 12 million became homeless as a result of the forced migrations.
The Partition was a highly controversial arrangement and remains a cause of tension on the Indian subcontinent today. Some critics allege that British haste to withdraw led to increased cruelties during the Partition. Because independence was declared prior to the actual Partition, it was up to the new governments of India and Pakistan to keep public order. No large population movements were contemplated, and the plan called for safeguards for minorities on both sides of the new border. Both states failed, however, resulting in a complete breakdown of law and order. Many died in riots, massacres, or just from the hardships of their flight to safety.
Massive population exchanges occurred between the two newly formed states in the months immediately following Partition. The 1951 Census of Pakistan identified the number of displaced persons in Pakistan at 7,226,600, presumably all Muslims who had entered Pakistan from India. Similarly, the 1951 Census of India enumerated 7,295,870 displaced persons, apparently all Hindus and Sikhs who had moved to India from Pakistan immediately after the Partition.
As a result of this violent and disastrous partition, the two nations of India and Pakistan have been hostile to one another ever since. The decision of the Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh to make Muslim-dominated Jammu and Kashmir an independent state in the aftermath of the 1947 establishment of independent India and Pakistan has resulted in a violent territorial conflict that continues until today. Jammu and Kashmir, the largest of the princely states, had a predominantly Muslim population ruled by the Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh. He decided to stay independent because he expected that the state’s Muslims would be unhappy with accession to India and the Hindus and Sikhs would become vulnerable if he joined Pakistan. Pakistan made various efforts to persuade the Maharaja of Kashmir to join Pakistan. Faced with the Maharaja’s decision, the Muslim League agents clandestinely worked to encourage the local Muslims to revolt in Poonch. Muslim League officials assisted and possibly organized a large-scale invasion of Kashmir by Pathan tribesmen. The authorities in Pakistani Punjab waged a private war by obstructing supplies of fuel and essential commodities to Jammu and Kashmir.
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
The violence in the eastern districts of Jammu that started in September 1947 developed into a widespread massacre of Muslims around October 20, organized and perpetrated by the local Hindus. The Maharaja himself was implicated in some instances. A team of British observers commissioned by India and Pakistan identified 70,000 Muslims killed, while the Azad Kashmir Government claimed that 200,000 Muslims were killed. About 400,000 Muslims fled to West Pakistan and many believed that the Maharaja ordered the killings in Jammu. The rebel forces in the western districts of Jammu organized under the leadership of Sardar Ibrahim, a Muslim Conference leader. They took control of most of the western parts of the State by October 22. On October 24, they formed a provisional Azad Kashmir (free Kashmir) government based in Palandri. Today, Azad Kashmir is a self-governing administrative division of Pakistan. The territory lies west of the Indian-administered state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Following the Muslim revolution in the Poonch and Mirpur area and Pakistani -backed Pashtun tribal intervention, the Maharaja asked for Indian military assistance. India set the condition that Kashmir must accede to India for it to receive assistance. The Maharaja complied and the Government of India recognized the accession of the princely state to India. Indian troops were sent to the Jammu and Kashmir but Pakistan refused to recognize the accession of Kashmir to India. Governor General Mohammad Ali Jinnah ordered to move Pakistani troops to Kashmir at once. However, the Indian and Pakistani forces were still under joint command. With its accession to India, Kashmir became legally Indian territory and the British officers could not a play any role in an inter-dominion war.
Rebel forces from the western districts of the state and the Pakistani Pakhtoon tribesmen made rapid advances. In the Kashmir valley, National Conference volunteers worked with the Indian Army to drive out the raiders. The resulting Indo-Pakistani war, known also as the First Kashmir War, lasted until the end of 1948. In May 1948, the Pakistani army officially entered the conflict, in theory to defend the Pakistan border. The historian, C. Christine Fair notes that this was the beginning of Pakistan using irregular forces and asymmetric warfare to ensure plausible deniability, which has continued ever since.
Prime Ministers Nehru of India and Liaquat Ali Khan of Pakistan met in December, when Nehru informed Khan of India’s intention to refer the dispute to the United Nations under article 35 of the UN Charter. Complex negotiations boiled down to the difference between India requiring an asymmetric treatment of the two countries in the withdrawal arrangements, regarding Pakistan as an aggressor, and Pakistan insisting on parity. The UN mediators tended towards parity, which did not satisfy India. In the end, no withdrawal was ever carried out, with India insisting that Pakistan had to withdraw first and Pakistan contending that there was no guarantee that India would withdraw afterwards. No agreement could be reached between the two countries on the process of demilitarization.
The root of conflict between the Kashmiri insurgents and the Indian government is tied to a dispute over local autonomy. Democratic development was limited in Kashmir until the late 1970s and by 1988, many of the democratic reforms introduced by the Indian Government had been reversed. In 1987, a disputed state election created a catalyst for the insurgency when it resulted in some of the state’s legislative assembly members forming armed insurgent groups. In 1988, a series of demonstrations, strikes and attacks on the Indian Government began the Kashmir Insurgency.
Indo-Pakistani War of 1965
Following its failure to seize Kashmir in 1947, Pakistan supported numerous covert groups in Kashmir using operatives based in its New Delhi embassy. After its military pact with the United States in the 1950s, it studied guerrilla warfare through engagement with the U.S. military. In 1965, it decided that the conditions were ripe for a successful guerrilla war in Kashmir. Under a strategy code named Operation Gibraltar, Pakistan dispatched groups into Indian-administered Kashmir, the majority of whose members were volunteers recruited from Pakistan-administered Kashmir and trained by the Army. About 30,000 infiltrators are estimated to have been dispatched in August 1965 as part of the Operation Gibraltar. The plan was for the infiltrators to mingle with the local populace and incite them to rebellion. Meanwhile, guerrilla warfare would commence, destroying bridges, tunnels, highways, and Indian Army installations and airfields, creating conditions for an armed insurrection in Kashmir. Using the newly acquired sophisticated weapons through the American arms aid, Pakistan believed that it could achieve tactical victories in a quick, limited war. However, the Operation Gibraltar failed as the Kashmiris did not revolt. Instead, they turned in infiltrators to the Indian authorities in substantial numbers and the Indian Army ended up fighting the Pakistani Army regulars.
On September 1, Pakistan launched an attack across the Cease Fire Line, targeting Akhnoor in an effort to cut Indian communications into Kashmir. In response, India broadened the war by launching an attack on Pakistani Punjab across the international border. The war lasted until September 23, ending in a stalemate. Following the Tashkent Agreement, both sides withdrew to their pre-conflict positions and agreed not to interfere in each other’s internal affairs.
Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
Another phase of the conflict took place from December 3 to the Fall of Dhaka on December 16, 1971. The war began with preemptive aerial strikes on 11 Indian air stations that led to the commencement of hostilities with Pakistan and Indian entry into the war of independence in East Pakistan on the side of Bengali nationalist forces. During the war, Indian and Pakistani military forces simultaneously clashed on the eastern and western front and ended the war after the Eastern Command of Pakistan military signed the Instrument of Surrender, marking the formation of East Pakistan as the new nation of Bangladesh (with India’s support). Approximately between 90,000 and 93,000 Pakistani servicemen were taken prisoners by the Indian Army. It is estimated that between 300,000 and 3 million civilians were killed in Bangladesh.
As a follow-up to the war, a bilateral summit was held at Simla, where India pushed for peace in South Asia. At stake were over 5,000 square miles of Pakistan’s territory captured by India during the conflict and over 90,000 prisoners of war held in Bangladesh. India was ready to return them in exchange for a “durable solution” to the Kashmir issue. The Simla Agreement was formulated and signed by the two countries, whereby they resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations and maintain the sanctity of the Line of Control. The agreement also stated that the two sides would meet again for establishing durable peace. The envisioned meeting never occurred.
India in the Cold War
Both the Soviet Union and the United States played roles in resolving conflicts involving India, since India remained unaligned in the Cold War and refused to join a side. In 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru became the first Prime Minister of an independent India, which became the world's largest democratic nation with a federal system of government, not unlike the United States. Nehru, however, didn't want India to take sides in the Cold War, and India continued to enjoy good relations with the Soviet Union. Nehru himself was a Socialist, who opposed the Capitalist system of the United States.
China's Role
In 1962, troops from the People’s Republic of China and India clashed in territory claimed by both. China won a swift victory in the war, resulting in Chinese annexation of the region they call Aksai Chin that has continued since. Another smaller area, the Trans-Karakoram, was demarcated as the Line of Control (LOC) between China and Pakistan, although some of the territory on the Chinese side is claimed by India as part of Kashmir. The line that separates India from China in this region is known as the “Line of Actual Control.”
The Green Revolution
India’s Green Revolution has produced extreme increases in food production, turning India from an import- and food aid-dependent state to a self-sufficient one. However, it has left many poor farmers out of the gains of modern agriculture and contributed to serious environmental and public health issues.
The Green Revolution refers to scientific research and the development of technology between the 1930s and the late 1960s that increased agricultural production worldwide, particularly in the developing world, beginning most markedly in the late 1960s. This work was based on the earlier research of agrarian geneticist Nazareno Strampelli in the 1920s and 1930s. Norman Borlaug (often called the Father of the Green Revolution) received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970. His scientific research and technical innovation involved the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of management techniques, and distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers. These innovations are credited with saving over a billion people from starvation.
Before the mid-1960s, India’s large population relied on imports and food aid to meet domestic requirements. However, two years of severe drought in 1965 and 1966 convinced the government to reform the agricultural policy. India adopted significant policy reforms focused on the goal of food grain self-sufficiency. This ushered in India’s Green Revolution. It began with the decision to adopt superior-yielding, disease-resistant wheat varieties in combination with better farming knowledge to improve productivity. The state of Punjab led India’s green revolution and earned the distinction of being the country’s breadbasket.
The initial increase in production was centered on the irrigated areas of the states of Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh. With the farmers and the government officials focusing on farm productivity and knowledge transfer, India’s total grain production soared. A hectare of Indian wheat farm that produced an average of 0.8 tonnes in 1948, produced 4.7 tonnes of wheat in 1975 from the same land. Such rapid growth in farm productivity enabled India to become self-sufficient by the 1970s. It also empowered the smallholder farmers to seek further means to increase food staples produced per hectare. By 2000, Indian farms were adopting wheat varieties capable of yielding 6 tonnes of wheat per hectare.
With agricultural policy success in wheat, India’s Green Revolution technology spread to rice. However, since irrigation infrastructure was very poor, Indian farmers innovated tube-wells to harvest ground water. When gains from the new technology reached their limits in the states of initial adoption, the technology spread in the 1970s and 1980s to the states of eastern India: Bihar, Odisha and West Bengal. The lasting benefits of the improved seeds and new technology extended principally to the irrigated areas, which account for about one-third of the harvested crop area. India also adopted IR8, a semi-dwarf rice variety developed by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), that could produce more grains of rice per plant when grown with certain fertilizers and irrigation. In 1968, Indian agronomist S.K. De Datta published his findings that IR8 rice yielded about 5 tons per hectare with no fertilizer and almost 10 tons per hectare under optimal conditions. This was 10 times the yield of traditional rice. IR8 was a success throughout Asia and dubbed the “miracle rice.” In the 1960s, rice yields in India were about two tons per hectare. By the mid-1990s, they had risen to six tons per hectare. In the 1970s, rice cost about $550 a ton. In 2001, it cost under $200 a ton.
In the 1980s, Indian agriculture policy shifted to emphasize other agricultural commodities like oil seeds, fruit, and vegetables. Farmers began adopting improved methods and technologies in dairying, fisheries, and livestock to meet the diversified food needs of a growing population.
Criticism
A main criticism of the effects of the Green Revolution is the cost for small farmers using high-yielding varieties, with their associated demands of increased irrigation systems and pesticides. A case study has demonstrated that the Indian farmers who buy Monsanto BT cotton seeds, sold on the idea that these seeds produced “natural insecticides,” still must pay for expensive pesticides and irrigation systems. This might lead to increased borrowing to finance the change from traditional seed varieties. Many farmers have difficulty paying for the expensive technologies and the gains of the Green Revolution are hardly available to all Indian farmers, particularly those cultivating smaller land plots.
The increased usage of fertilizers and pesticides for high-yielding varieties has also led to decreased soil fertility while the use of electric tube wells decreased groundwater table below the previous level. The negative environmental impacts of the Green Revolution are barely beginning to show their full effects. The widespread chemical pollution in communities that utilize pesticides and herbicides is creating a public health problem that has disproportionately impacted women. In the state of Punjab, touted as a success of Green Revolution, cancer rates have skyrocketed. In a 2008 study by Punjabi University, a high rate of genetic damage among farmers was attributed to pesticide use. Ignorance on the appropriate use of pesticides resulted in heavy use, improper disposal, the use of pesticides as kitchen containers, and contamination of drinking water with heavy metals.
The Green Revolution brought a modern approach to agriculture by incorporating irrigation systems, genetically modified seed variations, insecticide and pesticide usage, and numerous land reforms. It had an explosive impact, providing unprecedented agricultural productivity in India and turning the country from a food importer to an exporter. Yet the Green Revolution also caused agricultural prices to drop, which damaged India’s small farmers.
The World's Largest Democracy
Since the 1947 independence, India has been a constitutional republic and representative democracy, but religious and caste-related violence, terrorism, and corruption continue to challenge the Indian democratic system.
As the seventh largest (by area) and the second most populous country in the world, the Republic of India is the largest democracy by electorate. India is a federation with a parliamentary system governed under the Constitution of India, which serves as the country’s supreme legal document. It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy in which “majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law.” Federalism in India defines the power distribution between the federal government and the states. The government abides by constitutional checks and balances. The Constitution of India, which came into being in 1950, states in its preamble that India is a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. India’s form of government, traditionally described as “quasi-federal” with a strong center and weak states, has grown increasingly federal since the late 1990s as a result of political, economic, and social changes.
The federal government comprises executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The President of India is the head of state and is elected indirectly by a national electoral college for a five-year term. The Prime Minister of India is the head of government and exercises most executive power. Appointed by the president, the prime minister is by custom supported by the party or political alliance holding the majority of seats in the lower house of parliament and leads the Council of Ministers. The legislature of India is the bicameral (two houses) parliament. The upper house is the Rajya Sabha (“Council of States”) with 245 members, who are elected indirectly by the state and territorial legislatures. They serve six-year terms. The lower house is the Lok Sabha (“House of the People”) with 545 members, all but two directly elected by popular vote for five-year terms. India has a unitary three-tier independent judiciary that comprises the Supreme Court, 24 High Courts, and a large number of trial courts.
India is a federation composed of 29 states and seven union territories. All states and two union territories have their own governments. The executive of each state is the Governor (equivalent to the president of India), whose role is ceremonial. The real power resides with the Chief Minister (equivalent to the Prime Minister) and the state council of ministers. States may either have a unicameral (one house) or bicameral legislature, varying from state to state.
India has a multi-party system, with a number of national as well as regional parties. As with any other democracy, political parties represent different sections among the Indian society and regions and their core values play a major role in the politics of India. Through the elections, any party may gain simple majority in the lower house. Coalitions are formed in case no single party gains a simple majority in the lower house. Unless a party or a coalition have a majority in the lower house, a government cannot be formed by that party or the coalition.
In recent decades, Indian politics has become a dynastic affair. This phenomenon is seen both at the national and state levels. One example of dynastic politics has been the Nehru–Gandhi family, which produced three Indian prime ministers and is leading the Indian National Congress party. At the state level too, a number of political parties are led by family members of the previous leaders.
Challenges of Indian Democracy
The Indian society is very diverse, with substantial differences in religion, region, language, race, and caste. In the traditional Hindu caste system, each person is born into a distinct social class or caste (i.e. farmers, merchants, artisans, priests), and people can not ever change their preordained caste. India's diverse population has led to the rise of political parties with agendas catering to one or a mix of these groups. Some parties openly profess their focus on a particular group while others claim to be universal in nature but tend to draw support from sections of the population. For example, the Rashtriya Janata Dal (the National People’s Party) wins votes through vote bank politics among the Hindu Yadav caste and Muslim population of Bihar, and the All India Trinamool Congress does not have any significant support outside West Bengal. The narrow focus and vote banks of most parties, even in the central government and central legislature, sidelines national issues such as economic welfare and national security. Moreover, internal security is also threatened as incidences of political parties instigating and leading violence between two opposing groups of people is a frequent occurrence. Terrorism, Naxalism (Communist ideology associated with the ideas of Mao Zedong), religious violence, and caste-related violence are important issues that have affected the political environment of the Indian nation.
Economic Policies after Independence
Economic issues like poverty, unemployment, and development have substantially influenced politics, although different parties proposed dramatically different approaches. Garibi hatao (eradicate poverty) has been a slogan of the Indian National Congress for a long time. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) has vehemently supported left-wing politics like land-for-all and right to work.
Indian economic policy after independence was influenced by the colonial experience and its exploitative nature, as well as by British social democracy and the planned economy of the Soviet Union. Domestic policy tended towards protectionism, with a strong emphasis on import substitution industrialization, economic interventionism, a large government-run public sector, business regulation, and central planning. At the same time, trade and foreign investment policies were relatively liberal. Steel, mining, machine tools, telecommunications, insurance, and power plants, among other industries, were effectively nationalized in the mid-1950s. Economists referred to the rate of growth of the Indian economy in the first three decades after independence as the Hindu rate of growth because of the unfavorable comparison with growth rates in other Asian countries such as South Korea and Japan.
The Arab World in the Non-Aligned Movement
After World War II the Arab world, which straddled north Africa and Asia, was at an intersection of two postwar developments: the Cold War and decolonization. In response to both developments Arab peoples sought to establish their independence. In the case of decolonization Arab peoples sought to establish their independence from the colonial empires that had controlled them. With respect to the Cold War Arab peoples endeavored not to be controlled by either the United States or the Soviet Union. In these efforts to establish their sovereignty in the context of decolonization and the Cold War Arab peoples used their material resources and relative ethnic, national, and religious solidarity as leverage. Their relative success added another set of powers to the mulipolar world that emerged after the Second World War and matured after the Cold War.
Learning Objectives
- Evaluate the impact of decolonization on the Cold War.
Key Terms / Key Concepts
Suez Canal Crisis: an invasion by Israel, England, and France into Egypt to regain control of the vital Suez Canal that ended in their defeat by Nasser, supported by both the U.S. and the Soviet governments
NATO: an intergovernmental military alliance signed on April 4, 1949 and including the five Treaty of Brussels states (Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom) plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland
Warsaw Pact: a collective defense treaty among the Soviet Union and seven other Soviet satellite states in Central and Eastern Europe during the Cold War
Non-Aligned Movement: decentralized group of nations not siding with either the U.S. or the Soviet Union during the Cold War
Following Egypt's political triumph in the1856 Suez Canal Crisis—known in the Arab World as the Tripartite Aggression, Nasser and the ideology associated with him rapidly gained support in other Arab countries from Iraq in the east to French-occupied Algeria in the west. Numerous Arab countries, notably Iraq, North Yemen, and Libya underwent the toppling of conservative regimes and their replacement with revolutionary republican governments; meanwhile, Arab countries under Western occupation—chiefly Algeria and South Yemen—saw the growth of insurrections aimed at national liberation. Contemporaneously, the already staunchly Arab nationalist Syria united with Egypt in the short-lived federal union of the United Arab Republic. A number of other attempts to unite the Arab states in various configurations were made, but all ultimately failed.
In turn, the monarchies, namely Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Morocco (and, following their independence in the early 1970s, the Gulf states) drew closer together as they sought to counter Egyptian influence through a variety of direct and indirect means. In particular, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, hitherto rivals due to the competing claims of their respective dynasties, cooperated closely in support of the royalist faction in the North Yemen Civil War that had become a proxy war between Egypt and Saudi Arabia following the establishment of the Nasserist Yemen Arab Republic in 1962.
The expression “Arab Cold War” was coined by American political scientist and Middle East scholar Malcolm H. Kerr in his 1965 book of that title. Despite the moniker, however, the Arab Cold War was not a clash between capitalist and communist economic systems. Indeed, apart from the Marxist government of South Yemen, all Arab governments expressly rejected communism and criminalized the activities of communist activists within their territories. Moreover, Arab governments have not actively sought membership in either NATO or the Warsaw Pact, with nearly all of the Arab states joining the Non-Aligned Movement. Because conflicts in the period varied over time and with different locations and perspectives, the Arab Cold War is dated differently, depending on sources. Jordanian sources, for example, date the commencement of the Arab Cold War as April 1957, while Palestinian sources note the period of 1962 to 1967 as being most significant to them within the larger Arab context.
What tied the Arab Cold War to the wider global confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union was that the United States backed the conservative Saudi Arabian-led monarchies, while the Soviet Union supported the Egyptian-led republics adhering to Arab socialism, notwithstanding their suppression of domestic Arab communist movements. In tandem with this was the Arab revolutionary nationalist republican support for anti-American, anti-Western, anti-imperialist, and anti-colonial revolutionary movements outside the Arab World, such as the Cuban Revolution, as well as the Arab monarchical support for conservative governments in predominantly Muslim countries, such as Pakistan.
Due to a number of factors, the Arab Cold War is considered to have ended by the late 1970s. The unmitigated success of the State of Israel in the Six Day War of 1967 severely undermined the strategic strength of both Egypt and Nasser. Though the subsequent resolution to the North Yemen Civil War brokered by Nasser and King Faisal of Saudi Arabia was a victory for the Egyptian-backed Yemeni republicans, the intensity of the Egyptian-Saudi Arabian rivalry faded dramatically, as attention was focused on Egypt's efforts to liberate its own territory now under Israeli occupation.
Nasser's death in 1970 was followed by the presidency of Anwar Sadat, who departed radically from Nasser's revolutionary platform, both domestically and in regional and international affairs. In particular, Sadat sought intimate strategic cooperation with Saudi Arabia under King Faisal, forging a relationship that was crucial to Egypt's successes in the first part of the October War of 1973. Capitalizing on those initial successes, Sadat completed his departure from Nasserism by abandoning Egypt's strategic partnership with the Soviet Union in favor of the United States, and by making peace with the State of Israel in 1978 in exchange for the evacuation of all Israeli forces and settlers from Egyptian territory. Sadat's peace treaty not only alienated Nasserists and other secular Arab nationalists, but enraged Islamists—who denounced him as an apostate.
Sadat’s policies led to Egypt being suspended from the Arab League, which caused its virtual isolation in the region. Egypt being isolated while Islamism rose in popularity culminated in the 1979 Iranian Revolution; the revolution established Shi'a Iran as a regional power vowing to topple the predominantly Sunni governments of Arab states, both republican and monarchical alike.
As the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War heralded the beginning of the 1980s, Egypt under Sadat—and still suspended from the Arab League—made common cause with Saudi Arabia in supporting Sunni-led Iraq against Shi'a Iran. Simultaneously, Sunni-Shi'a strife elsewhere in the region, notably Lebanon, took on the character of a new proxy conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslim regional powers.
Islamic Revival
Though far smaller in population than Egypt, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had oil wealth and prestige as the land of Mecca and Medina—the two holiest cities of Islam. To use Islam as a counterweight to Gamal Abdel Nasser's Arab nationalism, Saudi Arabia sponsored an international Islamic conference in Mecca in 1962. It created the Muslim World League, which was dedicated to spreading Islam and fostering Islamic solidarity. The League was effective in promoting Islam, particularly conservative Wahhabi Islam, as well as served to combat “radical alien ideologies” in the Muslim world, such as Arab socialism.
Learning Objectives
- Describe how Egyptian President Abdel Nasser’s idea of Arab nationalism affected Arab-Israeli relations from 1956-1973.
- Analyze how the political, ethnic, and religious history of Palestine during the 19th and 20th centuries shaped the creation of Israel after the Second World War.
Key Terms / Key Concepts
Gamal Abdel Nasser: Egyptian military and political leader who was also the president of Egypt from 1956 – 1970
Arab nationalism: after World War II, movement that promotes unity among Arab people
Particularly after the Six-Day War, Islamic revival strengthened throughout the Arab world. After Nasser's death in 1970, his successor, Anwar Sadat, emphasized religion and economic liberalization rather than Arab nationalism and socialism. In Egypt's “shattering” 1967 defeat, “Land, Sea and Air” had been the military slogan; in the perceived victory of the October 1973 war, it was replaced with the Islamic battle cry of Allahu Akbar. While the October 1973 war was started by Egypt and Syria to take back the land conquered in 1967 by Israel, according to the French political scientist Gilles Kepel the actual victors were the Arab oil-exporting countries, whose embargo against Israel's Western allies stopped Israel's counter-offensive. The embargo's political success enhanced the prestige of its participants and the reduction in the global supply of oil sent oil prices soaring (from $3 US per barrel to nearly $12) and with them, oil exporter revenues. This resulted in Arab oil-exporting states taking a dominant position of within the Muslim world. The most dominant of which was Saudi Arabia, the largest exporter by far.
In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, which had been suppressed by the Egyptian government and aided by Saudi Arabia, was allowed to publish a monthly magazine, and its political prisoners were gradually released. At universities, Islamists took control and drove (anti-Sadat) student leftist and Pan-Arabist organizations underground. By the late 1970s, Sadat called himself “The Believer President.” He banned most sales of alcohol and ordered Egypt's state-run television to interrupt programs with salat (Islamic call to prayer) on the screen five times a day and to increase religious programming.
Attributions
Title Image
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Macarthur_hirohito2.jpg
Emperor Hirohito and General MacArthur at their first meeting, September, 1945 - U.S. Army photographer Lt. Gaetano Faillace, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Adapted from:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-worldhistory/chapter/japanese-recovery/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-worldhistory/chapter/the-indian-subcontinent/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
Suez Crisis. Provided by: Wikipedia. Located at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis. License: CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
Cold War. Provided by: Wikipedia. Located at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War. License: CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Cold_War&oldid=1087958323