Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Dear Sir,
An interesting post. Perhaps looking at national characteristics (in terms of what happened immediately previously in each nation's history) might prove informative.
Perhaps this is a slightly skewed version of the aphorism,"Democracies don't go to war with each other." This has happened rarely. It lies behind much of current thinking by Man Mohan Singh and his government, that once democracy gets rooted in Pakistan, there is low likelihood of war with India.
They may be right; they may be wrong. This is what the theory is, and we can only watch and wait.
On the other hand, conflicts between democracies and authoritarian states, and between authoritarian states have been far too frequent.
There is quite a bit of prior history behind what we see today.
For starters, let us take the case of India becoming democratic. This was in no way due to the US and Europe proving themselves superior during the cold war; in fact, the foundations of representative democracy were laid in 1909. Later, with the Minto-Morley reforms of 1909, a pattern of government that is still used today was introduced. Finally, the Government of India Act of 1935 brought things to a level and a style of functioning that is familiar even today.
It was in 1912 that Dr. Sun Yat-Sen introduced democratic rule in China, based on General Yuan Shi-Kai's overthrow of the last Manchu ruler, the Empress-Dowager and Regent.
It is fascinating to compare what ensued, from 1912 to 1949, in terms of the similarities that emerge, also in terms of the vast differences in events that followed.
Both countries went through a period of 'popular tutelage', Dr. Sun's transitional democracry under one party, China under the KMT, India under British rule. Both countries faced internal dissension against the authoritarian regime in their country, led in one case by the CPC, in the other case by a coalition of parties. Both faced foreign invasion.
But there was never outright civil war in India, as there was in China. The people of India were never to see days of trouble that China did (those days had come earlier for India), and hence had little or no understanding of what a craving for peace there was in China.
India was never troubled by the Japanese in any major way; a look at the map will show that the Japanese armies only 'nibbled' at the eastern edges of India, although they captured Burma to a large extent (there was a corner in the north, which was independent, and which was used to supply war materiel to KMT troops in China over land). Again, India never knew the ravages of war. There were massacres in both countries; a massacre cannot be compared to another, both are so horrid as to leave us speechless, but one was city-wide, the other covered a peaceful crowd in a walled in compound.
It seems to me that the differences in their experiences have a great deal to do with the propensity of each population with regard to political organisation of the state.
I hope that the outline that I have provided may suffice to indicate why each country responded to political impulses in so different a mann. Only people can decide what is best for them; true enough, but there is a whole intricate set of political, social and historical circumstance behind each country's present condition.
About the rest, one can write volumes. But essentially, each country has its own circumstances and its own compulsions, and perhaps we need to understand and appreciate these before setting out to analyse each case.
With warm regards,
An interesting post. Perhaps looking at national characteristics (in terms of what happened immediately previously in each nation's history) might prove informative.
Perhaps this is a slightly skewed version of the aphorism,"Democracies don't go to war with each other." This has happened rarely. It lies behind much of current thinking by Man Mohan Singh and his government, that once democracy gets rooted in Pakistan, there is low likelihood of war with India.
They may be right; they may be wrong. This is what the theory is, and we can only watch and wait.
On the other hand, conflicts between democracies and authoritarian states, and between authoritarian states have been far too frequent.
There is quite a bit of prior history behind what we see today.
For starters, let us take the case of India becoming democratic. This was in no way due to the US and Europe proving themselves superior during the cold war; in fact, the foundations of representative democracy were laid in 1909. Later, with the Minto-Morley reforms of 1909, a pattern of government that is still used today was introduced. Finally, the Government of India Act of 1935 brought things to a level and a style of functioning that is familiar even today.
It was in 1912 that Dr. Sun Yat-Sen introduced democratic rule in China, based on General Yuan Shi-Kai's overthrow of the last Manchu ruler, the Empress-Dowager and Regent.
It is fascinating to compare what ensued, from 1912 to 1949, in terms of the similarities that emerge, also in terms of the vast differences in events that followed.
Both countries went through a period of 'popular tutelage', Dr. Sun's transitional democracry under one party, China under the KMT, India under British rule. Both countries faced internal dissension against the authoritarian regime in their country, led in one case by the CPC, in the other case by a coalition of parties. Both faced foreign invasion.
But there was never outright civil war in India, as there was in China. The people of India were never to see days of trouble that China did (those days had come earlier for India), and hence had little or no understanding of what a craving for peace there was in China.
India was never troubled by the Japanese in any major way; a look at the map will show that the Japanese armies only 'nibbled' at the eastern edges of India, although they captured Burma to a large extent (there was a corner in the north, which was independent, and which was used to supply war materiel to KMT troops in China over land). Again, India never knew the ravages of war. There were massacres in both countries; a massacre cannot be compared to another, both are so horrid as to leave us speechless, but one was city-wide, the other covered a peaceful crowd in a walled in compound.
It seems to me that the differences in their experiences have a great deal to do with the propensity of each population with regard to political organisation of the state.
I hope that the outline that I have provided may suffice to indicate why each country responded to political impulses in so different a mann. Only people can decide what is best for them; true enough, but there is a whole intricate set of political, social and historical circumstance behind each country's present condition.
About the rest, one can write volumes. But essentially, each country has its own circumstances and its own compulsions, and perhaps we need to understand and appreciate these before setting out to analyse each case.
With warm regards,
