You will remember that India fell under the control of the
British East India Company around 1757, and was annexed directly
by Britain a century later. Ironically, the improved educational
system introduced by the British spread ideas that helped form a
movement to work for Indian independence.
In the days after WWII, it looked like the time for
independence had come. India had plenty of well-educated,
experienced people who should have been able to run the country
successfully. But there was one major worry: ethnic
violence. The British were afraid that, once they were
gone, Hindus and Muslims would be at each others throats.
What was the solution? Well, how about leaving behind
two separate countries: one for the Muslims, one for the Hindus?
That's what happened in 1947: the Indian subcontinent was
divided into two separate nations, Pakistan (for the Muslims)
and India (for the Hindus).
It wasn't an easy transition. Hindus in dominantly
Muslim Pakistan, fearing persecution, fled their homes and
went to India. Muslims in dominantly Hindu India, fearing
persecution, fled their homes and went to dominantly Muslim
Pakistan. Millions of people were uprooted, and tens of
thousands died in the process. And the problem of ethnic
violence wasn't solved. Further, the newly-formed
countries of Pakistan and India hated each other, and wanted to
expand at the other's expense. Particularly troublesome
was the dispute over Kashmir. India and Pakistan have fought
three major wars with one another, largely over this disputed
territory. Both sides have developed atomic weapons, and
(when I first taught this class in 1988), my guess was that, if
there were to be an atomic war, it would be between those too
countries. That war nearly happened in 1998, and it may
happen yet.
Nevertheless, independence worked out well for the people of
India. They established a parliamentary democracy similar
to the government of Britain. But political freedom
was not quite enough. For years, India struggled rather
unsuccessfully with intense poverty.
But in the early 1990's, there was a great break-though. India's government abandoned its socialist leanings, and moved toward free-market economics. The result was dramatic: a 6% average growth in GDP for 20 years! Companies like GE, Motorola, IBM, and even GM made major investments in India, and the Indian economy soared. India has created a fine university system, and, in terms of things like engineering and the sciences, it seems like they are surpassing the United States. And then there's Bollywood--not too shabby for a once basket-case country. In the long run, Indian independence has worked well. There have been some economic ups and downs in recent years, and plenty of problems with corruption: poverty relief programs haven't worked as well as they might have. But, by 2016, India had one of the fastest growing economies in the world once again. There was, of course, a downward dip because of Covid-19, but then growth resumed once again. As of 2023, India had the 5th largest economy in the world, and it has passed China as the nation with the most people.
The story of Pakistan isn't as bright. Pakistan also
established a (theoretically) democratic government in 1947, but
the constitution has frequently been "suspended" by the party in
power, and elections have often been marred by violence.
Pakistan has had 27 primer ministers since its creation in
1947--none of whom lasted more then 5 years. Further,
Islam is the official state religion, and the push to adopt
harsh Shariah law is strong. From time to time, economic
growth has been strong, but less consistently so than in
India. In 2013, Pakistan was on the verge of bankruptcy,
and, for the last ten years, Pakistan has been troubled by high
inflation, skyrocketing debt, and corruption. The war in
Ukraine has meant rising energy costs, and a drop in GDP. Moslem
militants are poised to take advantage of any instability, and
the future of Pakistan is hard to predict.
The real tragedy in Pakistan, however, occurred some years
ago in East Pakistan, what came to be called Bangladesh.
The East Pakistanis have virtually nothing in common with West
Pakistan except their religious faith. They don't even
share a common language: Urdu is the language of West
Pakistan, Bengali the language of Bangladesh. The
government focused its efforts on West Pakistan, neglecting
Bangladesh--or, rather, exploiting the resources of Bangladesh
to create opportunities in West Pakistan.
In 1970, a tropical storm hit Bangladesh. The
government did little to help, and, as a result, 300,000 people
died--many of them needlessly. This made the people of
Bangladesh unhappy enough to want to secede. The
government launched a crack-down. "Kill 3,000,000 and the
rest will grovel," said one government official. And
that's pretty much what happened. In addition, the
Pakistan government had its forces rape Bangladeshi women.
There were some 400,000 to 800,000 rapes--particularly
devastating in a country where a rape victim is considered
unsuitable for marriage and therefore likely destined for a life
of poverty.
This cruel strategy on the part of the government provoked
further resistance. Helped by India (!), the Bangladeshi
people won their independence in 1973. But their hardships
were not over. The economy had been ruined. Many
millions (ten million is a good estimate) fled the country,
ending up as refugees in places like Calcutta. In recent
years, Bangladesh has finally seen strong economic growth,
typically a 6% per year rise in GDP. Prosperity was a very
long time in coming, though, and, for years, Bangladesh was one
of the poorest countries on earth.
Syria/Lebanon
Also having a difficult time making the transition to
independence, the areas once controlled by the Ottoman Turkish
Empire. The "Sick Man of Europe" had finally died during
World War I, and the great question, as always: what would
happen to the territory controlled by the Turks?
In the case of Syria, the newly-formed League of Nations
decided that the French should step in, and so, for a time, the
French controlled Syria under League of Nations mandate.
During World War II, however, the French had too much on their
plate to govern successfully, and they had to give up
control. They worried, however, that if they simply left
Syria, the Christian population might fall victim to another
Muslim attempt at genocide. To prevent this, the French
divided the territory, forming two nations: dominantly Muslim
Syria and majority-Christian Lebanon.
How did the transition work? For Syria, not so
well. While most Syrians were Muslims, Syria still wasn't
ethnically homogeneous, and the Syrians fell to fighting among
themselves. As usual in such situations, eventually one
strong, ruthless man claws his was to the top. In this
case, that man was Haffaz Assad, head of the Baathists, a
socialist party favoring the "Alawite" Syrians. Hassad
ruled with an iron hand, slaughtering 30,000 people is a single
day to suppress dissent. Syria had stability, but neither
economic nor political freedom.
When Haffaz Assad died in 2000, his son Bashur Assad took
his place. Bashur Assad had studied ophthalmology in
London, and his wife was U.K. born. Many hoped for a
liberalization in Syria, more personal and political
freedom. It didn't happen, and many Syrians were
disappointed.
Then in 2010 began the "Arab Spring," attempts by Arabs in
many countries to force their autocratic rulers to grant more
freedom. America (under President Obama and Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton) applauded, encouraging the protestors to
continue and expand their demands. Ultimately, this meant
the destabilization of Libya and (with the direct support of
NATO forces led by the U.S., Libya's president (Khadaffi) was
deposed and executed--throwing Libya into chaos and creating a
huge refugee problem.
Basshur Assad wasn't going to let his happen to him, and he
began cracking down on dissidents. The U.S. drew a
red-line: use chemical weapons against dissidents, and we
intervene. Well Assad crossed the line, and America was
committed to forcing Assad out. But this was a tricky
business. Assad was opposed by those who wanted more
political and personal freedom, but also by ISIS (the Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria). ISIS wanted a restored
Caliphate, hoping to see their leader as the recognized
spiritual and political head of all the Islamic world.
While dismissed by Obama as the "J.V. Team," ISIS soon had
control of much of Iraq and Syria. Note on the map how
much territory ISIS controlled in January of 2015.
In the areas it controlled, ISIS carried out a campaign of
genocide against the Yazidi, Orthodox Christians, and any
Muslims that wouldn't accept their version of the faith.
This three-way civil war was awful for Syria. Hundreds
of thousands have died, and more than 5 million are
refugees. Interestingly, the Trump administration helped
push ISIS to the brink of extinction (see the map above).
[This
BBC article does a nice job summarizing the rise and fall
of ISIS.]
My guess in November 2017 was that we would eventually see
some sort of compromise between Bashur Assad and those wanting
greater freedoms. I thought Putin and Trump would probably
figure out a way to help put such a compromise solution in
place. This sort of happened, but the Syrian conflict has
reached something of stalemate. Assad is still in power,
but 30% of the country is controlled by his opponents--not ISIS,
fortunately! In any case, Syria is still dealing with
problems left over from the way the nation was formed in the
first place--back in 1944!
In Lebanon, the transition to independence at first seemed
much better. The Lebanese had a democratic government
right from the beginning with each ethnic group guaranteed a
role in the government. The economy boomed: the tourist
industry, agricultural, and banking gave Lebanon a solid base,
and the Lebanese had the highest standard of living in that part
of the world. For thirty years, things were fine.
But there was one problem. The constitution adopted when
Lebanon was established set up a a 6:5 ratio of Christians to
Muslims and Druze in the Lebanese parliament. However, the
Muslim population grew more quickly than the Christian
population, and Muslims were eventually a majority in a country
where the constitution guaranteed Christians a majority in
parliament!
Lebanon made the fatal mistake of taking in 300,000
Palestinian refugees. This was one factor touching off the
Lebanese civil war--a civil war that lasted from
1975-1990. Civil wars are always miserable affairs, and
this one was particularly bad. The Syrians backed the
Muslim side, the Israelis backed the Christian side. Both
Israel and Syrian eventually sent troops directly into
Syria.
Obviously, this was a disaster economically and in other
ways for Lebanon. At least 100,000 civilians were killed, and
there were 900,000 refugees: huge numbers in a country of only 5
million people or so. Still, things settled down--until
the Syrian conflict meant something like 1.5 million new
refugees in Lebanon! This was one of the factors (along with
sky-high debt) that has destroyed the Lebanese economy.
Palestine/Israel
In some ways similar to the Syrian story, what happened in
Palestine. This territory, too, was once part of the
Ottoman empire. After World War I, the League of Nations
asked the British to take control under League of Nations
mandate. The British continued to govern the area (which
included Jordan, by the way) through World War II.
Eventually, though, Britain was prepared to leave the area once
a reasonable arrangement for doing so could be made.
A major worry for the British: ethnic violence.
Palestine had a majority-Muslim population, but a growing number
of Jews had settled there as well. Muslims.
During the late 19th and early 20th century, Jews began what
is called the Zionist Movement. This was a movement
designed to create a Jewish homeland somewhere in the
world. Some Zionists favored a place like Uganda for the
Jewish homeland, but the most popular idea was to create a
Jewish state in the Holy Land--the land of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob. For 100's of years, Jews had concluded their
Passover celebrations with the toast "Ha shana ha ba'a: b'
Yeroshalaim."--"next year, in Jerusalem." Messiah would
come and give them back the Promised land. Well, for the
Zionists, they weren't going to wait for Messiah: they'd take
the land back now if they could.
Jewish settlements in Palestine began to grow--with a mixed
reaction from the Muslims in that region. The British
Balfour Declaration of 1917 supported the general idea of Jewish
settlement in Palestine--thought they wanted to protect other
ethnic groups in the region as well.
In 1946, Britain took a good deal of the mandate territory
and set u the "Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan," a country
composed, for the most part, of Arab. When they decided to
leave the area altogether, the British thought it might be best
to create two more countries, dominantly Muslim Palestine and
majority-Jewish Israel. The newly-formed United Nations
agreed, and began drawing up plans for creating the two
countries. The Jews signed on enthusiastically. Not
so the Muslims. Finally, the Jews, tired of waiting, set
up their nation on their own. In 1948, the created a new
nation: Israel. This, by the way, was a war of independence, not
a war of conquest.
In many ways, the new nation was quite successful. Jews from
all over the Middle East and from places like Russia and even
the United States moved to Israel. Holocaust survivors in
Europe also came in large numbers. The Israelis set up a
parliamentary system like that of Britain with even Muslims
eligible to serve in the Knesset (the equivalent of the British
parliament). Economically, the new nation did quite well
indeed, turning desert into garden, and, eventually, giving its
people the highest standard of living in the region.
It was not easy. The Israelis had to fight again and
again for their very existence: wars in 1948, 1956, 1967, and
1973. They prevailed each time. Basically, then, a
successful, though not easy, transition to independence.
But what of the Palestinians? Here is a great tragedy.
The area that *should* have become the Palestinian state was
swallowed up partly by Israel, but, even more, by Jordan and
Egypt. At this point, the best outcome might have been for
the Arab countries simply to absorb the Palestinian
population. Jordanians and Egyptians aren't much different
from Palestinians, and what might have happened is an exchange
of populations: one million Jews from Muslim nations settling in
Israel, a million Palestinians resettling in the Muslim world.
That's not what happened. The Palestinians often ended
up in refugee camps in Lebanon and Egypt--just waiting for the
day they could return to Israel. Any time now.
1956? Nope. 1967? Nope. 1973?
Disappointed once again. And after the 1967 and 1973 wars,
Israel annexed the West bank and Gaza areas so that, not only
were the Palestinians living in refugee camps, but in camps in
areas controlled by the Jews!
War hadn't worked, so the Muslim world resorted to
terrorism. And for a young man growing up in a refugee
camp without any hope of doing anything that seemed worthwhile
in life, the Jihadist route was mighty tempting. Israel, then,
gets an ongoing problem with terrorism--and responds by, in
general, cracking down on the Palestinians.
The obvious solution: land for peace. Israel gave up
the land won in the 1967 and 1973 wars in return for an end to
terrorist attacks and the attempts of Arab nations to destroy
the country.
We've come awfully close to seeing just that solution.
The Oslo accords (1993) did set up a Palestinian state,
but the tension remains. Israel maintains economic and military
control of the West Bank, and, from time to time, plants Jewish
settlements in that area. The response to continued
Palestinian terror? Retaliation, and the building of more
settlements, making it clear that, the longer the terrorist acts
continue, the smaller the eventual Palestinian state.
Of course, the settlements provoke more anger and terrorism
too.
By the way, Gaza shows the problem for Israel. In
2005, Israel removed all its settlements from Gaza and withdrew
its troops entirely. In Gaza, the Israelis withdrew their
forces, only to see Hamas start using Gaza as a staging area for
attacks on Israel...including the October 7, 2023 attacks.
What's happening here is in large part due to Iran. The
Iranians view Israel as "the little Satan" and they use Hamas
and Hezbollah to prevent Israel from being at peace. When
the Abraham accords (negotiated with help from the Trump
administration) looked like more Muslim nations including Saudi
Arabia were going to accept the existence of Israel (Egypt and
Jordan had done this earlier), the Iranians doubled down, and
they are almost certainly behind the recent Hamas attacks.
Where will it all end? Well, the valley of Megiddo is
in Israel....
Algeria [An
important story I haven't had time to talk about in recent
years. You aren't responsible for this material, but,
should you get essay question #5 as an exam choice, you can
talk about Algeria too if you like.]
Another example of the difficulty in making the transition to independence: Algeria.
Algeria was colonized by the French in the 19th century--and
something more than a colony. Frenchman themselves settled in
Algeria in large numbers, retaining their French citizenship and
the right to vote in French elections. Algeria was, in a
way, extension of France--and, although initial French
occupation was a bloody affair, eventually French Algeria became
a very successful place with a thriving economy and a
"multicultural" environment that combined the best of what
Arab and French cultures had to offer.
[Note: I call the the native Algerians
"Arab" Algerians. Actually, they are mostly of Berber
descent, but they speak Arabic.]
However, the
Arab Algerians were 2nd class citizens, without the rights
of the French Algerians, and many of them resented it.
During World War II, a group called the FLN (the National
Liberation Front) began a terrorist campaign to drive the
French out.
In 1945, the FLN
massacred 103 French Algerians, stripping the victims and
mutilating the bodies in horrible ways. They *wanted*
to provoke French retaliation--and retaliate the French
government did, leveling some 40 Arab Algerian
villages. Many Arab Algerian soldiers, soldiers who
had been fighting against Hitler, came home to find that
their own government had destroyed their homes.
Neverthess, it
seemed like Arab and French Algerians might settle down to
live in peace. But the FLN didn't want that! In
1954, they stepped up their terrorist attacks, targetting,
first moderates in the Arab Algerian community. By
1956, they had killed 20,000 moderate Arabs, often gouging
out their eyes, cutting out their tongues first. They
would often cut off the limbs of their victims, living the
bodies on a roadside with the tag "traitor."
Most insidious,
their targetting of the families of moderate Arabs,
torturing wives and children and then leaving the mutilated
bodies for the husband to find when he came home from
work.
They didn't
always kill their victims. Cutting off a nose, or an
ear, or a penis but leaving the victim alive might be even
more effective than killing in frightening the moderate
Arabs into silence.
Soon, the FLN
stepped up its attacks to include French Algerians.
They would occupy portions of Algeria and then launch a
campaign of genocide in the territory they controlled,
killing people in the most horrible ways imaginable.
They took a woman with a five-day-old baby, cut her belly
open, stuffed the baby inside, stiched her up--and let both
mother and baby die a slow, painful death.
This was
deliberate: the FLN wanted the French to be so angry they
would make mistakes. And it worked. The French
lashed out blindly at Arab Algerians whether guilty of
attrocities or not. The French even resorted to
torture on their own to get the information they thought
they needed to fight the FLN.
Finally,
however, French President Chales DeGaulle decided that
Algeria wasn't worth the price. In 1961, Algeria got
its independence. The French Algerians themselves
fought to maintain control of their country, but, by 1962,
they had to give up. They left Algeria to resettle in
France. But, before leaving, they destroyed everything
they could, buring their homes, the hospitals,
schools--everything built during the century of French rule.
They left behind
thousands of moderate Arabs who fell victims to the
FLN. Thirty to fifty thousand moderate Arabs were
massacred. And the result? What should have been
a prosperous country ended up with an oppressive government
and a basket case economy. To fight against their
corrupt government, many Algerians embraced as an
alternative a radical Islamic alternative. This led to
a civil war in the 1980's and 1990's--and another round of
gruesome tortures and death. Algeria is, finally,
recovering economically--but the transition to independence
has certainly not been easy.
Subsaharan Africa
Uganda
Having even more difficulty making the transition to
independence, some of the countires of Subsaharan Africa.
A somewhat typical example: Uganda. Uganda had been
colonized by the British and, under British rule, had developed
a thriving economy. In 1963, the British granted Uganda
independence, probably anticipating a relatively smooth
transition. Things didn't go well. Uganda was
composed of several different tribal groups. Making
matters worse, a large Muslim minority was at odds with the
Christian majority. As soon as the British left, these groups
were at each other's throats, and, once again, a strong,
ruthless man clawed his way to the top: Idi Amin.
Amin was a sadistic mass murderer. He killed some
200,000 of his own people. Most of his victims were
Christians (he himself was a Muslim), but even those closest to
him weren't safe. Amin practiced ritual canibalism,
killing and eating the flesh of one of his wives and dining on
the heart of one of his sons. When he was eventually
overthrown, his freezers were full of human body parts.
Amin was an exceptionally evil man, but, unfortunately, men of
his type often manage to get to the top in modern Africa.
CIA
Statistics
on Uganda (Note life expectancy, infant mortality rates,
etc.)
Background
on
Idi Amin
Congo (Zaire)
An even worse tragedy what happened in neighboring Congo.
King Leopold of Belgium took over the Congo in the late 19th
century, using the county's vast resources to build himself a
personal fortune. He was absolutely ruthless, and hundreds
of thousands died. The Belgian government eventually took
control out of Leopold's hands, and things got better in some
ways: but violence between white and black (and between black
and black) eventually reached a point where the Belgian
government decided to give up.
In 1960, the Congo got independence: but once again, the
immediate result was nothing good. The various tribal groups
were at war until, ultimately, a strong, ruthless individual
clawed his way to the top: Joseph Mobutu.
Mobutu was certainly a capable man, but he used his
abilities not for the betterment of the Congo as a whole, but to
enrich himself, his family, and his friends. He made
himself the richest man in the world, while his people were
among the poorest.
Mobutu blamed his country's problems on the Belgians.
European influence was very bad. And so, he said, the key
to success was to get rid of everything European. He
change the name of the country from "Congo" to Zaire--a more
traditional African name, he said. He also wanted to get
rid of every trace of Christianity. Not easy! One
sees the impact of Christianity even in his name. So he
had to change his name. He changed it to "Mobutu Sese Seko
Kuku Ngbendu Wa Za Banga."
This from one online source:
Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu Wa Za Banga, loosely translated "The all powerful warrior who because of endurance and will to win, will go from conquest to conquest, leaving fire in his wake." In English this means "head rooster with access to all the hens in the henhouse." The locals have their own version: "The cock who jumps all the chicks in the farmyard."
To replace Christianity, Mobutu offered a new faith:
Mobutusism.
In 1997, Mobutu was finally driven from power, but the
result was nothing good. Mobutu's successors now tried to
undo everything he had done--calling the country once again
Congo instead of Zaire. But once again, the country
quickly devolved into civil war. In 2017 (the last time I
had updated this page), I told my students that more than five
million people had died--and that the war was still going
on. Just checked again (11/26/2023), and it turns out the
war is still going on--and the death toll has surpassed six
million--and there are nearly seven million displaced people.
Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole
While the Congo situation is probably the worst of the modern African nightmares, it is certainly not unique. Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole has struggled greatly during the transition period--not what those of us who grew up in the 1950's and 60's expected. Africa during the post-World War II period looked like it was on the right track. All that the countries of Africa needed was independence. Well, beginning around 1960 and continuing through the 1970's, just about all the countries of Africa got that independence. But in many, many instances, independence meant civil war. These civil wars were intensified by the fact that they took place during the Cold War. The Soviets supported one side, hoping that side would move in the Communist direction. The United States supported the other side, hoping to stop the spread of communism. And so what happened is that, in countries that often didn't have any of the modern conveniences we've come to take for granted, one thing did tend to be very modern: ways of killing other people in large numbers.
When the Cold War came to an end, the African civil wars should have cooled down a bit. They didn't. America neglected its role as the world's only super power. The Clinton administration, for instance, worked very hard to make sure the Rwanda situation would *not* be labeled genocide, because that would have required an international commitment (led by the United States) to stop the bloodbath. Bad as Cold War intervention was, it turns out that post-Cold War non-intervention is even worse.