India, Pakistan, Bangladesh (USSA): The United Sates of South Asia

A Historical Analysis of Responsibility, Confederation, and Future Prospects

The Partition of India in 1947 was a watershed moment in South Asian history, marked by immense human suffering and geopolitical upheaval. While the event is often attributed to the political rivalry between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, deeper dynamics surrounding confederation versus federation and the roles of key figures like Jawaharlal Nehru and Muhammad Ali Jinnah are critical to understanding this complex chapter. This article revisits the historical narrative, explores the failure of the Cabinet Mission Plan, examines Nehru’s later proposal of confederation to Ayub Khan, and reflects on the future prospects of confederation in South Asia.

Confederation vs. Federation: A Comparative Analysis

What is a Confederation?

A confederation is a union of sovereign states that come together for specific purposes, such as defence or trade, while retaining their independence. Examples include:

• Swiss Confederation: A model of decentralised governance where cantons maintain significant autonomy.
• European Union: A political and economic union of member states with shared policies but independent sovereignty.

What is a Federation?

A federation is a political entity where power is divided between a central authority and constituent units (states or provinces). Examples include:

• United States: A strong central government with states retaining certain powers.
• India: A federal structure with a powerful central government and states with limited autonomy.

Why Confederation Was Proposed for India

The Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 proposed a confederation to accommodate the diverse political aspirations of India’s communities. It aimed to:

• Grant autonomy to Muslim-majority provinces.
• Maintain a loose central authority for defence, foreign affairs, and communications.
• Allow provinces to secede after ten years if they chose to.

The Roles of Nehru and Jinnah in Partition

Jawaharlal Nehru: The Architect of Division?

Historians like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Jaswant Singh argue that Nehru’s inflexibility and insistence on a strong central government undermined efforts to preserve a united India. The Cabinet Mission Plan, which proposed a loose confederation of provinces, was rejected by Nehru, who favored a more centralized structure. His 1946 press conference in Bombay, where he declared that Congress was free to modify the plan, is seen as a turning point that alienated Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah: Advocate for Confederation or Partition?

Jinnah, often portrayed as the driving force behind Partition, initially sought a confederation rather than outright division. The Lahore Resolution of 1940 called for autonomous Muslim-majority regions within a united India, not a separate state. Jinnah accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan, but Nehru’s rejection forced him to pursue the creation of Pakistan.

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: The Iron Man’s Role

Patel, a key Congress leader, is often blamed for his rigid stance on Partition. His insistence on a strong central government and opposition to the Cabinet Mission Plan contributed to the breakdown of negotiations.

Mahatma Gandhi: A Reluctant Participant

Gandhi, initially opposed to Partition, declared, “Partition will happen over my dead body.” However, as communal violence escalated, he reluctantly accepted Partition as a means to end the bloodshed.

The Failure of the Cabinet Mission Plan: A Missed Opportunity?

The Plan’s Proposal

The Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 proposed a three-tiered confederation:

• Zone A: Hindu-majority provinces (e.g., Madras, Bombay, UP, Bihar).
• Zone B: Muslim-majority provinces in the west (e.g., Punjab, Sindh, NWFP).
• Zone C: Muslim-majority provinces in the east (e.g., Bengal, Assam).
• A weak central government handling only defense, foreign affairs, and communications.
• Provincial autonomy and the right to secede after ten years.

Why It Failed

• Nehru’s Rejection: Nehru’s insistence on a strong central government undermined the plan.
• Congress’s Inflexibility: Leaders like Patel and Nehru were unwilling to grant the autonomy demanded by the Muslim League.
• Communal Distrust: Rising communal tensions made compromise increasingly difficult.

Historical Perspectives on Partition

1.    Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: In India Wins Freedom, Azad critiques the roles of Nehru and Patel in the rejection of the Cabinet Mission Plan. This discussion is detailed on pages 133-134. ia802305.us.archive.org

2.    Jaswant Singh: In Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence, Singh posits that Jinnah initially advocated for a confederation rather than a complete division. This argument is elaborated on pages 150-152. ia804706.us.archive.org

3.    H.M. Seervai: In Partition of India: Legend and Reality, Seervai holds Gandhi and Nehru accountable for dismissing the Cabinet Mission Plan. This perspective is presented on pages 646-648. ia804706.us.archive.org

 

The Human Cost of Partition

Communal Violence and Displacement

Partition triggered one of the largest migrations in human history, with over 15 million people displaced. Communal violence claimed the lives of an estimated 1 million people, with countless others subjected to rape, abduction, and forced conversions.

Psychological Trauma

The mass migration created a humanitarian crisis, with refugees struggling to rebuild their lives. The trauma of Partition continues to affect generations on both sides of the border.

Could Partition Have Been Avoided?

The Confederation Option

Many historians believe that a confederation could have preserved a united India while addressing Muslim concerns. However, Congress’s insistence on a strong central government made this impossible.

The Role of Communal Politics

The rise of communal politics in the 1940s, fueled by organizations like the RSS and the Muslim League, created an environment of mistrust, making compromise difficult.

Nehru’s Proposal of Confederation to Ayub Khan

The Context

After the 1962 Sino-Indian War, Nehru proposed a confederation between India and Pakistan to counter China’s influence. This was explored in secret talks with Pakistani President Ayub Khan.

Ayub’s Response

Ayub rejected the proposal, insisting that Kashmir and other disputes must be resolved first. Nehru’s offer, though significant, came too late to bridge the deep mistrust.

The Future of Confederation in South Asia

Is Confederation Still Possible?

While an India-Pakistan confederation seems unlikely today, it remains a topic of discussion. Key considerations include:

• Shared History and Culture
• Economic Integration
• Geopolitical Stability

Challenges to Confederation

• Kashmir Conflict
• Mutual Distrust
• Lack of Political Will

Summary

The Partition of India was shaped by the clash between confederation and federation, with key figures like Nehru and Jinnah playing pivotal roles. The failure of the Cabinet Mission Plan and Nehru’s later proposal to Ayub Khan highlight missed opportunities for unity. While an India-Pakistan confederation remains a distant dream, it serves as a reminder of the need for dialogue, compromise, and reconciliation in South Asia.

References

1.    Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, India Wins Freedom.

2.    Jaswant Singh, Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence.

3.    H.M. Seervai, Partition of India: Legend and Reality.

4.    Cabinet Mission Plan (1946) documents.

5.    Historical accounts of Nehru-Ayub backchannel talks.

 

A Review: The Boundaries of Faith and The Breadth of Secularism

Throughout history, religion and politics have intertwined in ways that shape societies, often at the cost of human lives. While ancient civilizations practiced literal human sacrifice to appease deities and maintain social order, modern states engage in ideological purges under the guise of political and religious purity. From Iran’s theocratic governance to India’s rising religious nationalism, the fusion of faith and state power continues to marginalize dissenting voices. But is the solution to suppress religion altogether? Or is there a way to break this dangerous cycle without erasing faith from public life?

Iran: When Religion Becomes the State

Following the 1979 revolution, Iran institutionalized the doctrine of Wilayat al-Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), effectively subordinating state power to religious authority. In theory, this system ensures governance aligned with Islamic principles. In practice, it has transformed faith into an instrument of political control. Religion is no longer a personal matter but a state-enforced ideology, used to silence opposition and maintain ideological homogeneity. Those who challenge this unity are branded as rebels or apostates, often facing dire consequences. This dynamic mirrors ancient practices where societies offered sacrifices to preserve their supposed purity—except today, the sacrifices are political dissidents and marginalised communities.

Saudi Arabia: The State as the Sole Custodian of Faith

Unlike Iran, where religion fuels grassroots political mobilisation, Saudi Arabia has adopted a top-down model where the monarchy retains exclusive control over religious interpretation. By centralising religious authority, the state prevents the public from using faith as a tool for political opposition. While this model curtails the misuse of religion for populist extremism, it does not equate to religious freedom. Rather, it ensures that faith remains a controlled entity, wielded solely by the ruling elite to maintain their grip on power. Here, too, religion serves as a mechanism of control—albeit one that suppresses grassroots religious movements rather than empowering them.

India: The Rise of Religious Nationalism

In India, the ascent of Hindutva ideology under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its ideological parent, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), illustrates the dangers of majoritarian nationalism. By conflating Hindu identity with national identity, the ruling establishment has systematically othered religious minorities, branding them as outsiders or traitors. The gradual erosion of secularism has led to an environment where non-Hindus face increasing discrimination, forced to either assimilate or exist in perpetual insecurity. This transformation showcases how religion, when politicised, becomes a tool for societal exclusion rather than spiritual enrichment.

Myanmar: The Weaponization of Faith Against the Rohingya

Myanmar presents a harrowing example of how religion, when tied to state identity, can justify atrocities. The Buddhist-majority nation has systematically persecuted the Rohingya Muslim population, portraying them as foreign elements unworthy of citizenship. The government has so deeply intertwined Buddhist identity with national belonging that those who do not conform face expulsion—whether through genocide, forced displacement, or systemic discrimination. This pattern, reminiscent of historical ethnic purges, highlights a disturbing global trend: the state’s relentless pursuit of ideological purity at the cost of human lives.

The Solution: Secularism as a Safeguard, Not an Attack on Faith

The answer to these crises is not the suppression of religion but the prevention of its political exploitation. Religion, in its essence, is not the problem—its manipulation for political gain is. History reveals that whenever religion has been absorbed into state machinery, it has been used to justify oppression in the name of national or ideological purity. Secular governance does not mean hostility toward religion; rather, it ensures that faith remains a personal belief rather than a political weapon. A truly democratic state must protect all its citizens equally, without favoring one religious identity over others.

Summary

The world has repeatedly witnessed the dangers of politicized religion—from Iran’s theocratic oppression to Myanmar’s ethnic cleansing. If we seek a peaceful society, we must detach faith from the state and build political systems based on civic rights rather than religious identity. Secularism is not the enemy of religion; it is the guardian of diversity, ensuring that belief remains a source of personal fulfillment rather than a justification for systemic persecution. In a world rife with ideological conflict, the only path forward is one where differing faiths coexist—not as political weapons, but as individual convictions.

 

Is Liberalism in Danger?

The Evolution of Liberalism: A Journey Through History and Ideology

Liberalism, derived from the Latin liber (meaning "free"), has long been a driving force behind societal progress. From challenging monarchies to advocating for human rights, it has shaped the modern world through political, economic, and social transformations. This article explores the origins, evolution, and contemporary challenges of liberalism, shedding light on its enduring influence.

The Origins of Liberalism: A Rebellion Against Tyranny

Liberalism emerged in response to monarchical oppression and religious autocracy. Seventeenth-century philosopher John Locke, often regarded as its intellectual father, championed individual liberty and natural rights. His ideas gained traction in the 18th century, as thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant refined the concept of the "social contract," emphasizing a balance between freedom and order.

Although Locke’s vision of liberty was not universally applied, liberalism evolved, adapting to new challenges and reshaping governance worldwide.

Core Principles of Liberalism

Liberalism stands on key tenets, including:

• Protection of human rights and civil liberties
• Freedom of speech and expression
• Separation of church and state
• Private property rights
• Free markets with minimal state intervention
• International trade and cooperation

These principles define classical liberalism, which advocates limited government intervention. However, modern liberalism incorporates social welfare, healthcare, and economic equity, creating ideological divergence across different regions.

The Phases of Liberalism

Liberalism has undergone significant transformations:

1.    Classical Liberalism (17th–19th Century)

o   Rooted in constitutional democracy and natural rights, inspired by the American and French Revolutions.

2.    Industrial Revolution Liberalism (19th Century)

o   Thinkers like John Stuart Mill expanded liberalism to address social injustices caused by industrialization.

3.    20th-Century Liberalism

o   Focused on human rights, civil liberties, and global cooperation in response to threats like fascism and communism.

4.    Neoliberalism (Late 20th Century)

o   Emphasized deregulation, privatization, and free-market policies, championed by leaders like Reagan and Thatcher.

5.    21st-Century Liberalism

o   Faces contemporary challenges like populism, nationalism, and economic inequality, sparking ideological polarization.

The Liberal-Conservative Divide

Liberalism varies across regions. In some countries, it aligns with progressive policies, while in others, it intersects with conservative economic principles. This ideological fluidity fuels political discourse and conflict, particularly in the West.

The Decline of Liberalism: A Retreat or Reinvention?

The resurgence of populism has challenged liberalism’s foundations. Nationalist leaders and protectionist policies signal a shift away from globalization, sparking concerns about the future of liberal values.

Backlash Against Liberalism

Despite its emphasis on free thought and coexistence, liberalism often provokes strong opposition. In certain societies, it is misunderstood and vilified, perceived as an affront to tradition rather than an ideology of tolerance.

The Populist Threat

Populism, fueled by economic anxiety, has risen as a counterforce to liberal inclusivity. Brexit, nationalist policies in the U.S., Poland, and Hungary, and defunding of global institutions signal a shift toward insularity. In the U.S., the term "liberal" has become politically charged, reflecting ideological divisions.

Is Liberalism at a Crossroads?

Even The Economist acknowledged the need for liberalism’s reinvention, advocating for its adaptation while retaining its foundational values. The alternative—populism and economic isolationism—poses risks to global stability.

Liberalism, like democracy, requires refinement rather than abandonment. Its future hinges on addressing inequality, integrating marginalised communities, and reaffirming its relevance in a changing world.

The Rise and Fall of Globalisation: How Nationalism Reshaped the World Order

For decades, globalisation was seen as the path to economic and political stability. The world became increasingly interconnected through trade and cooperation. However, populist movements, economic crises, and nationalist policies have disrupted this trajectory, leading to a reassessment of globalisation's benefits.

The Decline of the Global Village

While globalisation fostered economic interdependence, financial crises and rising inequality fuelled scepticism. The backlash was evident in Brexit and Trump’s "America First" policies, which prioritised national interests over global partnerships.

A Crisis in Capitalism and Neo-liberalism

Neo liberalism's advocacy for free markets and deregulation has led to economic disparities. Critics argue that capitalism is facing an existential crisis, but systemic collapse alone does not guarantee a revolutionary shift. Change requires ideological transformation and organised movements.

The Myth of an Imminent Revolution

Despite capitalism’s flaws, historical transitions suggest that revolutions require more than economic crises. Without strong revolutionary forces, societies enter transitional phases rather than immediate systemic change.

The Road Ahead: Nationalism vs. Global Stability

Nationalist policies have strained international relations, raising questions about the future of globalisation. History is cyclical—while nationalism dominates today, globalisation may resurface in a new form. The challenge lies in balancing sovereignty with cooperation to maintain global stability.

Sum up

Liberalism stands at a crossroads. The rise of populism, economic uncertainty, and ideological divisions have tested its resilience. Yet, history suggests that ideologies do not vanish; they evolve. Liberalism’s survival depends on its ability to adapt, address economic disparities, and reclaim its role as a force for progress.

Rather than facing extinction, liberalism must redefine itself to meet contemporary challenges. The question is not whether it will endure, but in what form it will shape the future of global order.

 

References

1.    Locke, J. (1689). Two Treatises of Government. London: Awnsham Churchill.

2.    Rousseau, J.J. (1762). The Social Contract. Paris: Marc-Michel Rey.

3.    Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Riga: Johann Friedrich Hartknoch.

4.    Ortega y Gasset, J. (1930). The Revolt of the Masses. Madrid: Editorial Espasa Calpe.

5.    Frost, R. (1951). The Poetry of Robert Frost. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

6.    The Economist (2018). "Reinventing Liberalism for the 21st Century." The Economist, September 2018 issue.

7.    Mudde, C. (2019). The Far Right Today. Cambridge: Polity Press.

8.    Fukuyama, F. (2018). Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

 

Eugene V. Debs: A Voice for Justice in an Age of Exploitation

Throughout human history, wars have often been waged for conquest and plunder. This succinct observation by Eugene Victor Debs, a prominent American socialist and labor leader, resonates as much today as it did during his iconic 1918 speech from a U.S. prison. While many outside the United States perceive the general populace as complicit in their government’s imperialist endeavors, this is a gross oversimplification. The history of America is punctuated by figures who stood steadfastly against imperialism, even while embedded within a system that perpetuated it.

Eugene V. Debs exemplifies such resistance—a tireless advocate for justice who transformed the American political and social landscape, challenging the very foundations of capitalism and imperialism. His life was a testament to the power of solidarity and the unyielding pursuit of equality.

---

The Making of a Revolutionary: Eugene V. Debs’ Early Life

Eugene Debs emerged during an era of rapid industrial expansion in 19th-century America. Factories proliferated, railroads spanned borders, and a new class of laborers was forged—exploited, exhausted, and voiceless. Debs gave these workers a voice, organizing the American Railway Union (ARU) in 1893, one of the nation’s first industrial unions. The ARU sought to unite workers across all roles within the railway industry, breaking traditional barriers.

The pivotal moment in Debs' journey came during the Pullman Strike of 1894. Pullman Company workers, crushed by wage cuts and soaring housing costs, turned to the ARU for support. The resulting nationwide boycott of Pullman railcars triggered a fierce response from federal authorities, who deployed troops to suppress the strike violently. Debs was arrested, spending six transformative months in prison. This experience solidified his belief that capitalism was fundamentally incompatible with democracy and justice.

---

The Socialist Awakening

Upon his release, Debs embraced socialism, articulating a vision of a society where power and wealth were equitably distributed. His speeches, brimming with fervor and clarity, rallied workers across America. He spoke not only in crowded union halls but also in public squares, inspiring a diverse audience to unite against a system that prioritized profit over people.

Debs’ rhetoric transcended class divisions. He was not merely a labor leader but a champion for all those oppressed by the unbridled pursuit of wealth. His calls for justice extended beyond labor rights to encompass civil liberties, corporate regulation, and global peace.

---

The Impact of Debs on America

Eugene V. Debs left an indelible mark on the United States, influencing the trajectory of its labor and political movements. His advocacy for workers' rights planted the seeds for modern labor unions and workplace protections, including the eight-hour workday and fair wages. By fearlessly opposing unchecked corporate power, Debs exposed the vulnerabilities of the capitalist system and inspired generations of activists to demand structural reforms. His campaigns also played a pivotal role in integrating socialist ideals into mainstream American discourse, forcing major political parties to address issues of economic inequality, social justice, and corporate accountability. Debs’ legacy continues to resonate in contemporary movements advocating for a more equitable and inclusive society.

---

The 1920 Presidential Campaign: A Campaign from Behind Bars

Perhaps the most remarkable chapter in Debs’ life was his 1920 presidential campaign. Jailed under the Espionage Act for opposing America’s involvement in World War I—a conflict he deemed a war for imperialist interests—Debs ran for office from his prison cell. His bold stance against the war underscored his unwavering commitment to his principles.

Despite his incarceration, Debs garnered nearly a million votes, a testament to the resonance of his message among the American people. This campaign highlighted the stark reality of systemic inequality while elevating the discourse on workers’ rights and social justice.

---

A Legacy Beyond Electoral Defeats

Eugene V. Debs’ influence extended far beyond his electoral losses. He reshaped the political landscape, inspiring progressive elements within the Democratic Party and labor movements that later spearheaded transformative reforms. His vision of justice and equality as attainable realities, not abstract ideals, continues to inspire movements worldwide.

In an age marked by corporate dominance, widening inequality, and political corruption, Debs’ legacy remains a beacon of hope. His unwavering advocacy for the marginalized demonstrated that even in the face of insurmountable odds, change is possible. As Debs poignantly declared, “While there is a lower class, I am in it. While there is a criminal element, I am of it. While there is a soul in prison, I am not free.”

---

Analysis

Eugene V. Debs dedicated his life to liberating those shackled by exploitation. His tireless fight for justice and equality illuminated the path toward a more equitable society. Today, his words and deeds resonate as a call to action for labor rights, economic justice, and peace. In honoring Debs, we also honor countless others who dared to expose America’s imperialist tendencies and championed the cause of the oppressed.

The Journey of African Americans: From Slavery to Empowerment

The Journey of African Slaves to Freedom in America

Even today, the African American community in the United States continues to face racial discrimination, but over the years, social and political movements have given them newfound confidence and a strong sense of identity.

When any group or minority lives under the oppressive rule of the state or majority, it is denied the opportunity for growth and is often condemned to a life of poverty. Historically, when racism, sectarianism, and caste-based hatred have isolated and segregated a group from society, all paths for their development have been blocked. This often forces the marginalized group into servitude, doing menial labor or carrying out degrading tasks for the dominant classes.

In the Indian subcontinent, this situation can be compared to that of the Dalits. In the United States, African slaves brought from Africa were treated as property upon their arrival, having no rights or identities of their own. Slave owners would even change their names, for names symbolized ownership. Their religion was also altered, and they were converted to Christianity, losing their original cultural and linguistic ties in the process.

In the Southern states of America, these slaves worked in vast plantations and mined for minerals. They had no family life—parents could be sold off to different owners, and children as young as eight or nine were forced to work. Their living conditions were deplorable, often housed in small, unsanitary quarters with very little food. Their lives were governed by fear of punishment and constant labor. It was also law that they could not receive an education, which kept them illiterate and under the complete control of their masters.

When oppression reached unbearable levels, slaves attempted to escape. Occasionally, groups would rebel, but these uprisings were harshly crushed. African slaves and Native Americans had a key difference—Native Americans had tribal identities, cultures, and histories that allowed them to resist in unique ways. To quash their resistance, the U.S. government confined Native Americans to reservations, essentially cutting them off from society. However, this policy was not applicable to African slaves because they had no land or tribal identity to fall back on. Their only unifying factor was their shared black skin, and their proximity to white people only heightened their awareness of the racism they faced.

After the American Civil War in 1863, which abolished slavery, African Americans faced a new set of challenges. How would they secure jobs? How could they break free from the chains of slavery? How could they find new avenues for progress?

It was during this period that a few prominent figures emerged to guide the African American community, one of whom was Booker T. Washington (1856-1915). Born during the era of slavery, Washington worked in a salt factory and a coal mine during his youth. However, his passion for education led him to study at night under the guidance of literate individuals. After emancipation, he traveled 500 miles to attend a school founded by white sympathizers of African Americans.

Once educated, Washington realized that the key to African American advancement lay in education. He went on to establish the Tuskegee Institute, relying on donations from the African American community, which were often modest. Along with his students, Washington helped construct the school buildings and even purchased land for farming. He taught his students not only academics but practical skills such as agriculture and other trades. He also emphasized the importance of maintaining proper etiquette, cleanliness, and discipline, ensuring that his students were not just educated but also well-rounded and respectful.

Washington's philosophy was grounded in the belief that African Americans should work alongside white people and find common ground through cooperation. He argued that African Americans had contributed to American progress through their hard work, whether as domestic servants or through their loyalty and endurance. He believed it was now the responsibility of white Americans to pay back the debt they owed to African Americans by granting them basic civil rights.

However, there were also movements for both integration and self-defense within the African American community. In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement succeeded in dismantling the tradition of racial segregation in the Southern states, but underlying prejudices persisted among white Americans. This led to the emergence of groups like the Black Panthers, who engaged in violent confrontations with the police, though the movement was eventually suppressed.

On the other hand, Martin Luther King Jr.’s movement, which advocated for nonviolence, also faced setbacks, especially after his assassination. The legacy of both violent and nonviolent resistance movements is that African Americans found unique ways to express their culture, notably through music and sports. The study of Black History was introduced in universities, and African American historians, such as W.E.B. Du Bois, sought to reconnect with their African roots, even planning works like the Encyclopedia of Africanism.

Though racial prejudice against African Americans remains a significant issue today, the ongoing social and political movements have empowered the community with renewed confidence and a strong sense of identity. Their struggle is far from over, but their journey toward equality and recognition continues relentlessly.

1. Faneuil Hall and Boston’s Wealth from Slavery

Boston's Faneuil Hall symbolizes both revolutionary ideals and the wealth derived from the Transatlantic Slave Trade, underscoring the city's involvement in selling enslaved Africans trafficked through the Middle Passage.

2. Scale and Routes of the Slave Trade

Between 1560 and 1850, 12 million Africans were forcibly transported via the Triangle Trade, with Brazil receiving 4.8 million, the Caribbean 4.7 million, and only 4%—or 388,000—arriving in North America.

3. Horrors of the Middle Passage

The 80-day Middle Passage subjected enslaved Africans to horrific conditions, leading to 15% mortality rates, as survivors like Ottobah Cugoano recounted its dehumanizing brutality.

4. Voices from the Middle Passage

Accounts from those who endured or participated in the Transatlantic Slave Trade provide harrowing personal insights into its human cost and systemic exploitation.

5. Boston’s Involvement in the Slave Trade

Boston’s first slave voyage in 1637, legal slavery in Massachusetts, and over 166 transatlantic voyages established the city as a significant player in the trade of enslaved Africans.

6. The Slave Economy and Boston

Boston supported slavery through exports like rum and sugar and held over 1,000 advertisements for enslaved individuals, exposing its complicity in the Triangle Trade.

7. Peter Faneuil’s Role

Prominent merchant Peter Faneuil profited from slavery-related goods and financed slaving voyages, making slavery central to his economic success despite not being a major trader.

8. Cultural Legacy of Enslaved Africans

Enslaved Africans blended their diverse cultural traditions into vibrant creolized societies, influencing food, music, and rituals in Boston and across the colonies.

9. Calls for Freedom During Revolution

Boston's enslaved people petitioned for freedom during the Revolution, exposing the contradiction of fighting for liberty while maintaining slavery, though change came slowly.

10. Abolition of the Slave Trade

Massachusetts declared slavery unconstitutional in 1783, and by 1808, the transatlantic slave trade was banned in both Britain and the United States.

 

Iran vs Israel

 

Why Are Iran and Israel Enemies?

Iran and Israel, once allies, have become fierce adversaries, particularly since Iran’s Islamic Revolution. Israeli airstrikes on Iranian consulates in Syria and Iran’s counterattacks with drones and missiles exemplify this ongoing rivalry, which has intensified over recent decades. Iran openly expresses its desire to erase Israel from the map, while Israel considers Iran its greatest adversary.

A Historical Shift

Before Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, Israel and Iran shared a cooperative alliance. Iran was one of the first nations to recognize Israel in 1948, viewing Israel as a counterbalance against Arab nations. In exchange for oil, Israel provided Iran with technical expertise, training Iranian agricultural specialists and supporting its armed forces.

Changing Relations After 1979

The 1979 revolution marked a turning point, as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his religious regime dissolved previous treaties with Israel. Iran began vocally opposing Israel’s control over Palestinian territories, with its increasingly severe rhetoric aimed at gaining support from regional Arab populations and expanding its own influence.

When Israel intervened in Lebanon’s civil conflict in 1982, Khomeini sent the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to Beirut to back local Shia militias. The Hezbollah militia, which grew from this support, is now a key Iranian proxy in Lebanon.

Present-Day Relations

Iran's current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, continues the anti-Israel stance, frequently questioning the Holocaust’s narrative and opposing any form of compromise with Israel.

• Is the war between Iran and Israel a war of religion and ideology or is it a struggle for dominance in the region?

The complex relationship between Iran and Israel encompasses a blend of religious, ideological, and geopolitical factors, though many analysts view the conflict as fundamentally rooted in a struggle for regional dominance with religion as a powerful but secondary component.

1. Ideological and Religious Dimensions

• Religious Rhetoric: The animosity includes religious undertones, particularly from Iran's leadership, which often frames Israel as an “illegitimate Zionist entity.” This aligns with Iran's role as a Shia Muslim theocracy, positioning itself against Israel, which it portrays as a Western-backed, secular state in the heart of the Islamic Middle East​.
• Ideological Rivalry: Iran’s revolutionary ideology, which opposes Western influence and promotes a model of Islamic governance, is fundamentally at odds with Israel's democratic system and its alliances with the West, particularly the United States​.

2. Geopolitical and Strategic Motivations

• Regional Dominance: Both nations are vying for influence in the Middle East. Iran has expanded its presence in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen through proxy groups like Hezbollah, which is a key part of its “Axis of Resistance” against Israel. Israel, in turn, seeks to curb Iranian influence by countering these proxies and limiting Iran’s reach, particularly near its own borders​.
• Nuclear Ambitions: Iran’s nuclear program adds another layer, as Israel perceives a nuclear-capable Iran as an existential threat. Israel’s preventive measures against this—such as alleged cyber attacks and airstrikes on Iranian assets—reflect a strategic attempt to maintain military superiority in the region​.

3. National Security and Existential Threats

• Mutual Perception as a Threat: Both states view each other as significant threats to their national security. Iran views Israel’s alliance with Western powers, particularly the United States, as a containment strategy aimed at Iran’s isolation. Conversely, Israel sees Iran's support for anti-Israel groups and its military expansion as efforts to encircle and threaten Israel​.

While religion and ideology amplify the tension, the core of the Iran-Israel conflict lies in regional dominance and security concerns. Iran’s support for armed groups in opposition to Israel and its nuclear ambitions challenge Israel’s position, while Israel actively works to counterbalance Iran’s influence. Thus, though religious rhetoric is evident, this rivalry is driven largely by geopolitical strategies and power struggles.

 

Debates Within Iran

Not all Iranians support the government’s antagonistic approach toward Israel. Former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani’s daughter, Faezeh Hashemi, suggested in a 2021 interview that Iran reconsider its relationship with Israel, highlighting that alliances with Russia and China overlook the treatment of Muslims in Chechnya and Xinjiang.

There are still more than 20,000 Jewish residents living in Iran

Sadegh Zibakalam, a political science professor at Tehran University, criticized Iran’s policy on Israel, stating it isolates the country on the international stage.

• Do the Iranian people want war or is this a strategy of the ruling Iranian political party to hold on to power?

The general sentiment among the Iranian people tends to be against war, particularly with Israel or the West. Many Iranians prioritize economic stability, improved living standards, and greater social freedoms, rather than conflict. Polls and studies, while sometimes limited in scope due to restrictions within Iran, indicate that a significant portion of the population seeks reform and wishes for normalized relations with other nations, including the West and neighboring countries, rather than confrontational policies​.

Strategy of the Iranian Political Leadership

Iran’s ruling authorities, particularly hardline factions within the government, use anti-Israel and anti-West rhetoric strategically. This approach serves multiple purposes:

• Maintaining Unity and Control: By emphasizing external threats, Iranian leaders are able to promote a narrative of national solidarity against foreign "enemies," which can help divert attention from domestic issues such as inflation, unemployment, and political repression.
• Legitimizing Their Rule: Iran’s Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guard Corps often portray themselves as protectors of Islamic and Iranian values against Western influence, justifying their power and strict policies as necessary for national security.

Public Sentiment vs. Government Stance

The Iranian public's views frequently contrast with those of their government. For example, during major protests, such as those in 2009 (the Green Movement) and 2019 (economic protests), many Iranians voiced dissatisfaction with their government’s foreign policies, especially its involvement in regional conflicts like those in Syria and Yemen. Economic hardships stemming from sanctions and the government’s military expenditures abroad have also fueled domestic discontent​.

The Iranian government’s stance on regional conflicts and its anti-Israel rhetoric are more likely strategies to consolidate internal control and assert regional influence. Meanwhile, the Iranian populace generally favors peace and economic reform over war. This divide highlights the complexity of Iran's internal politics, where the government’s foreign policy often does not reflect popular opinion.

 

Power Dynamics

Though Iran possesses a vast missile arsenal, including the Shihab series and Zolfaghar missiles, Israel’s advanced technology, missile systems, and defense capabilities (such as the Iron Dome) offer it a robust defense against missile and drone threats.

In terms of conventional military forces, Israel’s technological superiority in air and missile defense surpasses Iran’s, despite Iran's greater population and larger standing army.

The rivalry also extends into cyber warfare, where Israel’s sophisticated digital infrastructure makes it vulnerable to Iran’s increasing cyber capabilities. However, Iran’s defense systems remain less advanced, making its own networks susceptible to counterattacks.

This complex, decades-long enmity continues to shape regional alliances and tensions across the Middle East.

Who Holds More Military Power: Iran or Israel?

The military power dynamics between Iran and Israel are complex, influenced by distance, technological capabilities, and differing defense strategies. Despite the 2,152-kilometer gap, Iran has demonstrated the reach of its missiles, proving significant progress in its missile program.

Iran is home to the Middle East’s largest and most diverse missile program, reportedly possessing over 3,000 ballistic missiles, according to U.S. Central Command’s General Kenneth McKenzie in 2022. On the other hand, Israel’s missile capabilities remain less public, though it is widely recognized as having the most advanced missile stockpile in the region. Over the last six decades, Israel has developed missiles, both domestically and through collaboration with allies, notably the United States, and even exports them. Notable missiles in Israel’s arsenal include the Delilah, Gabriel, Jericho series, and Popeye, among others. Israel's "Iron Dome" defense system, however, stands as a unique asset, effectively intercepting a range of incoming threats, including rockets from Hamas and Hezbollah.

According to Israeli missile defense engineer Uzi Rubin, the Iron Dome is unmatched worldwide, serving as a reliable short-range defense system. Conversely, Iran, a larger nation by both land and population, presents its own advantages. However, comparing these factors alone doesn't directly translate to greater military power. Israel allocates substantial funds to its defense budget—nearly $24 billion compared to Iran's $10 billion—enhancing its technological and defensive superiority.

While Iran has approximately 610,000 active military personnel, significantly more than Israel's 170,000, Israel excels in advanced technology and air force capabilities, boasting 241 fighter jets and 48 attack helicopters compared to Iran's 186 jets and 13 helicopters. Iran has focused heavily on missile and drone capabilities, producing both short- and long-range options. These have occasionally appeared in regional conflicts, including missile strikes attributed to Iranian support in Yemen.

Key missiles in Iran's inventory include the Shihab series, capable of up to 2,000 kilometers, and the Zolfaghar, which can target at ranges up to 700 kilometers. Recently, Iran added the Fateh-110 hypersonic missile with a range of 300-500 kilometers, marking advancements in its missile technology. Yet, while Iran has launched hundreds of missiles, Israel’s history of guerrilla operations on foreign soil showcases a tactical edge.

In terms of cyber warfare, both nations engage heavily, though Israel’s advanced digital infrastructure presents vulnerabilities against Iran's cyber capabilities, balancing the technological disparities with cyber strategies. This sophisticated and multifaceted rivalry between Iran and Israel thus spans missile technology, military budgets, and the shadowy domain of cyber defense, shaping their regional standoff.

 

Can Watching a Film Change Political Beliefs?

We forget what we read in books.

But!
We are often reminded of movies.
The screams are remembered,
Does the movie leave such a deep impression On the us?

Brief History of Film-making

Film making began in the late 19th century with inventors like Thomas Edison and the Lumière brothers, who created early motion picture cameras and projectors. In 1895, the Lumières presented some of the first public screenings of short films in Paris, an event considered the birth of cinema. As technology evolved, so did film techniques, with the introduction of sound in the 1920s, color in the 1930s, and, much later, digital cinematography in the 21st century. Today, films range from blockbusters to indie productions, shaping culture and storytelling across the world.

A Brief on Film’s Story, Characters, and Emotions

A film's story generally follows a narrative arc, presenting conflicts and resolutions that reveal characters’ depth and growth. Characters are designed to engage audiences on an emotional level, often embodying relatable struggles, virtues, and flaws. Films typically evoke a range of emotions—joy, sorrow, fear, anticipation—that connect viewers to the story, helping them experience different lives, cultures, and perspectives. Emotional connections with characters often enhance the impact of the storyline, making viewers feel more engaged and invested.

Role of Emotions in Film

Emotions are a film’s primary tool for connecting with the audience. They help communicate themes, build tension, and deliver meaningful messages. For instance, a well-crafted drama may evoke empathy, while a thriller may stir suspense or fear. By carefully controlling the emotional flow through lighting, music, dialogue, and cinematography, filmmakers can guide viewers’ feelings and attitudes. This emotional journey is central to a film's impact, as it shapes how audiences interpret the story and respond to its message.

How Does a Film Affect a Person?

Films can impact people psychologically and emotionally, sometimes even altering their views and attitudes. Emotional experiences in film allow viewers to "live" the story, fostering empathy or challenging beliefs. This can lead to shifts in personal attitudes, especially regarding societal issues, justice, and interpersonal relationships. By immersing people in scenarios outside their own experiences, films can promote greater understanding, empathy, and sometimes even action.

 

Can Watching a Film Change Political Beliefs?

A recent scientific study suggests that viewing a documentary about a wrongfully convicted individual can foster empathy toward prisoners and increase support for reforms in the U.S. criminal justice system.

The documentary, Just Mercy, recounts the story of Walter McMillian, a 45-year-old African American man from Alabama who was arrested in 1986 for a murder he did not commit. Although McMillian was innocent—he was at a family gathering during the crime—he was sentenced based on false testimony from an eyewitness. Before his conviction was overturned, McMillian spent six years on death row. This true story was adapted into a documentary in 2019 under the title Just Mercy, with Academy Award-winning actor Jamie Foxx portraying McMillian.

Since the 1890s, when the first moving images were introduced, filmmakers have sought to shift public perceptions and moral values through cinema. Now, American scientists have studied the effects of film on empathy and attitudes toward the justice system, exploring how watching a movie can alter an individual's emotional intelligence and ethical stance on criminal justice.

This study, published in the journal PNAS on October 21, revealed that viewing a documentary about the wrongful sentencing and eventual release of an inmate heightened viewers' empathy toward prisoners and increased support for justice system reforms.

Marianne Reddan, a professor at Stanford University and co-author of the study, noted, "[Our study] shows that the film allowed participants to see the world from another’s perspective, even when that individual faced societal stigma. This shift in perspective wasn’t just a fleeting reaction."

Reddan further explained, "This research highlights the importance of exposing people to experiences vastly different from their own, as it contributes to building healthier communities and fostering a robust political framework."

The study recorded an increase in empathy for incarcerated men among viewers of the film, an effect observed across participants with varying political affiliations, whether leaning left or right.

Film, Emotions, and Societal Polarization

Jussi Knaus-Bajow, a film studies researcher at the University of Jyväskylä in Finland, remarked, "The novelty of this study lies in its exploration of how films can alter viewers' perceptions and behaviors—especially how a film like Just Mercy can act as a ‘call to action.’"

The idea that a film can change minds isn’t new. According to Knaus-Bajow, "Filmmakers are like wizards; they have been experimenting with the impact of editing and cinematic techniques on viewers’ perceptions and emotions since the early days of cinema."

British filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock conducted a famous experiment that illustrates this effect: in one scene, a woman with a child is shown, followed by a man smiling, conveying a sense of kindness. In another scene, the same man is shown smiling after a shot of a woman in a bikini, which instead suggests lust.

Knaus-Bajow explains that filmmakers frequently play with this knowledge because films offer a unique, safe environment where viewers can experience unfamiliar emotions. However, this power also places a responsibility on filmmakers regarding their influence over audiences.

Using Just Mercy as an example, Knaus-Bajow describes how it was deployed as a tool to inspire progressive change in the justice system.

On the other hand, he warns, filmmakers can also incite antagonism or hatred, as propaganda films have long been used to dehumanize groups, justify violence or war, and promote false narratives or pseudoscience.

 

Has Film Been Used for Ideological or Political Propaganda?

Yes, film has frequently been used as a medium for ideological and political propaganda. Governments, organizations, and filmmakers have often used film to influence public opinion, from the early days of cinema up to the present. For example, during World War II, both Allied and Axis powers created propaganda films to bolster patriotism and demonize enemies. In more modern times, films still reflect and sometimes promote political agendas or ideologies, shaping how audiences view various social and political issues.