“Tangos de la Repompa” by Las Migas, performed here with Bravata Dance Group, offers a vivid blend of traditional flamenco with subtle Middle Eastern echoes. The song’s intense tangos rhythm, layered with intricate guitar and passionate vocals, draws on the Phrygian scale and vocal ornamentation rooted in flamenco’s Andalusian and Arabic heritage. Bravata’s choreography heightens this fusion, combining flamenco’s grounded, percussive steps with flowing, almost hypnotic arm movements that call back to Middle Eastern dance forms.

Composed by Mohhamed Abdel Wahab, arranged by Ali Ismael, and Ahmad Shafik Kamal, this song was created to celebrate the formation United Arab Republic and in a wider sense is an anthem to pan-Arabism as a whole. I’ve liked the song in the past and thought it would connect nicely with the wider political movement of pan-Arabism which we’ve talked a bit about in class.

Translated lyrics can be found online if you’d like to see them and additionally this same recording can be found on Youtube in translated lyric videos if searched on Youtube.

Let me try to share a few ideas and notes to help you digest the fascinating and insightful lecture by Praveen Swami on the history of postcolonial India.

On Monday, we surveyed some of the factors that shaped South Asia in antiquity, in the early modern period, in the colonial period, and up to independence and partition in 1947. Swami shared a set of (true) stories to help us understand the challenges of nation-making in contemporary India from 1947 forward.

As an introduction

This is a story of nation making, but under difficult and unpromising circumstances. Modern India is often celebrated as the world’s largest democracy. But… it is a project to create a nation where none existed. The societies of British India were multiple and varied and not easily assimilated as one.

And in the backdrop of the modern story, because it is fundamental to the contemporary history of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh – we have to recognize the violence of the partition in 1947.

The stories that he offered were stories from the periphery, but they shine light on the heart of the project.

1) The example of Jammu and Kashmir, which posed a particular dilemma. It had a Hindu ruler and a Muslim majority. Would it become part of India? Or Pakistan? Or cling to independence. You know the story now. Under pressure from Pakistan, in 1947, the Maharajah would agree to accede to the new state of India, but with guarantees for the respect of a distinct Kashmir identity

And you heard about the story of Sheik Mohammed Abdullah, the Muslim leader of Kashmir who was sympathetic to the social ideals of Jawaharlal Nehru and India

Radio sets of Kashmir that could only tune in to the official news of Radio Kashmir.

And the promise of a modern socialist utopia, that would bring education, land reform, and modern technologies to Kashmir… with a devil’s bargain, that required ignoring democracy and the popular will of Kashmiris. And so Sheikh Abdullah was arrested and ultimately Kashmiri autonomy and special dispensations would be limited.

In the 1980s and 1990s, as Islamist separatist movements have used techniques of terrorism, Indian state has struck back. It has been in stalemate since 2019.

A question of the modern nation. Note that the first maps of British India didn’t identify the borders of Kashmir. Partition created arbitrary borders. But in time, these borders would shape experience and identities.

The point: nationhood is malleable. Territorial sovereignty is a modern idea. But it is one that has produced remarkable violence.

2) Another story – a small village in east of India near the Myanmar border (I need to check the name). Villagers ordered by the Indian military to burn their own village and relocate. And then, when they refused, their village was burned and they were forceably relocated by the Indian military.

After three generations, it is a forgotten example of the use of force in the making of the nation.

3) Hyderabad. Reverse of Kashmir. Muslim ruler and Hindu majority. Also with a peasant insurgency demanding land reform. Remained independent in 1947. What would happen to this state? Indian Army moved against Maharajah and against peasant insurgents to control the region and bring it into modern India. Tactics included torture, ethnic cleansing, and mass violence.

In these actions, the Indian state and Indian military – especially in the 1950s – drew on tactics it had learned from the British anti-colonial campaigns in Malaya and Kenya.

The principle was a simple one – to “win hearts and minds.” In practice this was a euphemism for mass violence and ethnic cleansing. And Indian troops participated. See the Malayan Emergency. Or the attempts to put down the Mau-Mau Rebellion. See, for example, the work of the historian Carol Elkins, who has revealed the hidden story of colonial violence.

The Indian government and army used these same tactics – tactics left behind by the British.

In Conclusion

For Swami, from the point of view of 2024, the choices that the Indian govt made in the 1950s – relocations, bombings, torture, ethnic cleansing – are repugnant. The story of these events is often forgotten and lost – we need to save these stories and understand them.

Need to understand this history of violence that is tied to the modern nation-state.

In class on Wednesday (10/2) we discussed East Asia following the Second World War. This time period was heavily focused on rebuilding the area as they moved from Empires to Nations. Professor Bonk highlighted three sections: Reparation and Remaining, Redrawing Boundaries, and Rewriting History. The division of land was the main topic in class and in our reading by Alexia Dudden. Empires were focused on expansion and the centering of one major city, but with the transformation into nations we see a change to common identity as the most important aspect. This change was the reason land disputes were so apparent. In 1952 in the San Fransisco Treaty we see the disagreements and the loss of some territories on Japans end, this is just one example of the controversies between new nations on who gets what land.

What I found most interesting about this time period is the rewriting of history. Often these nations aim to erase their offenses and paint themselves as the victim. This can be seen with the Japanese peace parks that aim to show a sanitized version of the war, erasing their own faults from the narrative. I find it fascinating that through erasure and propaganda a nation and its government has the ability to rewrite history and often times get away with it.

A couple details from Wikipedia:

“Ue o Muite Arukō” was written by lyricist Rokusuke Ei and composer Hachidai Nakamura. The lyrics tell the story of a man who looks up and whistles while he is walking so that his tears will not fall, with the verses describing his memories and feelings. Ei wrote the lyrics while walking home from participating in the 1960 Anpo protests against the U.S.–Japan Security Treaty, expressing his frustration and dejection at the failed efforts to stop the treaty. However, the lyrics were purposely generic so that they might refer to any lost love….

The song spent three weeks at the top of the American Billboard charts in June 1963. It has been described as a metaphor for the emerging post-World War II global expansion of Japan onto the world scene.

Today we discussed many aspects of Asian history, focusing on East Asia around 1800. Professor Bonk covered a number of powers, events, and relevant history contributing to the broader concepts of our course. In particular, one interesting focus was Beijing. A central player in this time period, the city was referred to as “the forbidden city.” This was related to the city’s careful approach to allowing people in and out. 

The average Chinese person was not allowed and citizens were forced to live south of the city. Even officials were to live elsewhere. This was a manifestation of Manchu power which was particularly relevant given the emergence of the Qing dynasty. The group used Beijing as a symbol of power and was seen as sacred. By controlling access to the city, they emphasized the importance of the ruling elite and reinforced their control. This maintained hierarchical structure was used to maintain their structure and control. 

This Monday we learned about East Asia in the time before and leading into the 20th century, covering the Qing and Choson dynasties as well as the Tokugawa era of Japan. This time period aimed to give insight into recent developments in East Asia, focusing on internal developments to counter the idea of development occurring because of increasing interactions with the West. One such development contributing to the growth of these empires is that of centering.

Centering refers to the pattern of great importance being placed on capital cities in these empires. In the Qing Empire, officials would make a trip to Beijing at least every three years to complete their examinations. In the Choson Empire, officials would travel to Seoul to participate in examinations similar to those of the Qing dynasty. Finally, in Tokugawa Japan, the daimyos, each ruling over their own domain, would have to travel to and live in Edo every other year. Due to this system, it was beneficial for a daimyo to rule a domain closer to Edo and thus the Shogun would place daimyos related by blood closest, and those who were enemies of the shogun would be placed furthest.

In Monday’s class session, we examined the African continent broadly, discussing Africa’s contentious role in world history. To better understand Africa’s role in the world, it is important to identify the perspective in which we are learning. Examples of the two “extremes” of these views are Eurocentric and Afrocentric perspectives. This Eurocentric view implies that Africa played a minor role in world history and that the European Enlightenment was responsible for creating the modern world.

Afrocentrism is the worldview that is centered around Africa and the African people. It also stresses the idea that the world and humankind descend from African origins. Dr. Ibra Sene also spoke about the notion that before the “modern era” and the Enlightenment, Africa was not seen as different. Africa, Asia, and Europe were all interrelated and were connected through things like trade and religion. Another significant development for Africa was the African Slave Trade or the Triangular Trade. Dr. Sene spoke about the fact that many parts of the Americas were created through the African Slave Trade, including several well-known colleges and universities.

Overall, we learned that the history of Africa is much too deep and complex to be able to grasp in one lesson, but we can begin to understand the implications of Euro-focused perspectives on Africa and develop a nuanced view.

This Monday we explored Africa’s ‘contentious’ role in world history. Before the transatlantic African slave trade, Africa was viewed as contiguous with the rest of the world. For instance, the Trans-Saharan Trade connected sub-Saharan Africa to the Mediterranean and west Asia. Additionally, Arabic script would be used to transcribe and record many African languages. The European Age of Discovery would come to redefine Africa from being large, complex, and diverse to being ‘uncivilized’ and immature.

Despite Africa’s active role in the premodern world, enlightenment scholars wrote off Africa’s historical significance as being both minor and isolated. These scholars wrote about Africa in a vacuum, historicizing its place in the world as being subordinate. Professor Ibra Sene explained that the Eurocentric frameworks we use to study civilizations are biased by the European model of civilization. For example, early Enlightenment historians like Hegel viewed history as a study of written documents. Africa has a rich history of civilizations that do not use written script which automatically excluded them from being viewed and studied as ‘civilized.’ In addition, influential historians narrowly analyzed world history as simply a continuation of certain races and civilizations. The fault in this thinking is its teleological and exclusionary basis as it presumes that Europe is the height of civilization and that ‘development’ is not a trans-regional phenomenon, being exclusive to Europe and those it deems civilized.

In our class on September 18th, Professor Michele Leiby, a political science professor from this college who also specializes in Latin American politics, came to class discuss the history of Latin American politics in the later half of the 20th Century as well as answer some of our questions about the politics of Latin America.  She started with answering our questions on the politics of Latin America, which covered various subjects such as political polarization, violence, and similarities to U.S. politics.  Afterwards, she went over two former Authoritarian regimes in Latin America, Pinochet’s Chile and Fujimori’s Peru.

In regards to Chile, we learned that President Allende, who from 1970 to 1973 tried to introduce healthcare reforms and nationalize industries, was overthrown by General Augusto Pinochet, who was aided by the U.S..  Pinochet’s authoritarian rule from 1974 to 1990 involved government spending being cut, tariffs getting lowered, the re-privatizing of nationalized companies, the privatization of various government services, having millions of dollars earned from copper directed towards fighting the dirty war, and the execution of 20,000 to 30,000 people by the government for dissenting.  Even after Pinochet’s ousting from office and subsequent return of democracy to Chile, many scars, both political and societal, from the former regime remain in Chile to this day.