Why Did Decolonisation Bring About a New Wave of Extreme Violence?

Decolonisation began in 1776 when the United States of America declared independence from the British Empire, but truly took hold after the Second World War ended in Europe in 1945. As part of the 1941 Atlantic Charter and under the newly formed United Nations commission, states were encouraged to declare independence and restore the self-governance that had been lost during colonisation. This essay defines decolonisation as a form of domination, involving military, political, economic, cultural and psychological subjugation of a states population. Additionally, the term ‘New Wave’ in the context of the question will be interpreted as conflicts beginning after the end of colonisation or because of colonial influences as well as the term ‘extreme violence’ meaning any and all loss of life through the aforementioned conflicts. This essay aims to argue that the new wave of violence that came about after the end of decolonisation was caused by a vacuum of national identity within the nation states that formed after imperial influence ended due to oppressive colonial influence over how cultures under their domain developed while colonised. Through religious, political and economic struggles after decolonisation began, the recurring trend of violence can arguably be linked to a lack of nationalism and that in a sense decolonisation was a trigger for this lack of national community within colonised states to resolved through violence.Religious and cultural norms develop within a nation over decades of natural progression. Foreign influences often have major impacts on how religions cement themselves within a society, like in the case of secularism across Europe spreading through political enlightenment and popular acceptance of a separation between church and state. Britain’s invasion and consequent colonial rule in India meant that instead of a natural development of religious norm or co-existence between separate religious communities, the oppressive arm of Christianity was brought into India, suppressing the need for a solid relationship the be formed between the existing Muslim, Hindu and Sikh people of India. Direct action day (16 August 1946) also known as the partition of India was overseen by foreign affairs minister Cyril Radcliffe who was tasked with quantifying religious presence in each region of the country, as well as cross referencing this with existing railways and irrigation channels. This involved dividing communities by percentage of religious presence as well as considering how existing railways and irrigation channels would fair on each side of the border. Ayesha Jalal et all argues that it was the structural difficulties that existed in India before partition that would have ultimately led to a partition regardless of British intervention[1]. While this thought encompasses the complicated geopolitical problems that India faced during colonialism, it fails to address the cultural impact that dividing a country would have on its citizens.
[1] Ayesha Jalal and Sugata Bose, Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy (London, 2004), ch. 16 ‘The Partition of India and the Creation of Pakistan’.