A Comparison : Modern History of India and South Korea after Independence


Korean Minjok Leadership Academy
BEW



Table of Contents


Dec. 4th 2008
Oct. 24th 2008
Oct. 24th 2008
Oct. 24th 2008



December 4th 2008 . . . go to Student's Log

(1) However, after Crown rule Kolkata was stolen of its capital status by Delhi
This reads like the emotional statement of a Kolkata local patriot. Better : Upon the establishment of India as a Crown Colony, Kolkata was derived of its status as capital, which now was Delhi. Keep in mind : this decision was made by Britons, not the city of Delhi.
(2) Later at its peak, it annexed the princely states of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab in India, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh and portions of Chhatisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra in present day India, including the provinces of North West Frontier and Punjab in Pakistan, and Myanmar.
Uttar Pradesh exists since 1947, Chhatisgarh since 2000, Haryana since 1966, Myanmar since 1989. To take the names of modern administrative units and apply them for a period 150 years before they came into existence is, from an intellectual point of view, irresponsible. Besides, if we would interpret your usage of these names as "the princely states of what is today ..." it still would be incorrect as a good number of princely states, in the aforesaid areas, were not annexed by the E.I.C. See map on these pages http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/punjab1909small.gif, http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/haxuttarpradesh.html, http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/haxbihar.html
(3) The Bengal province stretched over 189,000 square miles
Remember Mr. Riesman and his research on what KMLA does to preserve Korean national identity in our students ? Well, the sources you use, if historical or written by U.S. Americans, and therefore use the Imperial system (miles). But neither the Republic of India nor the Republic of Korea does. I can not accept you automatically assuming your reader is a U.S. citizen, and everybody else is the exception; it is the U.S. which is the exception. You use Kolkata instead of Calcutta, Dhaka instead of Dacca, so you are sensitive to the Indian & Bangladeshi desire to decolonize their history.
You may keep the information in Imperial measurements, but should add the figure in metric in brackets.
(4) Kolkata, Dhaka - the first time you use these names, explain in an endnote that the reader might know the place as Calcutta respectively Dacca.
(5) Quote Risley : give a reference (note)
(6) The two parts of Bengal were reunited in 1911, but the non-Bengali portions of the province were separated, creating two additional provinces; Bihar and Orissa, and Assam. The administrative capital of British India was moved from Calcutta to New Delhi.
The move of the capital took place in 1911 ? I assumed 1858. Give a reference in a note.
(7) Quote Nawab - no reference. give a note
(8) Please use spelling Sindh instead of Sind. check here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindh
(9) supported by Indian Muslim students in England, who were the first to use the name Pakistan: land of the pure, from the Urdu pak, =pure and stan, =land..
That is one possible explanation. Another : P (Punjab), K (Kashmir), S (Sindh), stan = land; remember languages written in the Arab alphabet skip most of the vowels.
(10) Quote Wavell - no reference. give a note
(11) I don't like your usage of notes. None of the notes provides me with useful information, as I regard what you write there as general knowledge. If you dispute that position, it would make more sense to refer to the respective Wikipedia articles. Do NOT expect your readers to be ignorant high school students; write for educated, interested readers. Notes primarily serve to refer to sources (with short titles and specific page numbers).
(12) Overall comment : a nice piece of work. I always knew that once you sit down and get to work, you can accomplish a serious analysis in quite short time. I hope that you find the time to complete the India section; the comparison with Korea would be nice to have, but seems unrealistic given the schedule you face. We could proceed the following : give a detailed narrative of events as they unfolded in India, and in an analytical conclusion compare India and Korea, without the basis of an equally detailed narrative of the Korean case.



October 24th 2008 . . . go to Student's Log

(1) Quote Ewon : Unlike many parts of India, in Kolkata people greeted me by saying "Assalam allai kum" instead of "Namastey". I was intrigued by the strong Bengali population
To mr. ganse- they say they partitioned because of inefficient administrative, but then how did they administrate further regions? After all , Calcutta is a part of Bengal.
I was under the impression, every resident of Calcutta was Bengali.
(2) Perhaps you want to define Bengal before you narrate the partition. The British had divided British India (direct rule) into 3 presidencies - those of Bombay, Madras and Bengal. At one time, the Punjab had been part of the Bengal Presidency. Just named after the nucleus of British rule in the area, it was not an area where the inhabitants spoke one and the same language, although the Bengali-speaking people almost exclusively lived in it and Calcutta was the administrative center.
(3) No notes.




October 24th 2008 . . . go to Student's Log

(1) Your table of contents is indicating the rather ambitious nature of your project. Last year Sim, Chi-Kyu undertook writing a similar paper. The result is impressive; however it took him a year to get there; length 83 pages.
The chapter you wrote about the partition of Bengal - important information, but if you are that specific I wonder if, within the limited time left, you even can get to the date of Indian independence.
(2) This ambitious scope of the project disregards the Pakistani & North Korean side of the story. You need to explain your choice of countries in the introduction; that is if you get to the point of writing it.



October 24th 2008 . . . go to Student's Log

(1) Note that your bibliography does not contain any titles on the history of Korea.
(2) Missing :
Surjit Mansingh, Historical Dictionary of India, New Delhi : Vision Books (1998) 2005
S.J. Burki, Historical Dictionary of Pakistan, Lanham MD : 2nd edition Scarecrow 2003
Christophe Jaffrelot (ed.), A History of Pakistan and its Origins, translated from the French, London : Anthem Press (2002) 2004
C. Baxter & E. Rahman, Historical Dictionary of Bangladesh, Lanham Md. : Scarecrow 1996
Banglapedia