Hi! I just wrote this DBQ for my online APWH class, but I really do not know how well I did as yet. One thing I am especially worried about is how to group the documents (do I actually have to devote a few sentences to saying “Doc 1,2,and 3 are all about blah blah blah” and “Doc 4,5,6 are about blah blah blah”?, or can I just do what I did below?) Thanks!</p>
[[Analyze the issues that twentieth-century Muslim leaders in South Asia and North Africa confronted in defining their nationalism. What additional kind of document(s) would be most helpful in furthering your analysis?
Historical Background: In 1947 British-controlled South Asia was partitioned to form the Islamic state of Pakistan and the secular state of India. In North Africa, Egypt gained partial independence from Great Britain in 1922, but the British kept control of the Suez Canal until 1954. Algeria gained independence from France in 1962.]]</p>
<pre><code>The early 20th century was truly an era of independence, especially for nations such as India, and Egypt. Indeed, after decades of occupation by European power, Great Britain, India and Egypt were finally granted independence to deal with their own affairs—for the most part. Several factors prevented this independence from being absolute, making a true sense of independence and nationalism for Muslim countries a significant challenge. Indeed, the confusion as to whether or not to adopt some European culture, Britain’s insistence in maintaining control of many aspects of Muslim nations, and the very fact that “tribalism” between different Muslim sects existed, were all contributing factors to the difficulty presented to Muslim leaders attempting to define their nationalism.
As an imperialistic power, Great Britain’s penchant for imposing its culture upon the countries it overtook is scattered throughout the pages of history. This case is certainly no less so for Muslim nations, especially since centuries-long disputes between the Europeans’ Christian religion often caused Muslims and Europeans to “lock heads”. However, confusion raged in these countries as to whether or not adopting some British reforms would undermine Islamic culture, or simply enrich it After all, even in the case of the differing religions, some Muslims admitted that the Christian religion had, in some ways, “helped shape our [Muslim] history”, and helped “draw the contours of the world today…”(Doc 6) . This dilemma is best presented in the case of a battle as to whether or not to adopt a British system of education into the Indian education system, where many Muslim leaders held that doing so would destroy Islamic culture. Others, however, felt that, “…The adoption of the new system of education does not mean the renunciation of Islam. It means its protection…”(Doc 1), concerting that to reject such European innovations in the sciences would be “ suicidal” for Islamic culture to remain relevant. In short, Muslim leaders were forever involved in a battle between being, “beset by religious superstitions, prejudices, and stagnancy”, or being , “ caught in atheism, imitation of the West, and love of power and position.” (Doc 3).
This fear of becoming obsolete may be considered justified, when one observes the ways in which European nations, namely England, insisted on maintaining control over many political and social affairs of Muslim nations to their own ends, making nationalism difficult. For example, instead of allowing Indian Muslim leaders to develop a discourse with Indian Hindu leaders over conflicts between the two religions, England instead forced the division of India, and consequent creation of the Islamic state, Pakistan (possibly the better to exert influence, and therefore gain economic power within the nascent country). One may also cite England’s refusal to relinquish control of the Suez Canal, a move which remained a thorn in the side of Egyptian Muslim leaders, who understood that they could never truly possess any sense of nationalism in their countries sans full control of their own affairs. And, they were willing to use military might, if necessary, to achieve these ends, as detailed by Egyptian nationalist, Taha Husayn (Doc 4): “ We want to be like the European nations in military power in order to repel the attack of any aggressor…We also need economic independence…independent of Europe and America.”
</code></pre>
They understood, though, that complete independence could only be achieved through nationalism—not simply nationalism between Muslims within one country, but also between Muslims of other nations, and even non-Muslims of the same country. When India faced its dilemma concerning the conflicts between Muslims and Hindus, its response was to simply cordon off Muslims, separating the two cultures, causing a blow to Indian nationalism. In the same way, the divisions within Islam, mainly between Shi’ites and Sunnis, made it increasingly difficult for both groups to identify with being parts of one whole: Muslims, and citizens of their countries. The founder of the Egyptian People’s Party, Ahmad Lutfi as-Sayyid, wrote that these divisions had “…no reason to exist”, and should, instead, be replaced with, “…a clearly defined sense of fatherland…n ationalism.” (Doc 2). As-Sayyid then goes on to denounce these “ conflicting associations” within Islam, and encourages Muslims to simply think of themselves as citizens of their own countries (in his case, as citizens of Egypt). With such “conflicting associations”, however, Muslim leaders continued to have a difficult time promoting nationalism between their people.</p>
<pre><code> In short, Muslim leaders were hard-pressed to establish a sense of nationalism within their countries, among Muslim people, faced with a decision about whether or not to incorporate European culture into their own, control of national affairs by foreign nations, and divisions within Islam itself which threatened to undermine the people’s sense of nationalism. Even today, these aspects remain within Islamic culture, and Muslim leaders still face a tremendous dilemma in establishing nationalism between their people.
In order to further expand one's knowledge and scope of such issues defining the Muslim leader's struggle in promoting nationalism, a document from the point of view of a British, or otherwise European official, may be necessary. Indeed, such a document would offer primary source insight into the rationale offered by European leaders as to why exerting influence over these Muslim nations was considered necessary.
</code></pre>