1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Lisa [10]
4 years ago
9

The British Parliament divided the Indian sub-continent into two nations in 1947. This was a result of

History
2 answers:
rjkz [21]4 years ago
6 0
<span>religious divisions between Hindus and Muslims on the Indian sub-continent</span>
riadik2000 [5.3K]4 years ago
6 0

Answer:

The British Parliament divided the Indian sub-continent into two nations in 1947. This was a result of religious tensions between Hindus and Muslims in the territory of India.

Explanation:

In 1947, British India was divided into two States: India and Pakistan. The founder of Pakistan, Mohamed Ali Jinnah, and his party, the Muslim League, had first demanded autonomy for the Muslim majority areas in India, and only subsequently demanded a separate state. Jinnah believed that Hindus and Muslims could not coexist and that they were "different nations."

The partition of British India was extremely violent. After the division of India and Pakistan, there were bloody riots in many western areas, mainly in Punjab. Historians maintain that more than one million people died in the fighting and millions more were forced to leave their homes.

India and Pakistan clashed over Kashmir as early as 1948. This region, with a Muslim majority, was ruled by a Hindu leader. But Jinnah wanted it to be part of Pakistan. Indian troops prevailed in combat and took control of most of the valley, while Pakistan occupied a smaller area. The struggle for Kashmir continues.

You might be interested in
What two groups fought for control over russia during the russian civil war?
rjkz [21]
The White Army (anti-communist) and the Red Army (communist) fought each other.
6 0
4 years ago
How did Hoover's and Roosevelt's approaches to handling the Great Depression differ?
Snezhnost [94]

Roosevelt believed that the government had to step in to resolve the problems brought about by the Depression.  Hoover felt that it was the people should be the ones who must solve this.  Though he did launch some programs, it was not enough.  The problem was too big and Roosevelt felt that it was time for government to help solve the crisis.

8 0
4 years ago
What were the longer term effects for the Black Death?????
liubo4ka [24]
The long-term effects of the Black Death were huge; in fact, the Plague was one of the most significant events in human history. By most estimates, the plague killed around 60% of the ENTIRE population of Europe, and in just a few years. 

The result of all this death was the Renaissance and, ultimately, the development of the modern world. Before the plague, most of Europe was feudal, meaning that aristocrats owned huge pieces of land, and serfs worked that land in exchange for being allowed to live on it. But the deaths of so many people meant that there were no longer enough serfs to sustain this system. The few workers who were left alive could now asked to be PAID for their work in money.

With so many people suddenly having cash in their pockets, markets started springing up to sell goods to these people. This basically meant that capitalism was born.

Another consequence was that there was a much greater need for technology to replace all the labor that was lost when so many people died. European technology advanced much more rapidly than it had before, and brought a lot of lifestyle changes with it. These lifestyle changes also shaped the way people thought about themselves and the world, which produced further changes in art, literature, culture, and religion.

TLDR: Tons of people died, resulting in capitalism, the Renaissance, and modernity.
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which city was the capital of an allied power during world war 2?
fiasKO [112]
London is the capital of the United Kingdom
6 0
3 years ago
Bloody sunday was an event during the revolution of 1917. true or false
expeople1 [14]
The statement "<span>Bloody Sunday was an event during the revolution of 1917." is False. In fact, the Bloody Sunday happened during the revolution of 1905. It was a series of events taking place in St. Petersburg, Russia where protesters which are mostly civilians were killed and bombed.</span>
8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Is china α state? pleasee help i’m so dumbb
    13·2 answers
  • Which egyptian king exerted his authority over the nubians through monumental structures such as his rock-cut temple at abu simb
    14·1 answer
  • When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no lib
    11·2 answers
  • Why was George McClellan important at this time of the civil war.
    11·1 answer
  • What did Love (Eros) create?
    14·1 answer
  • The UN best fulfills one of its purposes, that of ending global poverty, by promoting
    15·2 answers
  • How use of common currency (money) and trade routes helped Romans succeed in trade.
    14·1 answer
  • Which area was settled mostly by entire faminies
    7·1 answer
  • Explain how a stock market crash might contribute to a nationwide economic disaster.
    10·1 answer
  • How did Pontius Pilate violate the religious beliefs of the Jews in Rome?
    6·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!