GIVING BRAINLIEST !!!&&' 12 points !

What connections did you make this week between the ancient history of Pakistan and the Partition of Pakistan and India? How are

charle [14.2K]

Answer:

The subcontinent in Asia:

Before, the year 1947 for many centuries the different communities of Sikh, Hindu, and Muslims along with many others lived together in the south Asia region called as the Subcontinent India. It was a diverse place to live in, and from many centuries they lived together. As before the British invasion of the region, and the construction of the British India Company for trade purposes, there was the Mughal empire. And before that many other imperial dynasties were there to rule this vast region of multicultural places.

Divide and rule policy:

When the last viceroy of the British empire went back to England, he came to know that England is not in the position to hold off the rebels in the region, as there were campaign been run across the region against the British rule. So, they decided to let the Sub-continent be divided into small regions or countries, and after that they will be vulnerable to be ruled by the British empire at that time. As for that reason Pakistan and India came to being after the 1947 agreement was reached between the parties.

Sharing the same culture and history:

There are people in the Pakistani region who have Indian ancestors and some of the Indians have there linkage to the people in Pakistan. As before the division happened they were all but one. As they share the same history, most of the languages and culture. So, they are very much alike in there way of life.

Importance of India and Pakistan:

Before, the division happened all the people in the region worked for the same cause to get rid of the British rule and be free. As they lived together for centuries sharing the same natural resources and having the same identity as the other. So, after the division happened there were many issues among the both the country's ruling governments. And on some of the occasions it went so badly that war happened.

However, now a days they are both economic power houses and share a strategic position in the globe.

8 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Según David Ricardo, el proceso productivo no es un proceso natural ya que la naturaleza no es generosa con el hombre, a no ser

Nonamiya [84]

Answer:

Según David Ricardo, el proceso productivo no es un proceso natural ya que la naturaleza no es generosa con el hombre, a no ser que este la convierta en productiva y la adecue a sus intereses. En otras palabras, la renta surgía en un país no a causa de la liberalidad de la naturaleza sino de la avaricia, por lo tanto, la riqueza implicaba la pobreza de unos y el enriquecimiento de otros. Lo anterior significa que la acumulación de capital no es el nacimiento de una nueva riqueza sino el empobrecimiento de otros, porque LO QUE GANABAN LOS TERRATENIENTES EN LA TIERRA LO PERDÍAN QUIENES TRABAJABAN EN ELLA.

Explanation:

David Ricardo fue un economista británico. Quizás su contribución más importante a la ciencia económica fue la ley de la ventaja comparativa, un argumento fundamental a favor del libre comercio entre países. Ricardo argumentó que el comercio (o intercambio) era beneficioso para ambas partes involucradas, incluso si una de las partes (por ejemplo, un país rico en recursos) era más productivo en cada área que su socio comercial (por ejemplo, un país pobre en recursos), siempre que ambas partes se concentraran en eso actividades donde tenían una ventaja relativa de productividad.

Ahora bien, estas ventajas no eran equitativamente distribuidas entre sus productores a distintos niveles: según su teoría de la renta diferencial, la renta de la producción económica se distribuía de forma desigual, siendo mayor para quien menos producía (el terrateniente), mientras el trabajador, que era el principal productor de riqueza, recibía una pequeña porción de esta. De esta forma, Ricardo interpretaba la renta de la tierra como el principal factor de riqueza de su época.

4 0

3 years ago

1.) What argument does Carnegie make about the uses to which the great fortunes of industrialists should be devoted?

romanna [79]

Here is the answer of the given question above. The argument that Carnegie makes about the uses to to which the great fortunes of industrialists should be devoted is that he argued that the wealthy must live modestly and make use of their fortunes for the elevation of all civilization. Hope this answer helps.

8 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Why did Andrew Johnson not want to secede from the union

UNO [17]

Andrew Johnson was the only one in Tennessee who was staying loyal to the north

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Distance

wlad13 [49]

Answer: Established their own representative institutions of government

Explanation:

The American Colonies had representative Government even before they got independence from Great Britain. This was due to the presence of certain factors that promulgated their need.

Three such factors included; the distance of the colonies from Britain, the need for a Law-making structure and the traditional rights of Englishmen. The Colonies were separated from Britain by the Atlantic Ocean which made British rule and laws harder to enforce.

The British had also been very lenient in the rule of the colonies which meant that the Colonies had to come up with their own laws to be able to function. As Englishmen with the right to representation and liberty therefore, they came up with their own representative Governments.

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers