when minorities have had enough

by frederiqueforget on April 1, 2014 - 4:31pm

Even if our world community is separated into many countries, it is known that not every country is homogenous. Indeed, many countries contain more than one nation, which means that people in the country do not share all share a common language, history, religion, ethnicity and culture. For instance, in Canada, French are separated from English. Another example that can be given is India, which has always been separated into Muslim and Hindus. Even if these two examples seem alike on the surface, they present many differences when we take a deeper look at them. Firstly, the conditions of French Canadians and Hindu are similar because they were both conquered by the British. Therefore, the two minorities evolved over time with the rest of their country under colonialism and imperialism of the British.

However, the purpose and the circumstances of the nationalist actions done by the two minorities are different. French Canadians wanted to be separated after the Constitutional Act of 1791. The Act of the British Parliament created two colonies, Lower Canada and Upper Canada, each of which had its own political institutions. In Lower Canada, the French-speaking and Catholic Canadians held the majority in the elected house of representatives, but were either a small minority in the appointed legislative and executive councils, both appointed by the Governor, representing the British Crown in the colony. Whereas in India, where the desire for separation comes from a religious purpose. The Muslim minority did not feel like belonging to the Hindus and did not see life the same way as the Hindus.  Both minorities were represented by a leader who motivated the population. The French Canadians were represented by Louis-Joseph Papineau, whereas Muslims were represented by Jinnah. The French Canadian minority fought in order to have their rights and many battles took places, while Jinnah was anti violence and wanted people to stop fighting. He passed his message through the Lucknow Pact in 1916. Moreover, the Muslim Indian succeeded in getting their own constitutional democracy called Pakistan, whereas, the French Canadian did not get their own country.

In conclusion, the conditions of Muslim in India and French Canadians in Canada are similar because they both tried to have better rights in a country where they were overwritten by the majority. However, the purpose, techniques and results were very different in the two countries.



                    Cohen, Stephen P., Idea of Pakistan. Washington, DC, USA: Brookings Institution Press, 2004. Ebrary. Web. 30 March 2014.

                    Gandhi, Mahatma. Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule: The Condition of India (continued) the Hindus and the Mohammedans. N.p., n.d., Web. 30 March 2014. < http://www.mkgandhi. org/swarajya/coverpage.htm>.

                      Theodore de Bary, William, and Hay, Stephan. Sources f Indian Tradition Volume II: Modern India and Pakistan. Columbia University Press, 1988. Print.http://www.mkgandhi/

                Jones, Richard. Nationalisme Canadien français. The Canadian encyclopedia, July 2nd 2006. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/fr/article/french-canadian-nationa...


The overall point of your post is very interesting Frédérique. I like the fact that you support the given information with specific dates, because it provides us a timeframe in which we can associate events we learnt occurred during this period of history (during lectures in class). Also, I like the fact that you compare the leaders of both minorities: the Muslims and the Quebecers. Thus we can see that Jinnah wanted to act peacefully, but what about the actions engaged by Louis-Joseph Papineau for his nation? Were they as peaceful, or did they involve violence? Good job and thank you for the very interesting complementary information.