Class 12 Political Science Chapter 3 Contemporary South Asia Important Questions with Answers in English

Q. Name the seven countries that this chapter means by the expression ‘South Asia’.

Answer: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Q. What does SAARC stand for, and in which year did it begin?

Answer: SAARC stands for the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. It began in 1985; the South Asian leaders signed the SAARC Charter at the first summit, held in Dhaka in December 1985.

Q. What is SAFTA, and when did it come into effect?

Answer: SAFTA is the South Asian Free Trade agreement signed by SAARC members, which promised the formation of a free trade zone for the whole of South Asia. It was signed in 2004 and came into effect on 1 January 2006.

Q. Till which year was the Maldives a Sultanate, and what did it become after that?

Answer: It was a Sultanate till 1968, when it was transformed into a republic with a presidential form of government.

Q. Who led the popular struggle against West Pakistani domination in East Pakistan, and which party did he lead?

Answer: Sheikh Mujib-ur Rahman led the struggle, and he led the Awami League.

Q. What was the LTTE fighting for, and from which year?

Answer: From 1983 onwards the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam fought an armed struggle with the army of Sri Lanka in pursuit of their demand for a ‘Tamil Elam’, a separate country for the Tamilians of Sri Lanka.

Q. When was the Indus Waters Treaty signed, and with whose help?

Answer: It was signed in 1960 by India and Pakistan, with the help of the World Bank.

Q. What is unusual about the treaty between India and Nepal on the movement of citizens?

Answer: It allows the citizens of the two countries to travel to and work in the other country without visas and passports, a relationship that has very few parallels in the world.

Q. Why does the chapter say that the geography of South Asia gives the region a ‘natural insularity’?

Answer: The mighty Himalayas in the north and the vast Indian Ocean, the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal in the south, west and east respectively fence the region off from the rest of Asia. This natural insularity is largely responsible for the linguistic, social and cultural distinctiveness of the sub-continent, so that South Asia stands for diversity in every sense and yet constitutes one geo-political space. The boundaries are less clear in the east and the west than in the north and the south, which is why Afghanistan and Myanmar are often included in discussions of the region.

Q. What did the survey of attitudes in the five big countries of South Asia find, and why was the finding significant?

Answer: The survey found widespread support for democracy in all these countries. Ordinary citizens, rich as well as poor and belonging to different religions, viewed the idea of democracy positively, supported the institutions of representative democracy, preferred democracy over any other form of government and thought it suitable for their country. This was significant because it was earlier believed that democracy could flourish and find support only in prosperous countries of the world, so the South Asian experience of democracy expanded the global imagination of democracy. The findings are from the SDSA Team’s State of Democracy in South Asia (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2007), based on interviews with more than 19,000 ordinary citizens.

Q. Mention two things that show there is a strong pro-democracy sentiment in Pakistan.

Answer: First, Pakistan has a courageous and relatively free press. Second, it has a strong human rights movement. The chapter adds that General Zia faced a pro-democracy movement from 1982 onwards, which shows that the demand for democracy has survived even under military rule.

Q. What changes did Sheikh Mujib make in 1975, and what followed?

Answer: In 1975 Sheikh Mujib got the constitution amended to shift from the parliamentary to the presidential form of government, and he also abolished all parties except his own, the Awami League. This led to conflicts and tensions, and in a dramatic and tragic development he was assassinated in a military uprising in August 1975.

Q. Why did the presence of Indian troops become unpopular in Sri Lanka?

Answer: India signed an accord with Sri Lanka in 1987 and sent troops to stabilise relations between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamils, but the Indian Army eventually got into a fight with the LTTE. The Sri Lankans did not like the presence of Indian troops and saw it as an attempt by India to interfere in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka. In 1989 the Indian Peace Keeping Force pulled out without attaining its objective.

Q. What is the Sir Creek dispute, and why does the chapter say it matters more than it looks?

Answer: India and Pakistan are not in agreement over the demarcation line in Sir Creek in the Rann of Kutch. The dispute seems minor, but there is an underlying worry that the way it is settled may have an impact on the control of sea resources in the area adjoining Sir Creek. The two countries are holding negotiations on this along with the other water and boundary issues.

Q. Why are some people in India, and some of India’s neighbours, unenthusiastic about SAFTA?

Answer: Some of the neighbours fear that SAFTA is a way for India to ‘invade’ their markets and to influence their societies and politics through commercial ventures and a commercial presence in their countries. Some in India, on the other hand, think that SAFTA is not worth the trouble, since India already has bilateral agreements with Bhutan, Nepal and Sri Lanka.

Q. Describe the changes in the political systems of Bhutan, the Maldives and Nepal that the chapter records.

Answer: Bhutan. Bhutan became a constitutional monarchy in 2008. Under the leadership of the king it emerged as a multi-party democracy.
The Maldives. The island nation was a Sultanate till 1968, when it was transformed into a republic with a presidential form of government. In June 2005 the parliament of the Maldives voted unanimously to introduce a multi-party system. The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) dominates the political affairs of the island and won the 2018 elections.
Nepal. Nepal was a Hindu kingdom and then a constitutional monarchy for many years. Till 2006 the danger remained of the king taking over executive powers. In 2008 the monarchy was abolished and Nepal emerged as a democratic republic, and in 2015 it adopted a new constitution.
Together with Bangladesh’s return to democracy, these changes are why the chapter says democracy is becoming an accepted norm in the entire region of South Asia.

Q. Describe the events between 1970 and 1971 that led to the creation of Bangladesh.

Answer: The people of East Pakistan resented the domination of western Pakistan and the imposition of the Urdu language, and protested against the unfair treatment meted out to Bengali culture and language, demanding fair representation in administration and a fair share in political power. Sheikh Mujib-ur Rahman led this struggle and demanded autonomy for the eastern region.
In the 1970 elections in the then Pakistan, the Awami League led by Sheikh Mujib won all the seats in East Pakistan and secured a majority in the proposed constituent assembly for the whole of Pakistan. The government dominated by the West Pakistani leadership refused to convene the assembly, and Sheikh Mujib was arrested.
Under the military rule of General Yahya Khan, the Pakistani army tried to suppress the mass movement of the Bengali people and thousands were killed. This led to a large scale migration into India and a huge refugee problem. The government of India supported the demand of the people of East Pakistan for independence and helped them financially and militarily. The result was a war between India and Pakistan in December 1971 that ended in the surrender of the Pakistani forces in East Pakistan and the formation of Bangladesh as an independent country.

Q. How did Nepal move from a monarchy to a democratic republic?

Answer: Nepal was a Hindu kingdom in the past and then a constitutional monarchy in the modern period. Throughout this period the political parties and the common people wanted a more open and responsive system of government, but the king, with the help of the army, retained full control and restricted the expansion of democracy.
In 1990, in the wake of a strong pro-democracy movement, the king accepted the demand for a new democratic constitution. The democratic governments that followed had a short and troubled career. During the nineties the Maoists of Nepal spread their influence in many parts of the country. They believed in armed insurrection against the monarch and the ruling elite, which led to violent conflict with the armed forces of the king, and for some time there was a triangular conflict among the monarchist forces, the democrats and the Maoists. In 2002 the king abolished the parliament and dismissed the government, ending even the limited democracy that existed.
In April 2006 there were massive, country wide, pro-democracy protests. The largely non-violent movement, led by the Seven Party Alliance (SPA), the Maoists and social activists, forced the king to restore the House of Representatives that had been dissolved in April 2002. Nepal then formed a constituent assembly to draft its constitution, the Maoist groups agreed to suspend armed struggle, and in 2008 Nepal became a democratic republic after abolishing the monarchy. A new constitution was adopted in 2015.

Q. Apart from Kashmir, what are the areas of conflict between India and Pakistan?

Answer: Strategic issues. The control of the Siachen glacier and the acquisition of arms. The arms race assumed a new character when both states acquired nuclear weapons and missiles in the 1990s: India conducted a nuclear explosion in Pokhran in 1998 and Pakistan responded within a few days with tests in the Chagai Hills.
Mutual suspicion. The Indian government has blamed the Pakistan government for a strategy of low-key violence, helping Kashmiri militants with arms, training, money and protection, and believes Pakistan aided the pro-Khalistani militants between 1985 and 1995. Its spy agency, the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), is alleged to be involved in anti-India campaigns in India’s northeast, operating secretly through Bangladesh and Nepal. The government of Pakistan in turn blames India and its security agencies for fomenting trouble in the provinces of Sindh and Balochistan.
River waters and boundaries. Until 1960 the two were locked in a fierce argument over the use of the rivers of the Indus basin; the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 settled it and has survived, though minor differences about its interpretation remain. The two countries also disagree over the demarcation line in Sir Creek in the Rann of Kutch.

Q. Explain two areas of cooperation and two areas of disagreement between India and Bangladesh.

Answer: Cooperation. First, economic relations have improved considerably in the last 20 years, and Bangladesh is a part of India’s Look East (Act East since 2014) policy that wants to link up with Southeast Asia via Myanmar. Second, on disaster management and environmental issues the two states have cooperated regularly; in 2015 they also exchanged certain enclaves.
Disagreement. First, the sharing of the Ganga and Brahmaputra river waters: Bangladeshi governments feel that the Indian government behaves like a regional bully over river waters. Second, India is unhappy with Bangladesh’s denial of illegal immigration to India, its support for anti-Indian Islamic fundamentalist groups, its refusal to allow Indian troops to move through its territory to northeastern India, and its decision not to export natural gas to India or allow Myanmar to do so through Bangladeshi territory. Bangladesh, for its part, accuses India of encouraging rebellion in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, trying to extract its natural gas and being unfair in trade.
Despite these differences, efforts are on to broaden the areas of cooperation by identifying common threats and being more sensitive to each other’s needs.

Q. What role do China and the United States play in South Asian politics?

Answer: No region exists in a vacuum; it is influenced by outside powers and events however much it may try to insulate itself. China and the United States remain the key players in South Asian politics.
China. Sino-Indian relations have improved significantly in the last ten years, and the demands of development and globalisation have brought the two Asian giants closer, with economic ties multiplying rapidly since 1991. But China’s strategic partnership with Pakistan remains a major irritant for India.
The United States. American involvement in South Asia has rapidly increased after the Cold War. The US has had good relations with both India and Pakistan since the end of the Cold War and increasingly works as a moderator in India-Pakistan relations. Economic reforms and liberal economic policies in both countries have greatly increased the depth of American participation in the region, and the large South Asian diasporas in the US, together with the huge size of the population and markets of the region, give America an added stake in the future of regional security and peace.
The chapter’s own judgement, however, is that whether South Asia continues to be known as a conflict prone zone or evolves into a regional bloc will depend more on the people and the governments of the region than on any outside power.

Q. Why has democracy not been able to take firm root in Pakistan? Explain, and also mention the forces working for democracy there.

Answer: The military’s takeovers. After Pakistan framed its first constitution, General Ayub Khan took over the administration and soon got himself elected. He had to give up office when there was popular dissatisfaction against his rule, and this gave way to a military takeover once again under General Yahya Khan. An elected government under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto held power from 1971 to 1977 and was removed by General Zia-ul-Haq. Elective democracy returned in 1988 under Benazir Bhutto and lasted till 1999, when General Pervez Musharraf removed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif; Musharraf got himself elected as President in 2001. Since 2008, democratically elected leaders have been ruling Pakistan.
The reasons the chapter gives.
1. Social dominance. The social dominance of the military, clergy, and landowning aristocracy has led to the frequent overthrow of elected governments and the establishment of military government.
2. The conflict with India. Pakistan’s conflict with India has made the pro-military groups more powerful. They argue that political parties and democracy in Pakistan are flawed, that Pakistan’s security would be harmed by selfish-minded parties and chaotic democracy, and that the army’s stay in power is therefore justified.
3. The lack of international support. The lack of genuine international support for democratic rule has further encouraged the military to continue its dominance. The United States and other Western countries have encouraged the military’s authoritarian rule in the past for their own reasons: given their fear of the threat of what they call ‘global Islamic terrorism’ and the apprehension that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal might fall into the hands of these terrorist groups, the military regime has been seen as the protector of Western interests in West Asia and South Asia.
The forces working for democracy. Democracy has not been fully successful in Pakistan, but there has been a strong pro-democracy sentiment in the country. General Zia faced a pro-democracy movement from 1982 onwards, and Pakistan has a courageous and relatively free press and a strong human rights movement.

Q. Trace the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka and India’s involvement in it, and assess Sri Lanka’s record despite the conflict.

Answer: The nature of the challenge. Sri Lanka has retained democracy since its independence in 1948, but it faced a serious challenge, not from the military or the monarchy but from ethnic conflict leading to the demand for secession by one of the regions.
The origins. After independence, politics in Sri Lanka (then known as Ceylon) was dominated by forces that represented the interest of the majority Sinhala community. They were hostile to a large number of Tamils who had migrated from India to Sri Lanka and settled there, and this migration continued even after independence. The Sinhala nationalists thought that Sri Lanka should not give ‘concessions’ to the Tamils because Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhala people only.
The armed struggle. The neglect of Tamil concerns led to militant Tamil nationalism. From 1983 onwards, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) fought an armed struggle with the army of Sri Lanka in pursuit of their demand for a ‘Tamil Elam’, a separate country for the Tamilians of Sri Lanka. At one point of time the northeastern part of Sri Lanka was controlled by the LTTE.
India’s involvement. The problem involves people of Indian origin, and there was considerable pressure from the Tamil people in India that the Indian government should protect the interests of the Tamils in Sri Lanka. The government of India tried from time to time to negotiate with the Sri Lankan government on the Tamil question, but in 1987 it got directly involved for the first time: India signed an accord with Sri Lanka and sent troops to stabilise relations between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamils. Eventually the Indian Army got into a fight with the LTTE. The presence of Indian troops was not liked much by the Sri Lankans, who saw it as an attempt by India to interfere in the internal affairs of their country, and in 1989 the Indian Peace Keeping Force pulled out without attaining its objective.
The end of the conflict. The crisis continued to be violent, but international actors, particularly the Scandinavian countries such as Norway and Iceland, tried to bring the warring groups back to negotiations. The armed conflict finally came to an end, as the LTTE was vanquished in 2009.
The record despite the conflict. Sri Lanka has registered considerable economic growth and recorded high levels of human development. It was one of the first developing countries to successfully control the rate of growth of population, the first country in the region to liberalise the economy, and it has had the highest per capita gross domestic product for many years right through the civil war. Despite the ravages of internal conflict, it has maintained a democratic political system.

Q. Evaluate the role and the limitations of SAARC and SAFTA in building cooperation in South Asia.

Answer: Why cooperation is attempted. In spite of the many conflicts, the states of South Asia recognise the importance of cooperation and friendly relationship among themselves. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is a major regional initiative by the South Asian states to evolve cooperation through multilateral means. It began in 1985, and the South Asian leaders signed the SAARC Charter at the first summit in Dhaka in December 1985.
SAARC’s limitation. Unfortunately, due to persisting political differences, SAARC has not had much success. The mutual suspicion between the member states, and India’s disputes with almost all of them, keep the forum from acting as one.
SAFTA. SAARC members signed the South Asian Free Trade (SAFTA) agreement, which promised the formation of a free trade zone for the whole of South Asia. A new chapter of peace and cooperation might evolve in South Asia if all the countries in the region allow free trade across the borders, and this is the spirit behind the idea of SAFTA. The agreement was signed in 2004 at the 12th SAARC Summit in Islamabad and came into effect on 1 January 2006. It aims at lowering trade tariffs.
SAFTA’s limitations. Some of the neighbours fear that SAFTA is a way for India to ‘invade’ their markets and to influence their societies and politics through commercial ventures and a commercial presence in their countries. Some in India think that SAFTA is not worth the trouble, since India already has bilateral agreements with Bhutan, Nepal and Sri Lanka.
The case for it. India thinks that there are real economic benefits for all from SAFTA, and that a region that trades more freely will be able to cooperate better on political issues. That is the argument for persisting with both bodies: whether South Asia will continue to be known as a conflict prone zone or will evolve into a regional bloc with some common cultural features and trade interests will depend more on the people and the governments of the region than any other outside power.

Q. India’s neighbours often think that the Indian government tries to dominate and interfere in the domestic affairs of the smaller countries of the region. How far is this impression justified?

Answer: Why the impression exists. India has various problems with its smaller neighbours in the region, and given its size and power they are bound to be suspicious of India’s intentions. The smaller countries fear that India wants to be a regionally-dominant power. Bangladeshi governments have felt that the Indian government behaves like a regional bully over the sharing of river waters, encouraging rebellion in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, trying to extract its natural gas and being unfair in trade. Many leaders and citizens in Nepal think that the Indian government interferes in its internal affairs, has designs on its river waters and hydro-electricity, and prevents Nepal, a landlocked country, from getting easier access to the sea through Indian territory. In Sri Lanka, the presence of Indian troops after the 1987 accord was seen as an attempt by India to interfere in the internal affairs of the country. Some of the neighbours also fear that SAFTA is a way for India to ‘invade’ their markets.
The other side. The Indian government, on the other hand, often feels exploited by its neighbours. It does not like the political instability in these countries, fearing it can help outside powers to gain influence in the region. India’s role has also been a helping one on many occasions: in November 1988, when some Tamil mercenaries from Sri Lanka attacked the Maldives, the Indian air force and navy reacted quickly to the Maldives’ request to help stop the invasion; India is the biggest source of development aid for Bhutan and is involved in big hydroelectric projects there; it helped in post-tsunami reconstruction in Sri Lanka; and it has a treaty with Nepal that lets citizens of the two countries travel and work in the other country without visas and passports.
The balanced judgement. Not all conflicts in South Asia are between India and its neighbours: Nepal and Bhutan have disagreed over the migration of ethnic Nepalese into Bhutan, Bangladesh and Myanmar over the Rohingyas, and Bangladesh and Nepal over the future of the Himalayan river waters. The major conflicts and differences, though, are between India and the others, partly because of the geography of the region, in which India is located centrally and is therefore the only country that borders the others. So the impression is understandable but exaggerated: much of it follows from India’s size and central location rather than from a policy of domination, and the answer lies in accommodating each other’s interests.

Q. Describe India’s relations with Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives.

Answer: Nepal. India and Nepal enjoy a very special relationship that has very few parallels in the world: a treaty between the two countries allows the citizens of each to travel to and work in the other without visas and passports. Despite this, the two governments have had trade-related disputes in the past. The Indian government has often expressed displeasure at the warm relationship between Nepal and China and at the Nepal government’s inaction against anti-Indian elements. Indian security agencies see the Maoist movement in Nepal as a growing security threat, given the rise of Naxalite groups in various Indian states from Bihar in the north to Andhra Pradesh in the south. Many leaders and citizens in Nepal, in turn, think that India interferes in its internal affairs, has designs on its river waters and hydro-electricity, and prevents a landlocked country from getting easier access to the sea. Nevertheless, relations are fairly stable and peaceful: trade, scientific cooperation, common natural resources, electricity generation and interlocking water management grids hold the two countries together.
Bhutan. India enjoys a very special relationship with Bhutan too and does not have any major conflict with the Bhutanese government. The efforts made by the Bhutanese monarch to weed out the guerrillas and militants from northeastern India who operate in his country have been helpful to India. India is involved in big hydroelectric projects in Bhutan and remains the Himalayan kingdom’s biggest source of development aid.
Sri Lanka. The difficulties are mostly over the ethnic conflict in the island nation. Indian leaders and citizens find it impossible to remain neutral when Tamils are politically unhappy and are being killed. After the military intervention of 1987, however, the Indian government now prefers a policy of disengagement vis-a-vis Sri Lanka’s internal troubles. India signed a free trade agreement with Sri Lanka, which strengthened relations between the two countries, and India’s help in post-tsunami reconstruction has also brought the two countries closer.
The Maldives. India’s ties with the Maldives remain warm and cordial. In November 1988, when some Tamil mercenaries from Sri Lanka attacked the Maldives, the Indian air force and navy reacted quickly to the Maldives’ request to help stop the invasion. India has also contributed towards the island’s economic development, tourism and fisheries.