give four similarities between jammu kashmir and tamilnadu.
help me friends... no irrelevant answers. will be reported...
Answers
Answered by
4
Answer:
Heya mate here's the answer Mark as brainliest pleaseeeeee
Attachments:
Answered by
2
What Tamil Nadu and Kashmir have in common is that in both places the minority was disproportionately powerful.
Few people acknowledge it but at its core the Tamil Nadu problem between the Brahmins and the rest was one of power.
In Kashmir the Hindus held most of the land and the accompanying political power, while the Muslims were the peasants and powerless.
In 1935 it was the Hindus who persuaded the Maharaja to exclude all non-Kashmiris from owning land in Kashmir. That law eventually came back to bite them in their backside.
In Tamil Nadu, in contrast, the Brahmins were insignificant as landlords. But they held social and administrative power. Their power was based on their ability to exclude. It was, if you like, the club approach to power.
In Tamil Nadu the minority has now been pretty much evicted because the Brahmins, despite being a minority, constituting no more than 4% to 5% of the population, were the ones who were socially powerful. Today they are less than 2%. The liberals don't seem to mind very much.
This eviction was achieved by economic and administrative means comprising Constitutionally and judicially mandated reservations in jobs and education. In Kashmir, however, the eviction was violent.
Today the Brahmins and the others of Tamil Nadu have found a modus vivendi where both fiercely defend their Tamil identities -- together. But barring some nut cases, they have no love for separateness.
In Kashmir it is the opposite. Separateness fully defines the Kashmiri Muslim. There is no place for the Hindus or even other Indians.
Few people acknowledge it but at its core the Tamil Nadu problem between the Brahmins and the rest was one of power.
In Kashmir the Hindus held most of the land and the accompanying political power, while the Muslims were the peasants and powerless.
In 1935 it was the Hindus who persuaded the Maharaja to exclude all non-Kashmiris from owning land in Kashmir. That law eventually came back to bite them in their backside.
In Tamil Nadu, in contrast, the Brahmins were insignificant as landlords. But they held social and administrative power. Their power was based on their ability to exclude. It was, if you like, the club approach to power.
In Tamil Nadu the minority has now been pretty much evicted because the Brahmins, despite being a minority, constituting no more than 4% to 5% of the population, were the ones who were socially powerful. Today they are less than 2%. The liberals don't seem to mind very much.
This eviction was achieved by economic and administrative means comprising Constitutionally and judicially mandated reservations in jobs and education. In Kashmir, however, the eviction was violent.
Today the Brahmins and the others of Tamil Nadu have found a modus vivendi where both fiercely defend their Tamil identities -- together. But barring some nut cases, they have no love for separateness.
In Kashmir it is the opposite. Separateness fully defines the Kashmiri Muslim. There is no place for the Hindus or even other Indians.
Similar questions