How has electricity changed the world we live Essays

How has electricity changed the world we live Essays How has electricity changed the world we live Paper How has electricity changed the world we live Paper This rise shows just how much obliged to electricity. But it doesnt stop there, that is because nowadays the computer is nothing without a fast Internet connection at all times. Fig. 4: A typical personal windows computer Almost every person who has a computer these days has access to a fixed broadband connection. And every person who has a computer has an Internet connection. This was also not something that you could have during the asses. In the whole world, only 0. 361 billion people had an Internet connection. And fixed broadband connection was something nobody had. Zero out of every 100 people had it. But even by 201 0 this had all changed. About 2 billion people had Internet connection in the whole world and about 10 people out of every 1 00 people had a fixed broadband connection. 5: A stereotypical image of the internet But how much Electricity consumption has changed since the 20005. The use of electronics has grown a lot since then and that has caused the consumption of electricity to be higher. In the asses the consumption of electricity right here in China had been only 1. 25 k/h. This number increased to a huge 4. 17 trillion k/h by the 2010. But not all oftenest world-changing powers of electricity have come to a very good ending. This is because some of these powers have had negative effects on the world too. Electricity is a dangerous thing if not used or dealt with properly. And this can be clearly known by the fact that in the U. K. There are more than 2. 5 million people who get electric shocks each year. And of these 2. 5 million plus people, there are approximately 350,000 people who receive serious shocks. Although electric shocks are the things we usually think about when we say electrical dangers, it isnt always so. There are actually many more ways electricity causes people to die rather than direct electric shocks. One of the main ways electricity causes indirect deaths is by fires. Electricity when not used the ways it is supposed to, can be extremely dangerous. This fact can be seen from this table: Fig. 6: Number of fires of electrical origin in the UK in 2007 It shows how many people have had fires due to electrical failures or accidents. There have been 267 deaths caused by fires and among that 49 of them are electricity based. There have been 9066 fire based injuries in the UK in 2007 ND among them 3477 are based on electricity. There have been a total of 43351 fires and among them 21424 are due to electricity. That shows that almost half of all fires in the UK in the year 2007 based on or due to electricity. People might say that these happened in 2007 they are not very recent. But a very recent statistics publication in Jan aura 201 2 by the US NAP, National Fire Protection Association, states that in the US during 2010, there have been a total of about 46500 fires that are based on electricity. And all these fires has resulted in 420 civilian deaths, 1 520 civilian injuries and an approximate f 1. Billion US dollar worth of direct property damage. Fig. 71 Fire But even with all of that much damage due to electricity, why should people not shut it down? I want you to imagine a day when suddenly all of the electricity on earth was sapped away by night. You would wake up and go turn the light on, but there would be no electricity so you no light except for sunlight. You would go into the bathroom in the dark and there would be no water, because the generator has no electricity to pump the water. And then you would want to watch the TV, but it wouldnt turn on since there was no electricity. And at last, when turning on your phone to call the management or turn on your computer to tell everyone about what happened, both of them wouldnt work because of zero percent battery. A life without electricity is unthinkable. We are obliged to electricity. We cant live without it. Without it our lives would be miserable and almost non-livable. This is why even after all the damage electricity does, its use is going up and up and becoming an even more important part of our lives. But of course that doesnt mean that no measures are being taken to make electrical appliances easier and safer to use. There are big differences between the safeness to use electricity in the asses and now. As more people use AC power sources and have fuses built into multi-plugs and other appliances, things are much safer and easier to use. The first thing that has made electricity much safer is the AC power supply. The AC power supply is very different from the direct power supply. The AC power supplies have electricity going both ways rather than just one way. Thus when you use an appliance with a high potential to give you a shock, the AC power supply would be much more safer than the direct power us apply. Fig. AC power cables The second thing that has made the use of appliances much safer is the fuse. It is a small device attached to different appliances that is auto triggered by a high amount of electric flow. The fuse is a very thin wire that can be replaced. It is made so as to break a connection in the circuit, thus cutting off power from the appliance it is being used in. There are fuses i n a lot of appliances nowadays than there was before. As the fuse ensures that even if an accident occurs, it doesnt turn into a tragedy, it does pack a huge punch in keeping electricity as safe as possible. 0: A typical fuse Electricity can be a dangerous thing when used improperly, but, it is something that is getting increasingly safer to use. And even that is not that main factor, the main factor is that there is no way we can live without it. Wherever you look you can see an appliance that is run or has been made by the help of electricity. Electricity has shaped our world in such a way that now it simply impossible for us to avoid it. There is no way that we could live as happily as we are now without electricity. The benefits of electricity outweigh the bad sides of it.

The Partition of India and Creation of Pakistan

The Partition of India and Creation of Pakistan The Partition of India was the process of dividing the subcontinent along sectarian lines, which took place in 1947 as India gained its independence from the British Raj. The northern, predominantly Muslim sections of India became the nation of Pakistan, while the southern and majority Hindu section became the Republic of India. Fast Facts: the Partition of India Short Description: At the time of Indian independence from Great Britain, the subcontinent was broken into two partsKey Players/Participants: Muhammed Ali Jinnah, Jawaharlal Nehru, Mohandas Gandhi, Louis Mountbatten, Cyril RadcliffeEvent Start Date: End of World War II, the ouster of Churchill, and the ascension of the Labour Party in BritainEvent End Date: Aug. 17, 1947Other Significant Dates: The Jan. 30, 1948, the assassination of Mohandas Gandhi; Aug. 14, 1947, the creation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; Aug. 15, 1947, the creation of the Republic of IndiaLittle-Known Fact: In the 19th century, sectarian Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu communities shared Indias cities and countryside and cooperated to force Britain to Quit India; it was only after independence became a potential reality that religious hatred began to roil.   Background to Partition Beginning in 1757, the British commercial enterprise known as the East India Company ruled parts of the subcontinent beginning with Bengal, a period known as the Company Rule or Company Raj. In 1858, after the brutal Sepoy Rebellion, the rule of India was transferred to the English crown, with Queen Victoria proclaimed as Empress of India in 1878. By the latter half of the 19th century, England had brought the full force of the Industrial Revolution to the region, with railroads, canals, bridges, and telegraph lines providing new communication links and opportunities. Most of the jobs created went to the English; much of the land used for these advances came from the farmers and were paid for by local taxes.   Medical advances under the Company and British Raj, such as smallpox vaccinations, improved sanitation, and quarantine procedures, led to a steep rise in population. Protectionist landlords depressed agricultural innovations in the rural areas, and as a result, famines broke out. The worst was known as the Great Famine of 1876–1878, when between 6–10 million people died. Universities established in India led to a new middle class, and in turn, social reform and political action began to rise.   The Rise of Sectarian Separation   In 1885, the Hindu-dominated Indian National Congress (INC) met for the first time. When the British made an attempt to divide the state of Bengal along religious lines in 1905, the INC led huge protests against the plan. This sparked the formation of the Muslim League, which sought to guarantee the rights of Muslims in any future independence negotiations.  Although the Muslim League formed in opposition to the INC, and the British colonial government attempted to play the INC and Muslim League off one another, the two political parties generally cooperated in their mutual goal of getting Britain to Quit India. As British historian Yasmin Khan (born 1977) has described,  political events were to destroy the long-term future of that uneasy alliance.   In 1909, the British gave separate electorates to different religious communities, which had the outcome of hardening of boundaries among the different sects. The colonial government emphasized these differences, by such activities as providing separate restroom and water facilities for Muslims and Hindus at the railway terminals. By the 1920s, a heightened sense of religious ethnicity became apparent. Riots broke out at such times as during Holi festival, when sacred cows were slaughtered, or when Hindu religious music was played in front of mosques at prayer time.   World War I and Afterward Despite the growing unrest, both the INC and the Muslim League supported sending Indian volunteer troops to fight on Britains behalf in World War I. In exchange for the service of more than one million Indian soldiers, the people of India expected political concessions up to and including independence. However, after the war, Britain offered no such concessions. In April 1919, a unit of the British Army went to Amritsar, in Punjab, to silence pro-independence unrest. The units commander ordered his men to open fire on the unarmed crowd, killing more than 1,000 protesters. When word of the Amritsar Massacre spread around India, hundreds of thousands of formerly apolitical people became supporters of the INC and the Muslim League. In the 1930s, Mohandas Gandhi (1869–1948) became the leading figure in the INC. Although he advocated a unified Hindu and Muslim India, with equal rights for all, other INC members were less inclined to join with Muslims against the British. As a result, the Muslim League began to make plans for a separate Muslim state. World War II World War II sparked a crisis in relations between the British, the INC, and the Muslim League. The British government expected India once again to provide much-needed soldiers and material for the war effort, but the INC opposed sending Indians to fight and die in Britains war. After the betrayal following World War I, the INC saw no benefit for India in such a sacrifice. The Muslim League, however, decided to back Britains call for volunteers, in an effort to curry British favor in support of a Muslim nation in post-independence northern India. Before the war had even ended, public opinion in Britain had swung against the distraction and expense of empire: the cost of the war had severely depleted Britains coffers. The party of British prime minister Winston Churchill (1874–1965) was voted out of office, and the pro-independence Labour Party was voted in during 1945. Labour called for almost immediate independence for India, as well as more gradual freedom for Britains other colonial holdings. A Separate Muslim State The Muslim Leagues leader, Muhammed Ali Jinnah (1876–1948), began a public campaign in favor of a separate Muslim state, while Jawaharlal Nehru (1889–1964) of the INC called for a unified India. The INC leaders such as Nehru were in favor of a united India since Hindus would have formed the vast majority of the Indian population and would have been in control of any democratic form of government.   As independence neared, the country began to descend toward a sectarian civil war. Although Gandhi implored the Indian people to unite in peaceful opposition to British rule, the Muslim League sponsored a Direct Action Day on August 16, 1946, which resulted in the deaths of more than 4,000 Hindus and Sikhs in Calcutta (Kolkata). This touched off the Week of the Long Knives, an orgy of sectarian violence that resulted in hundreds of deaths on both sides in various cities across the country. Indian Independence Act of 1947 In February 1947, the British government announced that India would be granted independence by June 1948. Viceroy for India Louis Mountbatten (1900–1979) pleaded with the Hindu and Muslim leaders to agree to form a united country, but they could not. Only Gandhi supported Mountbattens position. With the country descending further into chaos, Mountbatten reluctantly agreed to the formation of two separate states.   Mountbatten proposed that the new state of Pakistan would be created from the Muslim-majority provinces of Baluchistan and Sindh, and the two contested provinces of Punjab and Bengal would be halved, creating a Hindu Bengal and Punjab, and Muslim Bengal and Punjab. The plan gained agreement from the Muslim League and the INC, and it was announced on June 3, 1947. The date for independence was moved up to Aug. 15, 1947, and all that was left was fine-tuning, determining the physical border separating the two new states. Difficulties of Separation With the decision in favor of partition made, the parties next faced this nearly impossible task of fixing a border between the new states. The Muslims occupied two main regions in the north on opposite sides of the country, separated by a majority-Hindu section. In addition, throughout most of northern India, members of the two religions were mixed together- not to mention populations of Sikhs, Christians, and other minority faiths. The Sikhs campaigned for a nation of their own, but their appeal was denied. In the wealthy and fertile region of Punjab, the problem was extreme, with a nearly even mixture of Hindus and Muslims. Neither side wanted to relinquish this valuable land, and sectarian hatred ran high.   Ravi C. The Radcliffe Line To identify the final or real border, Mountbatten established a Boundary Commission under the chairmanship of Cyril Radcliffe (1899–1977), a British judge and rank outsider. Radcliffe arrived in India on July 8 and published the demarcation line a mere six weeks later on August 17. Punjabi and Bengali legislators were to have a chance to vote on a potential split of the provinces, and a plebiscite for or against joining Pakistan would be necessary for the North-West Frontier Province.   Radcliffe was given five weeks to complete the demarcation. He had no background in Indian affairs, nor did he have any prior experience in adjudicating such disputes. He was a confident amateur, in the words of Indian historian Joya Chatterji, chosen because Radcliffe was supposedly a nonpartisan and thus apolitical actor.   Jinnah had proposed a single commission made up of three impartial persons; but Nehru suggested two commissions, one for Bengal and one for Punjab. They would each be made up of an independent chairman, and two people nominated by the Muslim League and two by the INC. Radcliffe served as both chairs: his job was to put together a rough-and-ready plan for dividing each province as soon as possible, with the fine details to be resolved later.   On Aug. 14, 1947, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was founded. The following day, the Republic of India was established to the south. On Aug. 17, 1947, Radcliffes award was published.   The Award The Radcliffe line drew the border right down the middle of Punjab province, between Lahore and Amritsar. The award gave West Bengal an area of some 28,000 square miles, containing a population of 21 million people, of whom about 29 percent were Muslims. East Bengal got 49,000 square miles with a population of 39 million, of whom 29 percent were Hindu. In essence, the award created two states in which the ratio of the minority population was almost identical. When the reality of the Partition hit home, residents who found themselves on the wrong side of the Radcliffe line felt extreme confusion and dismay. Worse still, most people did not have access to the printed document, and they simply did not know their immediate future. For more than a year after the award was made, rumors spread through the border communities that they would wake up to find the borders had changed again.   Post-Partition Violence On both sides, people scrambled to get onto the right side of the border or were driven from their homes by their erstwhile neighbors. At least 10 million people fled north or south, depending on their faith, and more than 500,000 were killed in the melee. Trains full of refugees were set upon by militants from both sides, and the passengers massacred. On Dec. 14, 1948, Nehru and the Pakistan Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan (1895–1951) signed the Inter-Dominion Agreement in a desperate attempt to calm the waters. The tribunal was ordered to resolve the boundary disputes growing out of the Radcliffe Line Award, to be headed by Swedish judge Algot Bagge and two high-court judges, C. Aiyar of India and M. Shahabuddin of Pakistan. That tribunal announced its findings in February 1950, clearing up some of the doubts and misinformation, but leaving difficulties in the definition and administration of the border.   Aftermath of Partition According to historian Chatterji, the new border ruptured agricultural communities and divided towns from the hinterlands that they had habitually relied on to supply their needs. Markets were lost and had to be reintegrated or reinvented; supply railheads were separated, as were families. The result was messy, with cross-border smuggling emerging as a thriving enterprise and an increased military presence on both sides.   On Jan. 30, 1948, Mohandas Gandhi was assassinated by a young Hindu radical for his support of a multi-religious state. Separately from Indias partition, Burma (now Myanmar) and Ceylon (Sri Lanka) gained independence in 1948; Bangladesh gained independence from Pakistan in 1971. Since August 1947, India and Pakistan have fought three major wars and one minor war over territorial disputes. The boundary line in Jammu and Kashmir is particularly troubled. These regions were not formally part of the British Raj in India, but were quasi-independent princely states; the ruler of Kashmir agreed to join India despite having a Muslim majority in his territory, resulting in tension and warfare to this day. In 1974, India tested its first nuclear weapon. Pakistan followed in 1998. Thus, any exacerbation of post-Partition tensions today- such as Indias August 2019 crackdown on Kashmiri independence- could be catastrophic. Sources Ahmad, Nafis. The Indo-Pakistan Boundary Disputes Tribunal, 1949–1950. Geographical Review 43.3 (1953): 329–37. Print.Brass, Paul R. The Partition of India and Retributive Genocide in the Punjab, 1946–47: Means, Methods, and Purposes 1. Journal of Genocide Research 5.1 (2003): 71–101. Print.Chatterji, Joya. The Fashioning of a Frontier: The Radcliffe Line and Bengals Border Landscape, 1947–52. Modern Asian Studies 33.1 (1999): 185–242. Print.Khan, Yasmin. The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017. Print.Wilcox, Wayne. The Economic Consequences of Partition: India and Pakistan. Journal of International Affairs 18.2 (1964): 188–97. Print.