A few years ago, I reached a conclusion that had an ‘aha’
element to me – geography drives history. This was based on my fascination with
watching the map of the world (lately this has been the ‘nightlights’ version).
I have made some crude connection between the shape of the world and what
happened in it over the centuries.
Geography driving history
For example, India and China may seem close but their plains
are quite apart from each other. In fact, South Asia is a relatively contiguous
region separated from the rest of the world by Hindukush in the west, Indian
Ocean in the south and Himalayas in the north and east. Similarly, east and
north Asia is separated from the rest of the world by sea on east and Tibetan
plateau on the west. The list goes on. This explains much of ancient history. Broadly
put, why people kept to themselves within these accessibility circles.
Closer home (temporally) the world wars in early 20th
century can also be linked to the heavy hand of geography. First world war was
fought at least initially between the naval powers and the landlocked central
powers. The late entry of US into both the wars was also linked to geography in
that it was separated by a huge ocean and could afford to wait.
Less obviously but still interestingly, would Vietnam have
been able to withstand the onslaught of US might if it were not so hilly? Not
to take away from the bravery of the Vietnamese soldiers but their Iraqi
counterparts had just the desert to fight in – so very open! (Arguably, today’s
Vietnam may not be able to withstand the significantly improved technology of
US armed forces, but likewise Iraq would have been overrun in 1971 easily by US
forces). Afghanistan was harder to conquer and manage for US than Iraq was –
geography again.
More broadly, the spread of culture is based on natural
substructure of geography. For example, today’s Spanish culture (including the
beautiful Flamenco music and dance) is influenced a lot by Arabic one, unlike
say Swedish culture. Even Italian culture is lot less influenced by Arabic one
because they didn’t share the history unlike Spaniards and Arabs. The peak of
Arab power was before navies became prominent – hence land-based movement was
the primary means of influence.
Why did Britain, Spain et al become the primary naval powers
when the time came? Easy – their proximity to seas. Germany, Russia and those
‘inside’ couldn’t quite develop navies as fast. Far-out Imperialism remained
the preserve of Britain and France. Here too, interestingly, the first naval
powers i.e. Portugal and Spain trained their sights on Latin America rather
than Asia. When Britain and France did become naval powers, they were forced to
explore North America and follow on from the Portuguese (Vasco Da Gama) on
Asia. Even the broad split of Africa to France and Asia to Britain can be
traced to proximity of France to Africa (both through Mediterranean and
Atlantic). Britain went farthest!
Geography -> history -> geography
More recently, especially after some thinking on complexity
economics, I have revised my conclusion. First the background. I have
increasingly come to believe that complex systems based on continuity of
causality (effect1 -> effect2 -> effect1) are more common that simple
systems with unidirectional causality (cause -> effect). So the revised
conclusion is as follows.
Geography shapes history and history in turns shapes
geography.
By the second part I don’t necessarily mean actual shaping
of mountains and rivers (though that too has been happening and may increase in
future). It’s more to do with human interaction with geography.
Take the location of major cities for example. My own city –
Mumbai – gets bucket-loads of monsoon each year. In recent years – that has also
meant loss of lives, productivity, and property. Why would Indians congregate
in such a prone spot to create the financial hub of their economy?
Short answer is – this isn’t a policy choice. Much as the
powers that be everywhere in the world would like dictate where an important
economic hub should be, it is difficult to do that beyond a point (the failed
experiment in India of the International Finance Centre is a case in point). A
medieval Indian king – Muhammad-bin-Tughlaq – tried to shift his capital from a
north-centred Delhi to strategically located Daulatabad. The attempt failed and
he had to reverse the shift. Admittedly, Shahjahan shifted the capital from
Agra to Delhi but that was a minor shift given how the people in power then were spread
across these two cities already.
Coming back to Mumbai. Till the 17th century, it
was largely rivers that told people where to settle. Large cities were
typically on the banks of a river. Indian people weren’t seafaring on account
of their cultural biases and also for economic reasons (there was a lot going
on at home itself, since India was home to about 1/4th of global GDP
till the 17th century).
It was the British that founded Mumbai. Its proximity to sea
and distance from the then local powers meant it was safe for them. They then
sewed up the seven loosely connected islands into a bustling town. (After the
brits left, Indians continued the good work of reclamation – Nariman Point in
the 70s, BKC as late as 90s and Worli Seaface in 2020!)
In this context, it was history that guided geography.
What does future hold?
Consider Covid-19 itself. Before Covid the cities had a
hub-like structure – downtown is where the ‘action’ is and where most people
have to go for work. That’s the commercial district. Technology had already
enabled weakening of this dominance but legacy effect of city-centres being
‘central’ was too strong to wane quickly. Covid changed that. Now it is
imaginable to work in a spread-out manner. If people in these commercial
districts are coming to work only 1-2 days a week or not at all, they may
explore living away from city-centre in large houses. After all, if
restaurants, cinemas, theatre, shopping district are all constrained by the
pandemic, and the children’s schools are only online, what’s the upside of
being close to the city centre?
Of course, the pandemic will eventually be brought under
control. However, in the meantime, enabled by technology, alternative living
models become viable as people experiment. They may just get the critical mass
that drives the long-term change as well.
In this sense, history will drive geography again!
No comments:
Post a Comment