Why do nations conflict and divide?
Looking at the line of identity
The Differing Paths of Asia's Newly Independent States

Many Asian colonial countries gained independence after World War II.
Although independence was achieved around the same time, the paths to modernization that these countries took were different.
While some newly independent nations still struggle with periods of conflict and turmoil, South Korea has had a relatively remarkable historical journey in many areas, including democracy, K-culture, and economic growth.
So, what were the differences in the modernization processes of these countries after independence? Why do so many newly independent Asian nations still harbor internal conflicts and divisions? By comparison, what paths and processes did South Korea take to achieve its current democracy and economic growth? This book closely examines the modern and contemporary histories of four newly independent Asian nations (India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia) and deeply traces the modernization process of "Korean exceptionalism," which took a different path from these countries.
Through this, we examine how effectively drawing and erasing internal identity lines can impact national development, as well as what pitfalls South Korea should be wary of and discussed going forward.

Not only do postcolonial Asian nations struggle to erase the lines of their internal, multilayered identities and integrate them into a single national identity, but political elites are creating various problems by drawing lines for their own benefit.
Within a country where lines are drawn like this, patronage grows.
It is no exaggeration to say that the modern history of postcolonial Asian countries is a process of responding to problems arising from the conflict between the forces that seek to erase lines and the forces that seek to draw them.
On the other hand, Korea is drawing the trajectory of modern history along a completely different path from these.
The success of erasing the line between historically accumulated heritage and the coincidences of modern and contemporary history is the secret to Korea's successful democratization in modern history and also the secret to its rapid economic growth.

--- 「Part 1.
From “Country and Line”

Before independence, British India was divided administratively into governor-general's dominions and over 500 principalities.
Many of these principalities joined the Republic of India under pressure and persuasion from the government of the Republic of India.
If the central government of the Republic of India had attempted to rule them authoritarianly, it would have faced considerable resistance.
To suppress this resistance and successfully implement a centralized and unilateral authoritarian regime, an extreme and totalitarian dictatorship like the Soviet Union under Stalin would have to be established.
But India was too populous and its population too diverse to go in that direction.
In short, it was too large and complex for a dictatorship to take hold.

--- 「Part 2.
Modern and Contemporary History of Postcolonial Asian Countries | Chapter 1.
From "India"

The Zia-ul-Haq regime came to an end in a sudden plane crash, and democratic institutions were restored in Pakistan in 1988.
But democratic politics degenerated into a rivalry between the Bhutto and Sharif families.
In 1999, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Musharraf staged a coup, establishing another military regime and halting democracy.
The Pakistani people staged powerful protests for the restoration of democracy, which ultimately led to a return to civilian politics with the 2008 general elections.
However, Pakistan's politics are once again dominated by a small number of political families, and the country's deep-rooted clientelism is running rampant, hindering social progress.
Additionally, the military, which has seemingly withdrawn from politics, has seized powerful economic interests and is forming a large vested interest group in Pakistan, which is also evaluated as an obstacle to the development of democracy.

--- 「Part 2.
Modern and Contemporary History of Postcolonial Asian Countries | Chapter 2.
From "Pakistan"

Indonesia was founded by a force that attempted to erase internal boundaries through force and violence, resulting in the outward appearance of a nation-state.
But integrating those living within the territory as actual Indonesian citizens was another matter.
The military was at the center of integration.
Indonesia's military has grown into a force with a certain degree of autonomy from central government control.
The Indonesian military was deeply involved in politics for a time, but withdrew from politics after the collapse of the Suharto regime.
However, military personnel still wield strong influence in politics and government.
Even democratically elected governments have compromised with senior military figures rather than challenging the military's vested interests.
From the outset, Indonesia's military regional commands have procured a significant portion of their budgets locally.
Despite the steady increase in government support for the military budget, this practice persists to this day, fostering a patron-client relationship between local power brokers and senior military commanders in regional military commands.
This again created a massive patronage politics by connecting with military personnel who had advanced into central government and government positions.
--- 「Part 2.
Modern and Contemporary History of Postcolonial Asian Countries | Chapter 3.
From Indonesia

Japan's colonial rule influenced modern Korean history, just as a billiard ball hit with a billiard cue ball repeatedly hits other balls.
Japan's colonial rule pushed the Korean Peninsula toward division, placing South Korea under the powerful influence of the United States while also forcing it to constantly be aware of the hostile power of North Korea.
The division led to the Korean War, and Korea's dependence on the United States deepened.
This again influenced the democratization of South Korea.
Even if the war had not occurred, the division of the Korean Peninsula would likely have led to conflict between South Korea and North Korea.
Since then, the United States and North Korea have each restricted South Korean politics from different directions, and these restrictions have ultimately become a major factor in determining the path to democracy.
While the long history of maintaining a centralized state has erased ethnic lines and formed a nation on the Korean Peninsula, the two-way constraints from the United States and North Korea have weakened ideological lines in South Korea.

--- 「Part 3.
Korean Exceptionalism | Chapter 2.
Among the “two-way constraints”