Division of Indian Sub Continent

**Marmite the Dog** · 19-07-2006, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by surasak

What makes anyone think a small country with a weak economy and a non-existent civil service is going to do it sooner?

We're not just talking about Pakistan. What was stopping India working with their former 'brothers' to sort the border problems out?

**Sir Burr** · 19-07-2006, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by surasak

The problems in Pakistan were numerous: separation of the nation into two parts, the fact that the government structure of Pakistan was non-existent upon independence, a stucture of government and civil service that was Western in nature but not Islamic in principle, civil war, the war in Afghanistan which drove millions of refugees into Pakistan from the Soviet invasion, the fact that the government has gone through many major changes, and, the dispute over Kashmir. When India was partitioned only about 10% of all major civil servants were Muslim and none were that were of the secretary level or higher. So, at the onset, there was no government in Pakistan to help get things going. The UK carved out a section of India and made it the 'homeland' for Muslims. Sort of what the UK did in the Middle East. Bloody hell, let's carve it up and let them sort it out!

It's kind of hard to build a modern nation in less than 50 years. Israel has had hundreds of billions of dollars in direct and indrect aid and still doesn't have permanent borders. I would argue that it took almost 150 years for the U.S. to be a modern power. Even after 100 years of independence the U.S. still couldn't fight a major war without outside help. What makes anyone think a small country with a weak economy and a non-existent civil service is going to do it sooner?

Which is why Congress and the Muslim League should have listened to the British to put back the date of independence.
Both parties were intransigent and insisted that the date could not be moved.

Actually, if you want to blame a single person for this mess, then blame Maharajah Hari Singh.
He was the hindu ruler of Jammu and Kashmir. His subjects were predominantly muslim and wanted to join Pakistan. Hari Singh had the choice of which country his kingdom would be a part of.
He chose India.

**man with no head** · 19-07-2006, 09:53 AM

Think about the disaster that would come if the U.S. decided to split Iraq into Kurd, Sunni, and Shiite sections. You think the possibility of civil war is great there now, it would be unstoppable if that took place. That's really the heart of the problem: a power from very far away going in and destroying or changing drastically what's there to fit the foreigner's idea of civilization and then bailing out so that the problem becomes someone else's. You'd think we would learn, but, the U.S. is making the same mistake yet again.

Interesting enough when the UK turned Hong Kong back over to the Chinese they left a fully functioning government and civil service in place that didn't spiral out of control and start fighting the neighbors. Maybe it reverted back to the rightful owner instead of being carved into a new nation that shouldn't have existed in the first place.

**man with no head** · 19-07-2006, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by surasak

What makes anyone think a small country with a weak economy and a non-existent civil service is going to do it sooner?

We're not just talking about Pakistan. What was stopping India working with their former 'brothers' to sort the border problems out?

I dunno, the same thing that's keeping the Arabs and Jews from getting along as well (when they lived together peacefully until the state of Israel was carved out of Palestine)?

**Mhz** · 19-07-2006, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by endure

Originally Posted by Mhz

Originally Posted by endure

Let's assume that the Brits are totally and completely responsible for fcuking the division up.

Yes they totally are.They are responsible for every inch of the land they divided and they are responsible for every Indian,Pakistani and kashmiri killed cos of that division for the last 50 or 60 years.Actually the Bahadur Shah Zafar (the ruler at that time) didn't invite the brits to colonize the sub-continent they came in for trade.

You missed a bit out:
"Now we've done that has it helped India & Pakistan? Not at all. It's their problem and they have to sort it out themselves."

Or to paraphrase: 'Whining about things that happened 150 years ago is stupid, pointless and solves no problems but if it makes you feel better, have at it. The problems will still be there when you've finished whining."

Okay let's say we are responsible for not solving our problems.What do you think the solution should be??

I know Pakistan cannot control kashmir cos 4 provinces is nore than enough and the present government is having trouble in controling only 4 if we bring in Kashmir we are very very fucked.

India occupied kashmir and is still holding it by force.If Pakistan gives Kashmir as a gift to India and pulls back all the troops from the border you think Kashmiris will be happy under indian rule??

IMHO Kashmir should be independent and both Pakistan and India should help Kashmiris to have a country.

**stroller** · 19-07-2006, 11:34 AM

I think, if you can't sort it out yourselves, Kashmir should fall under British rule again. lol

**man with no head** · 19-07-2006, 11:36 AM

Yeah, and by doing that create a totally landlocked nation that has to rely on one former enemy or the other for economic support? Would any of this have been a problem if the subcontinent wasn't partitioned but left alone?

**Covertjay** · 19-07-2006, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Originally Posted by Macha

Brits only taught Pakis n Indians how to play cricket.

Where did mahatma Ghandi get his law degree.....

Where did Nehru study?

Just to name two well-known Indians......

Where did most of the British crown jewels come from????

**Whiteshiva** · 19-07-2006, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Covertjay

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Originally Posted by Macha

Brits only taught Pakis n Indians how to play cricket.

Where did mahatma Ghandi get his law degree.....

Where did Nehru study?

Just to name two well-known Indians......

Where did most of the British crown jewels come from????

What has that to do with the above?

**Marmite the Dog** · 19-07-2006, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Covertjay

Where did most of the British crown jewels come from????

Some of the gem stones were gifts from Indian (Moghul) royalty. Why?

**Mhz** · 19-07-2006, 07:37 PM

I read somewhere that the Kohinoor Diamond (don't know what you all call it in English) was stolen from Bahadur Shah Zafar's Palace.

Is that true??

**Skulldigger** · 19-07-2006, 07:58 PM

The Kohinoor Diamond

**stroller** · 19-07-2006, 08:01 PM

The Kohinoor is considered to be a gem of "bad luck".
It has changed hands many times, and came to the British in 1849.

The Kohinoor Diamond

Edit: oops, Skully was faster!

**machangezi** · 19-07-2006, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Well, they've had 59 years to sort their borders out since we left and they are still whining about how we didn't do it right.

How much longer do you need?

59 years only? Even if they're given a hundred and fifty nine years it ain't enough. Guess why? Thanks to the Brit division.

Now what else can I say. I posted the map and any reasonable person can tell the division was focking absurd. It was intentionally divided that way to make sure things never get back to normal in that part of the world.

Is there any poster out there to claim, after having a look at the map, that the division was reasonable and that the current problems in the south Asia ain't cos of the absurd Brit division?

**stroller** · 19-07-2006, 11:07 PM

The story to why it happened that way has been told already. Can't blame any single one, i.e. the Brits for the border.
"intentionally divided that way"? Nothing mentioned here so far supports this at all. What makes you say this?

**man with no head** · 19-07-2006, 11:57 PM

Well, after having more time to read on the subject I'm a bit more educated on this now. Seems that prior to the British rule the Muslems (though a minority) were in control of most of the Indian subcontinent. British rule changed this, and, because of the fear of being rules by Hindus the Muslims of the provinces where Muslims were a majority wanted a separate homeland for themselves. The key here of understanding the Lahore Resolution was that the Muslim idea was not of a single homeland but each province in and of itself should be independent and equal as separate countries. The mistake Britain made was in carving out one section of India and making it such a homeland (actually two, West and East Pakistan) a result of the very effective but culturally destructive "divide and rule" policy. "Divide and rule" is what has given us the Israeli/Palestinian problem and the Kashmir problem.

**stroller** · 20-07-2006, 12:08 AM

Frankly, if each province had become a seperate country, that would have been even more "divide and rule". No?

The present borders were arbitrary, noone denies this, but what would have been a feasible solution, given the circumstances? I am disappointed our Pakistani members don't have more to say on this, or what the vision for the future is.

**man with no head** · 20-07-2006, 12:30 AM

No, it might have been more like the breakup of the Soviet Union. Soviet republics that had some amount of autonomous characteristics to them before the dissolution of the USSR. Belarus, Ukraine, etc. basically were formed around ethnic similarities. Had Britain simply left the inhabitants of the British Raj to organize themselves maybe it would have turned out better. It's only a guess.

Imagine the chaos in the former USSR if the UN had instead drawn a bunch of boundaries and said "you live here, you live there."

**Marmite the Dog** · 20-07-2006, 09:50 AM

Pakistan and Bangladesh should never have been created in the first place. Creating a country based solely on a religion is wrong IMO, because it is creating a community based on exclusion, rather than inclusion.

**man with no head** · 20-07-2006, 02:13 PM

Exactly.

**Covertjay** · 20-07-2006, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by Covertjay

Where did most of the British crown jewels come from????

Some of the gem stones were gifts from Indian (Moghul) royalty. Why?

'Gifts'.................yeah right!

Why, the British Empire got a lot more outta India than India got outta the British Empire.

See, that's how empires work, mother countries fuck colonies.

**man with no head** · 20-07-2006, 02:48 PM

I would argue that Hong Kong was the opposite (and a rare case).

You know what would have been interesting? If Britain withdrew from the American colonies due to the cost of supporting them and the nations of the world supported a partition into North and South.

**Marmite the Dog** · 20-07-2006, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Covertjay

Why, the British Empire got a lot more outta India than India got outta the British Empire.

What a crock of shit.

Do you know how much Britain invested in India (and the rest of the Empire)? A hell of a lot more than has been invested since. The problem was that India didn't grab the opportunities that it had, but shunned them instead.

**stroller** · 20-07-2006, 04:09 PM

The Brits also did a lot of damage, for example cutting weavers thumbs off, because they were in competition with the British textile industry. That's not another rare example, but part and parcel of the aims of the colonial power.
India was ruled to benefit Britain economically, investment was part of this, and they only let go when it became financially unfeasible.

**man with no head** · 20-07-2006, 05:11 PM

I should take part of the blame for this mess, after all, one of my ancestors was a direct founder of the East India Company (and he was Lord Mayor of London as well)

Thread: Division of Indian Sub Continent

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions