India was not a Nation when the British arrived. The concept of India as a single nation , which was necessary for "division" to be an issue, was a modern concept. There was obviously no peaceful solution to the divisions in the Indian population, and the reluctance of those who did not consider India ready for self-government are at least partially justified. What the narrator calls "classic" divisive colonial tactics, was nothing more than the practical acknowledgement of the social and political realities in India. Britain did not create these issues, and we should not view them through the modern lens of religious tolerance. Nor should we accept political propaganda from Indian politicians as gospel truth.
Very interesting and thank you for this. My mother was born in Calcutta in 46, daughter of a welch regiment officer - though always growing up I was told that their (shortly after ) return to the uk was because of ‘partition’, but never understood much what that actually meant. So thank you again for the detailed video
Perhaps people are confused by the word principle. I think that because they think deeply within that framework of principle, they arrive at a principled idea and act in an exclusive way. If you remove the word principle behind it, isn't that all there is in the world?
It would've happened regardless of British policy. India itself was an artificial construct of imperialism, it had never been one united society or nation before the Raj. Britain was the glue that held it together. Had India been given independence with its pre-1947 borders it would've descended into civil war, probably causing even more death and destruction, and perhaps ending up even more fragmented. If it had somehow survived intact, it would've done so as a far less democratic, far more oppressive nation where the central government brutally keeps minorities in line, more like China under the CCP. For all the ills the partition brought, it was the least bad option for the people of India, Pakistan and later Bangladesh.
i don't think there is any reason to believe that. from all reports the people of the subcontinent had, in the years previous to the appearance of european traders on their shores, been, if not exactly living in harmony, at least, co-existing, a live and let live attitude, if you will. it was something that the early East India company representatives actually remarked upon, in their missives home
@@kidmohair8151whoa! Way off base on that assessment. Sure, an ignorant European may have thought they were living in relative harmony, but the reality was that the imperialistic, colonialist rule of the various foreign Muslim rulers in India was naturally oppressive to the indigenous peoples of the sub continent. I would say the partition was the natural reaction to the final dissolution of Muslim rule on the sub continent. There was no way the muslims could accept that they would only have equal status like other non muslims of India.
This ww2 thing said about on here makes me laugh as Britain was effected way more than India & wasn't something they wanted either but someone called hitler & the Japanese had other ideas so this poor India routine is ridiculous. The thing is as well b4 the British they wasnt ever 1 nation & was a collection of tribes or war lords etc
Millions of people in Bengal died from famine in 1943 because the British (read Churchill), didn't want to divert ships from the war effort. On the order of 3 million Indian civilians died as a result of the war (the exact number isn't known). 2.5 million Indians fought in the war. Events causing death don't cancel each other out because one of them happened due to bombing and the other due to policy.
It was 'Partition' for the British OF their Empire but for Pakistan and India it was 'Independence' FROM the British Empire, which rules all of South Asian subcontinent. Prior to the Great Mughal Empire and later British Empire, South Asian sub continent had many Kingdoms, in otherwords modern day nations. When British were leaving, they were going to give independence to all the different countries on the sub continent but Mountbatten wanted to leave an artifical union to show size and weight against the communist Soviet union, Pakistan wanted its own federation as it knew artifical unions dont work which has been proven by soviet union, Yugoslavia union, czeckoslovakian union, all collapsed and are now history. Indian union has, different countries with nothing in common; Assam, Kerala, Bihar, Tamil, manipur, Goa, Orissa, Gujarat, Naxaland, Rajastan, Tripura, Junagargh manabao, Mizoram, Hyderabad Deccan, etc.
@mortenpoulsen1496 Federation may have a problem every now and then but it can work itself out of it but indian union cant, only one inevitable fate, like soviet union.
@@Sando-q3bI agree with you. One such artificial entity is the United Kingdom. Should be interesting to see which one is dissolved first ? The United Kingdom or the Union of India .
there is an awful lot of “not our fault” going on in this. India was partitioned because the Brits had exacerbated the natural differences within the subcontinent’s populations and exploited those divisions in order to maintain control (and reap the riches) in the century or so of the Raj. when, post WW2, it became economically impossible for Britain to maintain that control, they needed to get out as fast as they could, in order to limit the drain on the home island’s treasury. a rushed partition, just as in Palestine, was the quickest way to wash their hands of their white man’s burden… that it led to widespread death, destruction and dislocation? well, that wasn’t our fault, was it?
Faxx dude and then youve got apologists in the omments section saying the subcontinent wasnt ready for self governance-- its very disheartening really.
His aversion to religion, in the sense usually attached to the term, was of the same kind with that of Lucretius: he regarded it with the feelings due not to a mere mental delusion, but to a great moral evil. He looked upon it as the greatest enemy of morality: first, by setting up factitious excellencies - belief in creeds, devotional feelings, and ceremonies, not connected with the good of human kind - and causing these to be accepted as substitutes for genuine virtue: but above all, by radically vitiating the standard of morals; making it consist in doing the will of a being, on whom it lavishes indeed all the phrases of adulation, but whom in sober truth it depicts as eminently hateful
@@penultimateh766Only Islam is hateful? Tell me you know absolutely nothing about the history of religious conflict anywhere in the world at any point in history.
British are responsible for death of over 100 million Indians and Africans and both WW1 and WW2. Yes, we can definitely blame British for all the misery we've have around the world by quite a margin. Next comes US, France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands and other colonial empires. The entire "developed" Western civilization was founded on the loot and plunder of East, Africa and Middle East. Most European countries were poorer and backwards compared to Indians and Chinese and even Ottomons just 200 years ago.
I mean, we did our fair share to mess everything up. Just like every other superpower. We should absolutely take responsibility for the issues we caused. However, that comes handy in hand with everyone else taking responsibility for the problems they've caused as well. However, this takes a grown up measured approach, so you often find people devolving to simplistic views.
Sorry, if the American south must be perpetually punished for slavery from 160 years ago, then Britain must be punished also for her distant past. Own it, hoss.
Partition was one of the "very very few" best things that British did to the Indian subcontinent although it was not properly executed. Had there been no partition we would be fighting hard core civil wars today with international players funding either one side or the other and it would be a conflict far greater in scale and intensity than what is currently happening in middle east. Anyway, I say all of this as a descendant of partition victims.
The lessons from the reign of Muhi al-Din Muhammad were that there could never be a true, lasting peace on the subcontinent with so many religious factions mistrustful of each other. It was partition or an endless series of rebellions, coups and asassinations like the ones seen all through the 1600's.
Turns out many British politicians were right and India (and many other places in the world) were not yet ready for independence or even self-government
There was no especially good way to divide India quickly, and keeping it whole wasn't a particularly good option either. Maybe a return to having many smaller princedoms, with their borders established and publicized multiple years ahead of time to allow for more peaceful and orderly migrations, paired with a more gradual and orderly build up to self governance, with full independence coming once the necessary institutions are in place and functional would have worked better.
No one was going to draw the boundaries of Pakistan and what became Bangladesh and avoid conflict between Moslem and other religious communities. Britain should have given the Sikhs a chance to live in an independent Kashmir. However, the Hindus refused to accept any more independent countries carved from the subcontinent.
@@Tinjinladakh That’s not even true; the Spanish were. The name was the same but the purpose was very different from the German ones. I suggest you research the background before commenting next time. What point are you trying to prove here?
This was all part of the British divide and rule strategy. The same strategy has been applied everywhere the British have left, from Israel-Palestine to Northern Ireland. However, all things have a way of coming back in full circle, with the real possibility that Britain as we know it, might not exist in a couple decades.
@ashutoshsharmash Divide and rule only works were those who are ruled allow themselves to be divided according to their own prejudices they have against the people they are being divided from . Also in almost 80 years of independence both Pakistan and India have that freedom to work out their differences. So , they should not be putting all of the blame on the British which who I agree bears some of the blame but both Indians and Pakistanis must take their share as well.
@@Neutralino Again, a version of divide and rule... This time, creating random states full of tribes of people who have never gotten along for centuries, with the intention that they would drive themselves into chaos, allowing the British to try and regain their lost empire.
They should 'thank' the British for these massacres. Famous Native American proverb. If two fish are fighting in a stream, an Englishman has just passed by.
Not really. It's one of the instances were British policy followed the wishes people in the Dominion. Sure enough of course there was the wavell approach rather than the Mountbatten, but that has its own issues. Issues that we see in the modern day, where the Hindu nationalists, and more or less on a covert crusade against the Muslims of India. More or less the sectarian issues of India are of their own making and desire.
I don’t think we should assume that without partition there would have been peace
India was not a Nation when the British arrived. The concept of India as a single nation , which was necessary for "division" to be an issue, was a modern concept.
There was obviously no peaceful solution to the divisions in the Indian population, and the reluctance of those who did not consider India ready for self-government are at least partially justified.
What the narrator calls "classic" divisive colonial tactics, was nothing more than the practical acknowledgement of the social and political realities in India. Britain did not create these issues, and we should not view them through the modern lens of religious tolerance.
Nor should we accept political propaganda from Indian politicians as gospel truth.
@@peterwebb8732 They didn't create it but exploited it.
Very interesting and thank you for this. My mother was born in Calcutta in 46, daughter of a welch regiment officer - though always growing up I was told that their (shortly after ) return to the uk was because of ‘partition’, but never understood much what that actually meant. So thank you again for the detailed video
Lots of racists in the comments
Perhaps people are confused by the word principle.
I think that because they think deeply within that framework of principle, they arrive at a principled idea and act in an exclusive way.
If you remove the word principle behind it, isn't that all there is in the world?
It would've happened regardless of British policy. India itself was an artificial construct of imperialism, it had never been one united society or nation before the Raj. Britain was the glue that held it together. Had India been given independence with its pre-1947 borders it would've descended into civil war, probably causing even more death and destruction, and perhaps ending up even more fragmented. If it had somehow survived intact, it would've done so as a far less democratic, far more oppressive nation where the central government brutally keeps minorities in line, more like China under the CCP. For all the ills the partition brought, it was the least bad option for the people of India, Pakistan and later Bangladesh.
i don't think there is any reason to believe that.
from all reports the people of the subcontinent had, in the years previous
to the appearance of european traders on their shores, been, if not exactly
living in harmony, at least, co-existing, a live and let live attitude, if you will.
it was something that the early East India company representatives
actually remarked upon, in their missives home
Colonizer speak
I agree
@@kidmohair8151whoa! Way off base on that assessment. Sure, an ignorant European may have thought they were living in relative harmony, but the reality was that the imperialistic, colonialist rule of the various foreign Muslim rulers in India was naturally oppressive to the indigenous peoples of the sub continent. I would say the partition was the natural reaction to the final dissolution of Muslim rule on the sub continent. There was no way the muslims could accept that they would only have equal status like other non muslims of India.
@@kidmohair8151
The subcontinent had already been colonised, really colonised as in actually settled, by the non Indian muhgal empire.
I don't know which one to blame. The British, religion, or the politicians.
This ww2 thing said about on here makes me laugh as Britain was effected way more than India & wasn't something they wanted either but someone called hitler & the Japanese had other ideas so this poor India routine is ridiculous. The thing is as well b4 the British they wasnt ever 1 nation & was a collection of tribes or war lords etc
Millions of people in Bengal died from famine in 1943 because the British (read Churchill), didn't want to divert ships from the war effort. On the order of 3 million Indian civilians died as a result of the war (the exact number isn't known). 2.5 million Indians fought in the war. Events causing death don't cancel each other out because one of them happened due to bombing and the other due to policy.
It was 'Partition' for the British OF their Empire but for Pakistan and India it was 'Independence' FROM the British Empire, which rules all of South Asian subcontinent.
Prior to the Great Mughal Empire and later British Empire, South Asian sub continent had many Kingdoms, in otherwords modern day nations.
When British were leaving, they were going to give independence to all the different countries on the sub continent but Mountbatten wanted to leave an artifical union to show size and weight against the communist Soviet union, Pakistan wanted its own federation as it knew artifical unions dont work which has been proven by soviet union, Yugoslavia union, czeckoslovakian union, all collapsed and are now history.
Indian union has, different countries with nothing in common; Assam, Kerala, Bihar, Tamil, manipur, Goa, Orissa, Gujarat, Naxaland, Rajastan, Tripura, Junagargh manabao, Mizoram, Hyderabad Deccan, etc.
Yeah that federation worked out just as good as the mentioned unions 😂😂
@mortenpoulsen1496 Federation may have a problem every now and then but it can work itself out of it but indian union cant, only one inevitable fate, like soviet union.
@@Sando-q3bI agree with you. One such artificial entity is the United Kingdom. Should be interesting to see which one is dissolved first ? The United Kingdom or the Union of India .
@ic9771 In time both will collapse, artificial unions never last, history proves that.
@Sando-q3b well the federation had problems when it was east and west Pakistan
there is an awful lot of “not our fault” going on in this.
India was partitioned because the Brits had exacerbated
the natural differences within the subcontinent’s populations
and exploited those divisions in order to maintain control (and reap the riches)
in the century or so of the Raj.
when, post WW2, it became economically impossible for Britain to maintain
that control, they needed to get out as fast as they could,
in order to limit the drain on the home island’s treasury.
a rushed partition, just as in Palestine, was the quickest way
to wash their hands of their white man’s burden…
that it led to widespread death, destruction and dislocation?
well, that wasn’t our fault, was it?
Faxx dude and then youve got apologists in the omments section saying the subcontinent wasnt ready for self governance-- its very disheartening really.
His aversion to religion, in the sense usually attached to the term, was of the same kind with that of Lucretius: he regarded it with the feelings due not to a mere mental delusion, but to a great moral evil. He looked upon it as the greatest enemy of morality: first, by setting up factitious excellencies - belief in creeds, devotional feelings, and ceremonies, not connected with the good of human kind - and causing these to be accepted as substitutes for genuine virtue: but above all, by radically vitiating the standard of morals; making it consist in doing the will of a being, on whom it lavishes indeed all the phrases of adulation, but whom in sober truth it depicts as eminently hateful
Sorry, but most religions are peaceful. It's Islam that's hateful.
@@penultimateh766Only Islam is hateful? Tell me you know absolutely nothing about the history of religious conflict anywhere in the world at any point in history.
@@penultimateh766 Nonsense. christians fought each other for centuries over which christian sect is the "right" one!
Blame the British for everything that's wrong with the world.
Why not? Everyone else does.
Because that's a stupidly simple view. And Ironically divests post independence agency.
British are responsible for death of over 100 million Indians and Africans and both WW1 and WW2. Yes, we can definitely blame British for all the misery we've have around the world by quite a margin. Next comes US, France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands and other colonial empires. The entire "developed" Western civilization was founded on the loot and plunder of East, Africa and Middle East. Most European countries were poorer and backwards compared to Indians and Chinese and even Ottomons just 200 years ago.
I mean, we did our fair share to mess everything up. Just like every other superpower. We should absolutely take responsibility for the issues we caused.
However, that comes handy in hand with everyone else taking responsibility for the problems they've caused as well.
However, this takes a grown up measured approach, so you often find people devolving to simplistic views.
Sorry, if the American south must be perpetually punished for slavery from 160 years ago, then Britain must be punished also for her distant past. Own it, hoss.
USA says "Hold my beer!"
Please use the correct Indian map
curious what was wrong with the indian thumbnail map assuming that's what you were referring to?
Partition was one of the "very very few" best things that British did to the Indian subcontinent although it was not properly executed. Had there been no partition we would be fighting hard core civil wars today with international players funding either one side or the other and it would be a conflict far greater in scale and intensity than what is currently happening in middle east. Anyway, I say all of this as a descendant of partition victims.
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa : Afghanistan 🇦🇫...
PoK ,Punjab , Sindh : India 🇮🇳...
Balochistan Independent...
Kashmir will always be Crown of India, it cherished with our blood, our fatherland....show Right Map of India with its crown..😊
The lessons from the reign of Muhi al-Din Muhammad were that there could never be a true, lasting peace on the subcontinent with so many religious factions mistrustful of each other. It was partition or an endless series of rebellions, coups and asassinations like the ones seen all through the 1600's.
Turns out many British politicians were right and India (and many other places in the world) were not yet ready for independence or even self-government
There was no especially good way to divide India quickly, and keeping it whole wasn't a particularly good option either.
Maybe a return to having many smaller princedoms, with their borders established and publicized multiple years ahead of time to allow for more peaceful and orderly migrations, paired with a more gradual and orderly build up to self governance, with full independence coming once the necessary institutions are in place and functional would have worked better.
@@amogus948 incredibly bad take away from this.
I've been watching British politics for the last decade, and I'm not sure Britain is ready for self rule 😒
@@NewfieOn2WheelsProbably the more sensible strategy, but the British were simply tired after the war.
@@amogus948 funny part of this statement is very soon the same would be said about the UK beginning with the dissolution of the word United in UK.
No one was going to draw the boundaries of Pakistan and what became Bangladesh and avoid conflict between Moslem and other religious communities. Britain should have given the Sikhs a chance to live in an independent Kashmir. However, the Hindus refused to accept any more independent countries carved from the subcontinent.
What's the connection between Sikhs & Kashmir , chump ?
For us Churchill was Nazi, hitler, mao, stalin combine
Either you don’t know about Churchill, or you don’t know about those other dictators - or you don’t have a good understanding of Indian history.
@@Neutralino you know british was the first one who build concentration camp
@@Tinjinladakh That’s not even true; the Spanish were.
The name was the same but the purpose was very different from the German ones. I suggest you research the background before commenting next time.
What point are you trying to prove here?
The criminal always comes back to the scene of the crime
This was all part of the British divide and rule strategy. The same strategy has been applied everywhere the British have left, from Israel-Palestine to Northern Ireland.
However, all things have a way of coming back in full circle, with the real possibility that Britain as we know it, might not exist in a couple decades.
@ashutoshsharmash Divide and rule only works were those who are ruled allow themselves to be divided according to their own prejudices they have against the people they are being divided from . Also in almost 80 years of independence both Pakistan and India have that freedom to work out their differences. So , they should not be putting all of the blame on the British which who I agree bears some of the blame but both Indians and Pakistanis must take their share as well.
Try again.
No, no it hasn’t. See how Sudan, Iraq, Myanmar were left united when they arguably should’ve been divided.
@@Neutralino Again, a version of divide and rule... This time, creating random states full of tribes of people who have never gotten along for centuries, with the intention that they would drive themselves into chaos, allowing the British to try and regain their lost empire.
It was too soon for independence
Because they couldn't agree on what side of a cricket bat had to be roundest
The British like to divide their former colonies before they depart.
They should 'thank' the British for these massacres. Famous Native American proverb. If two fish are fighting in a stream, an Englishman has just passed by.
... because of course there was never any Hindu/Muslim conflict in India before the British arrived...
Wrong Map of India..in Thumbnail..
Indian viewers ...
Report this Video...😡😡😡
Because of british imperialism
No
It would be worse without the borders
Islam vs Hinduism
Not really. It's one of the instances were British policy followed the wishes people in the Dominion.
Sure enough of course there was the wavell approach rather than the Mountbatten, but that has its own issues.
Issues that we see in the modern day, where the Hindu nationalists, and more or less on a covert crusade against the Muslims of India.
More or less the sectarian issues of India are of their own making and desire.
Complete falsehood.