21:38 The leaders of Indian and Pakistani independence were intellectuals who had little understanding of the complexities of the Indian subcontinent. Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, were trained as lawyers in London. Jawaharlal Nehru did express sentiments reflecting his complex relationship with British culture and his Indian identity, especially during his early years. Raised in a privileged and Westernized environment, Nehru was educated in elite British institutions like Harrow, Trinity College, and the Inner Temple. This upbringing immersed him in British customs, values, and intellectual traditions, making him feel more British than Indian at times. In his autobiography, Toward Freedom, Nehru candidly reflects on this internal conflict. He acknowledged feeling disconnected from the masses of India and initially seeing himself as part of an elite Westernized class. Colonized Indians adopted the colonizer's ideas, such as nationalism, cuius regio, eius religio (the ruler's religion determines the state's religion), and the use of a main language for integration (Hindi, Urdu). They should all bear accountability for the murders, rapes, and arsons caused by the Partition.
That's certainly true, but not only the British. All colonial powers. Pre colonial times didn't really have accurate maps, but if there had been, there would've been other lines drawn by other powers, equally disruptive.
India 🇮🇳 was my biological mother (born 1987) BUT Australia 🇦🇺 is my foster mother. WHAT is true love ❤️..when you love your foster mother so much you will die for her. My father still loves India, he supports the Indian cricket 🏏team during their defeat (boxing day test 2024) he still visits India 🇮🇳yearly and owns several commercial properties. Me and my brother love Australia. We support the Aussie cricket 🏏 team and own very successful Architecture practice in Australia. Love for your country comes from inside you!! Australia has given us more than India ever could..me and my brother love Australia🇦🇺 our foster mother!!
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
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.
While the British took an active role in helping to mediate the partition, it doesn't seem like ownership of the partition decision really even lies with the British.
@@rriveranotario I can speak for Indian muslims and for literal history that the majority did not want partition, and history has shown its led to two failed democracies with endless suffering and millions of lives lost to wars and poverty, and of course further radicalization. The partition itself almost led to a religious civil war across the entire subcontinent. If not for the leadership of super celebrities like Gandhis and the Hindu and Muslim leaders aligned with him to quell the rampant violence, there would have been total chaos. Partition was a horrible idea led by a radical religious and greedy community leader.
But after partition for sure there would never be peace and that was the plan of British. They did the same with ISRAEL and form Palestine on both sides similar to INDIA.
Considering the dysfunction of the ruling class in Pakistan, it seems like in the very long run India may have dodged a bullet. Counterfactual suppositions are always fraught though.
That's such a hypothetical POV. It proves nothing. It's not like Partition completely solved it. There have been numerous wars between India-Pak. Terror activities and all. Kashmir has become hell because of that. Surely British saw that coming. Stop pretending to be good guys
@@martin96991That was not the "plan" of the British. The British had their own problems after WW2 and had to rebuild their own country and economy. India was no more of concern to the British after the second war of the 20th century. If you really think the British planned for India to have such problems then you are a child who needs to grow up and stop being so insecure and idiotic.
Maybe Jinnah was right, and let's see what happened after that: now India is ruled by the BJP, RSS, and Hindutva nationalists that only want Hindu power and language over everyone else. Muslims in India are being killed, discriminated against, and forced out of their homes daily; the media are being censored; and Muslim MPs in Parliament, who had an average of 10%, are now sheering over 4.2% while being 14-15% of the population. The current ruling party has no minorities in it. I personally do not support the partition and wanted a united Hindustan that even includes Sri Lanka and the Maldives, but when I see the current situation of India and Pakistan, I think it is their fault, and they will suffer for it, and one day probably people will look back in the past and realize that maybe power is in unity and not hostility, and that day would be in a far future where even our grandchildren would not see it.
Maybe Jinnah was right, and let's see what happened after that: now India is ruled by the BJP, RSS, and Hindutva nationalists that only want Hindu power and language over everyone else. Muslims in India are being killed, discriminated against, and forced out of their homes daily; the media are being censored; and Muslim MPs in Parliament, who had an average of 10%, are now sheering over 4.2% while being 14-15% of the population. The current ruling party has no minorities in it. I personally do not support the partition and wanted a united Hindustan that even includes Sri Lanka and the Maldives, but when I see the current situation of India and Pakistan, I think it is their fault, and they will suffer for it, and one day probably people will look back in the past and realize that maybe power is in unity and not hostility, and that day would be in a far future where even our grandchildren would not see it.
One can't really say that partition was a mistake as the alternative could very well have been very much worse. Sadly, there are many examples of ongoing conflict where two peoples sharing a geographical area.
Well.. Practically the whole Indian contingent of the British army converted to the Japanese organised INA the "Indian national army" after the fall of Singapore. 45,000 in fact. First hand POW accounts place them as the most brutal, apart from the Korean and Taiwanese guards.
I dont know whether 'Discovery of India' authored by Indias first prime minister discussed this partition process but I trust the man now more than ever before.
Discovery of India is a joke of a book. Stay away. You can checkout Freedom at Midnight by Lapuerre, Pakistan or Partition of India by BR Ambedkar are pretty informative.
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.
India suffered through massive spanish flu outbreak, great depression, brutal human rights violations, and WW2 on the span of 40 years. By the way, India was actually partly occupied by Japan, unlike Britain whose largest loss was the Blitz. So saying Britain suffered more than India is just bafflingly stupid.
@@alicia1463 Putting the entire responsibility of the Bengal famine on the British is wholly unfair. The local administration, which comprised of Indians, that was in charge of the Bengal region are the ones who are mainly responsible for the lack luster, negligible response and incompetent leadership throughout the entirety of the famine. They were not fully transparent with the British at the time with extent and severity of the famine, they did not ration or implement changes mainly because of dissent within and also the denial that there was even a famine or the possibility of one with high ranking officials. Hussein Suhrawardy, for example, was the Minister of Civil Supplies in the Bengal government during those times and was a staunch believe of the 'No shortage' theory, he believed there was no famine, no shortage, and thought that it was simply the local merchants hording to artificially to create higher prices. How could the British of known to change the policy and divert the adequate resources if the very Indian government in charge of Bengal was not transparent and initially denied there was a famine in the first place? Also right in the middle of humanities biggest war where millions of tonnes of cargo was being sunk by U-boats and resources were strung thin.
Q -WHY INDIA 's INDEPENDENCE PREPONED FROM JUNE 1948 to AUGUST 1947 WITH TRAGIC CONSEQUENCES ;;;;;Why after a visit to London , Mountbatten suddenly declared that the Partition of India would take place with inexplicable haste on August 15, 1947, almost a year ahead of schedule? Ans - The British knew that MA Jinnah had TB and that he would not live for long. Without Jinnah there would have been no partition ////
Excellent presentation again IWM.... Thank you.. My Father was there at the time with the British forces having served part of his WW2 service in Calcutta as it was then known... At his young age he was astonished at the depth of Racial violence and far reaching social effects of the Cast system coupled with the Religious cultures... None of which were really apparent back home in Wales... Realistically the British gave nothing to the people of India over the 200 years they were there, they only took from them.... It was never likely that they were ever likely to do anything other than leave with the Indian people left in a state of turmoil... Roger.. Pembrokeshire
INDIA was more advanced than the British. It Was 27% of the global gdp. Why the British came in the first place no one invited them? And when they left GDP of INDIA was 3% Return the $50 trillion and you'll be poorer than Somalia.
@@martin96991 Why didn’t the Indians defend themselves if they were so rich? Indian history is a succession of the Indians not doing anything about foreign invaders. The Indians were ruled by a foreign power when the British arrived.
The British should have retained localised presence in parts of India like North East india or in one or many of the colonial Indian cities they had established using their own power and ingenuity, that would have prevented the sectarian killings and would have saved lot of would be new vulnerable minorities like the Christians of North East India and Goa, daman and diu or even the other minorities like the Sikhs and Muslims, all of whom are suffering injustice at the hands of majority hindu population and a heavily biased, corrupt, incompetent and myopic hindu nationalistic govt.
3 million died in Bengal because their food was expropriated and shipped to British WW2 soldiers. This detail has been glossed over in this video. Other than that, a decent attempt at recounting a sad history.
Why doesn't India, Pakistan and Bangladesh reunify again? Surely they are now more mature people in these countries and can reunify peacefully? And then include Sri Lanka too.
The dislike or characterisation of Hitler’s Nazi Germany as the common enemy, united the Soviets and the West, the nature of the British united the Hindu and Muslims. Once Hitler was gone, the West and the Soviet went back to hating each other and once the British left India, the Hindus and Muslims found something to hate. This hatred or need for hatred is very similar to the characterisation of the predominantly European Caucasian Pilgrims who became the settlers of the USA depicted in Michael Moore’s Bowling for columbine. Identity is based on fear. Only a dead man has no fear. The living need fear to survive. The anger is natural, everything else is cultural.
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.
"One name, Jinnah! He is the true villain. He advocated for partition to serve his own interests. It is disheartening to see Pakistanis honoring him today. They should seek to understand the true history."
Maybe Jinnah was right, and let's see what happened after that: now India is ruled by the BJP, RSS, and Hindutva nationalists that only want Hindu power and language over everyone else. Muslims in India are being killed, discriminated against, and forced out of their homes daily; the media are being censored; and Muslim MPs in Parliament, who had an average of 10%, are now sheering over 4.2% while being 14-15% of the population. The current ruling party has no minorities in it. I personally do not support the partition and wanted a united Hindustan that even includes Sri Lanka and the Maldives, but when I see the current situation of India and Pakistan, I think it is their fault, and they will suffer for it, and one day probably people will look back in the past and realize that maybe power is in unity and not hostility, and that day would be in a far future where even our grandchildren would not see it.
@@martin96991 The comment wasn't "justifying" anything, it's just a matter of FACT. You should thank your lucky stars that British rule was imposed as opposed to the alternatives which included Turkish, Persian and FRENCH rule. Yeah, good luck with any of those....... Stop being a victim.
@@MrBannystar $50 trillion was stolen by the biggest robbers. 165 million d!ed in just 40 years of that rule. You entire country is build on that money and was industrialized on the cost of resources from INDIA.
@@martin96991 Utter laughable nonsense from start to finish, and is typical historical illiteracy that I'd expect from a victim. I won't be wasting anymore time here.
@@MrBannystar don't you have Google? It will show you real history which is censored in UK schools. INDIA was the world's richest country throughout its history. In 1700 INDIA's global gdp share was 25-27% after the brits left it was just 3%
This report helps to dispel the myth that the problems and violence between India and Pakistan is solely the fault of the British. Clearly it is far more complex, with age-old tensions between religious and ethnic populations, a caste system and feudalism, which had been held in some kind of cohesion by imperial rule. The British concept of a nation state never really existed here and was destined to fail when arbitrary borders were applied. However it was done with the full participation of indigenous leaders, and furthermore India and Pakistan have had over 75 years now to resolve the issues peacefully. We've seen many European nations either sub-divide or reunite since the end of Soviet imperialism, with the will of the peoples concerned. Where there is a will there is a way.
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.
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?
For those supporting partition, this idea had a comparitively few takers before this artificially created sentiment and artificial feuling of this sentiment in the common civility by his hon'ble comparatively new muslim, Md.Ali Jinnah. His call for Direct Action Day sparked the never ending riots throughout the nation and was the reason why partition really was forced on everybody. This movement was created and feuled by British themselves and AIMIM with their newly found loyalist Jinnah.
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.
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 .
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.
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.
Kashmir was a princely state at the time of partition, so was (albeit briefly) neither part of India nor Pakistan at the time. The map is correct for that moment.
Idk seems like the whole thing together would be a benefit for the world. Can u imagine the brain power collaborating? The subcontinent wouldbe the global epicenter run by brown folks. But nope lets fight among ourselvez 😢
As an observer, Indian central governments really had little to no control over each state since its formation. This meant local aristocracy still wield immense power and control to this day. They would’ve dominated local politics and able to resist or undermine central government policies. China, on the other hand, the political regime seized power through essentially military conquest, thus local governments officials were appointed thus bend to the central government’s will.
Oh the British CERTAINLY did not pit Hindus against Muslims in all places. Communal electorates are an example. It's your country, which has caused most of the border problems in the global south. You are DEFINITELY in
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.
Cannot agree more, that has been the new traditions in post independence scenarios of all these places. But actually I will add more. If one notices carefully almost all activists of these countries who had wanted self rule from British and who carried some substance had not blamed the british for what they did not do, almost all of them were western educated and I am sure all of them as well as most of the public had high regards for the british and larger european race. So far i have not come across a single instance of those people foul mouthing the british people or european public. Indians and south asians always had high regard for white skinned people and honestly my experience of studying in an irish run school in calcutta under irish Christian brothers and Portuguese teachers did not betray any of those ideas though to be honest i used to think they were all british until recently when i had to take cognizance of individual surnames and their origins thanks to rising sectarian, casteist political and social vibes in India when I was staying there. Fast forward nearly 80 years of self rule by indians, pakistanis and bangladeshis and one finds all sorts of new allegations of which most are unsubstantiated and some fed from western countries and public themselves, as if white people just does not wish to let go off their idea of goodness, try to be as good as possible caring little for facts and history while indians and muslims in general gets their ultimate kicks of life blaming others for whatever they fail to do at present. This is direct result nationalistic politics, a skewed idea of patriotism,a brainwashed schooling structure which was probably needed at some time but surely has gone sour considerably.
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.
@@thomasbrownriggholden3395have some shame and study how much wealth they looted from INDIAN subcontinent. Your entire country is build on that money.
Partition of British India was the best thing happened for hindhus in the last millenium means last 1000 years it saved millions of hindhus from islamisation and gave hindhus a beautiful country called india ❤ Thank you britan (UK) ❤ britan gave hindhus india and Israel for jews they are god's chosen people at that time British gave education to many backward classes in india If you want a safe country and freedom for yourself you have to pay a heavy price
I am tending to agree with you. But then why is india not a hindu only country with places which wanted to be part of hindu india then. I am sure india would not have become 60% geographically of what it is now if that had been the case. And why are hindus if they are better than the muslims in dealing with others which i tend to agree with respect to some types if hindus only not letting the sikhs have their own country,the Kashmiris have their own,the nagas, the kukis or anyone else whishes to blt be part of hindu india. Same with israel,they are gods chosen people ,they are good why forcibly take away lands of palestinians after they have their own country and protection from global powers.
By the way good things come naturally ,safety comes with understanding of one's own position among others and among the natural surroundings and if that has to come with a heavy price the problem is with that type of idea of safety and believe me anything which comes with a heavy price does not last long because they are not sustainable at all.
Absolutely correct!!! I feel the same way. I wish the population exchange was 100 %. Would've spared everyone a lot of pain and suffering. Look what's happening in BD today. But whatever the case, I don't think we need to drag in some random country from the Middle East for these issues as justification. We have nothing to do with them.
@@ABO-DestinyWell, that is because a majority of Sikhs do not want a separate country. Who cares about some fringe radicals. The king of Kashmir was a Hindu and he joined India. So Kashmir is India. If some people of a certain faith do not like it, they are free to leave India and live in some Islamic Republic.
Kashmir was a princely state at the time of partition, so was (albeit briefly) neither part of India nor Pakistan at the time. The map is correct for that moment.
It's a shame that history is not taught freely without changes or omissions and without bias. Most people don't realize the France was the first nation State or the first geographic area, people's and multiple cultures that was recognized by it's leadership, in there case Napoleon as a nation and a system of assimilation and language propagation through media, like education and forced press media enabled French to be spoken all over modern France. The idea of nation state is very new, unified Italy in the 1920s had less than 20% of it's population speaking Italian, Germany, Prussia or Weimar and it's many kingdoms and castles we're unified only recently in the late 1800s and so many cases like that. Imperialism, despite it's huge negative side had a lot of positives too. China, India, West Asia southeast Asia etc, will not be unified nation's without the British, French and other colonial powers.... because if you thoroughly read their histories, they were all partitioned by feudalism and feudal Lords and factions and very violent especially China and India. That's how these societies were and till today, to some extent the practice still exists but under their various national governments. Even Europe especially was like this too, Germany, Italy, France etc.
please remember Before the british Hindus and muslim lived in peace. During the colonial period the british would insight division in these groups and as a result we see the creation of the 3 nations
Ah man, this is ancient history dude, never mind what happened in the past, can't change the past. Time to like move on, you know and well stop the blame game yeah? That's like, you know, for oldsters.
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.
Israel: already had jewish population and sectarian violence between arabs and jews, and you people wanted the british to leave,so the jews needed their own state and protection, good that they got it. Same thing with India ,both hindus and muslims wanted te british to leave and yet none of them could live together after British left, neither inside so called secular india nor inside islamic pakistan or bangladesh and yet everybody wanted the British to leave as early as possible. Cyprus : i know its a dispute between the greeks and turks , so just say some thanks to the Brits they did not hand over complete cyprus to greeks but you will not say so because your history has no such precedence. And did you forget armenia deliberately ? I mean i heard there was a genocide coverup there. And by the way manage the muslim countries of pakistan and Bangladesh properly or else you will need to blame the british again for those.
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.
@@BiTurbo228Or after we left. And the Indians were quite quick to absorb the largely-independent-under-the-British Princely States and their treasuries.
That was a very generous white-wash of direct action day. Ah that's alright, hindu people's lives are not significant anyway. It is also too gruesome for RUclips And also how she said Kashmir as 'muslim majority' but when it comes to Punjab, sikhs are 'significant minority'
Yes that was generous white wash indeed ,too generous for a biased ,corrupt hindu nationalistic govt running a country meant to be for all different kinds of religious groups. Why did not the hindus create a country for hindus only from the start and include only those places where people wanted to be part of the new hindu only country rather than create an all religious group country with all the lands of all those people. Yiu people are no better than the genocidal israelis. How can you people still have the civility to argue a lost case.
The master of division is religion. Religion gives people identity. identity is based on fear. The anger of human is natural, everything else is cultural. Ireland was divided between catholic republicans and Protestant unionists. India was divided between Hindu and Muslim. Cyprus was divided between Muslim and Christian.
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.
Kashmir was a princely state at the time of partition, so was (albeit briefly) neither part of India nor Pakistan at the time. The map is correct for that moment.
India was more developed than China upon independence, having a much higher GDP per capita. China was badly mismanaged till Deng Xiaoping's reforms in the 1980s, when its economy took off. India was never so badly mismanaged (thus avoiding famine), but its interventionist economy and its support of big players like Tata instead of new competitors meant that growth was poor until the 1990s.
I was made to understand that as the colonial master England did poured billions of sterling pounds into India to develop the country, build its infrastructure, educate and feed the people but it all came to nought.
21:38 The leaders of Indian and Pakistani independence were intellectuals who had little understanding of the complexities of the Indian subcontinent. Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, were trained as lawyers in London. Jawaharlal Nehru did express sentiments reflecting his complex relationship with British culture and his Indian identity, especially during his early years. Raised in a privileged and Westernized environment, Nehru was educated in elite British institutions like Harrow, Trinity College, and the Inner Temple. This upbringing immersed him in British customs, values, and intellectual traditions, making him feel more British than Indian at times.
In his autobiography, Toward Freedom, Nehru candidly reflects on this internal conflict. He acknowledged feeling disconnected from the masses of India and initially seeing himself as part of an elite Westernized class.
Colonized Indians adopted the colonizer's ideas, such as nationalism, cuius regio, eius religio (the ruler's religion determines the state's religion), and the use of a main language for integration (Hindi, Urdu). They should all bear accountability for the murders, rapes, and arsons caused by the Partition.
The English drawing lines on maps hasn't worked well anywhere.
That's certainly true, but not only the British. All colonial powers.
Pre colonial times didn't really have accurate maps, but if there had been, there would've been other lines drawn by other powers, equally disruptive.
@handyvickers unfortunately these are the ones that we are left with.
It worked well with Stalin after WW2.
@@hanlens_on_hiatus But the Muslim party is suited on partition. You can't just blame it on the Brittish.
India 🇮🇳 was my biological mother (born 1987) BUT Australia 🇦🇺 is my foster mother. WHAT is true love ❤️..when you love your foster mother so much you will die for her. My father still loves India, he supports the Indian cricket 🏏team during their defeat (boxing day test 2024) he still visits India 🇮🇳yearly and owns several commercial properties. Me and my brother love Australia. We support the Aussie cricket 🏏 team and own very successful Architecture practice in Australia. Love for your country comes from inside you!! Australia has given us more than India ever could..me and my brother love Australia🇦🇺 our foster mother!!
Fascinating. Thank you Dr Khan.
So essentially, 2 groups of people get what they asked for, then they blamed the British when they started killing each other. The usual story
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
Interesting 👍
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.
While the British took an active role in helping to mediate the partition, it doesn't seem like ownership of the partition decision really even lies with the British.
@@Nainara32 correct. We didn’t care at all.
I don’t think we should assume that without partition there would have been peace
@@rriveranotario I can speak for Indian muslims and for literal history that the majority did not want partition, and history has shown its led to two failed democracies with endless suffering and millions of lives lost to wars and poverty, and of course further radicalization. The partition itself almost led to a religious civil war across the entire subcontinent. If not for the leadership of super celebrities like Gandhis and the Hindu and Muslim leaders aligned with him to quell the rampant violence, there would have been total chaos. Partition was a horrible idea led by a radical religious and greedy community leader.
But after partition for sure there would never be peace and that was the plan of British. They did the same with ISRAEL and form Palestine on both sides similar to INDIA.
Considering the dysfunction of the ruling class in Pakistan, it seems like in the very long run India may have dodged a bullet. Counterfactual suppositions are always fraught though.
That's such a hypothetical POV. It proves nothing. It's not like Partition completely solved it. There have been numerous wars between India-Pak. Terror activities and all. Kashmir has become hell because of that. Surely British saw that coming. Stop pretending to be good guys
@@martin96991That was not the "plan" of the British. The British had their own problems after WW2 and had to rebuild their own country and economy. India was no more of concern to the British after the second war of the 20th century. If you really think the British planned for India to have such problems then you are a child who needs to grow up and stop being so insecure and idiotic.
On the religious lines it was partitioned. At the insist of MOHAMMAD ALI JINNAH of the MUSLIM League vehemently
Maybe Jinnah was right, and let's see what happened after that: now India is ruled by the BJP, RSS, and Hindutva nationalists that only want Hindu power and language over everyone else. Muslims in India are being killed, discriminated against, and forced out of their homes daily; the media are being censored; and Muslim MPs in Parliament, who had an average of 10%, are now sheering over 4.2% while being 14-15% of the population. The current ruling party has no minorities in it. I personally do not support the partition and wanted a united Hindustan that even includes Sri Lanka and the Maldives, but when I see the current situation of India and Pakistan, I think it is their fault, and they will suffer for it, and one day probably people will look back in the past and realize that maybe power is in unity and not hostility, and that day would be in a far future where even our grandchildren would not see it.
Why did Partition happen? Don't know. Let's ask Jinnah
Maybe Jinnah was right, and let's see what happened after that: now India is ruled by the BJP, RSS, and Hindutva nationalists that only want Hindu power and language over everyone else. Muslims in India are being killed, discriminated against, and forced out of their homes daily; the media are being censored; and Muslim MPs in Parliament, who had an average of 10%, are now sheering over 4.2% while being 14-15% of the population. The current ruling party has no minorities in it. I personally do not support the partition and wanted a united Hindustan that even includes Sri Lanka and the Maldives, but when I see the current situation of India and Pakistan, I think it is their fault, and they will suffer for it, and one day probably people will look back in the past and realize that maybe power is in unity and not hostility, and that day would be in a far future where even our grandchildren would not see it.
The british onlyy did what they did when they took over. Us Indians literary gave them the reigns
@@jays5186 Correct
One can't really say that partition was a mistake as the alternative could very well have been very much worse.
Sadly, there are many examples of ongoing conflict where two peoples sharing a geographical area.
Well.. Practically the whole Indian contingent of the British army converted to the Japanese organised INA the "Indian national army" after the fall of Singapore. 45,000 in fact. First hand POW accounts place them as the most brutal, apart from the Korean and Taiwanese guards.
No, The INA was a minor part. Many Indians stayed loyal. 2.5 Million Indians. the INA was numbered in the thousands.
Can anyone recommend a good book on this subject?
I dont know whether 'Discovery of India' authored by Indias first prime minister discussed this partition process but I trust the man now more than ever before.
' Freedom at Midnight '
By Larry Colin's and Dominique Lapire
Discovery of India is a joke of a book. Stay away.
You can checkout Freedom at Midnight by Lapuerre, Pakistan or Partition of India by BR Ambedkar are pretty informative.
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.
India suffered through massive spanish flu outbreak, great depression, brutal human rights violations, and WW2 on the span of 40 years. By the way, India was actually partly occupied by Japan, unlike Britain whose largest loss was the Blitz. So saying Britain suffered more than India is just bafflingly stupid.
@@alicia1463 Putting the entire responsibility of the Bengal famine on the British is wholly unfair. The local administration, which comprised of Indians, that was in charge of the Bengal region are the ones who are mainly responsible for the lack luster, negligible response and incompetent leadership throughout the entirety of the famine. They were not fully transparent with the British at the time with extent and severity of the famine, they did not ration or implement changes mainly because of dissent within and also the denial that there was even a famine or the possibility of one with high ranking officials. Hussein Suhrawardy, for example, was the Minister of Civil Supplies in the Bengal government during those times and was a staunch believe of the 'No shortage' theory, he believed there was no famine, no shortage, and thought that it was simply the local merchants hording to artificially to create higher prices. How could the British of known to change the policy and divert the adequate resources if the very Indian government in charge of Bengal was not transparent and initially denied there was a famine in the first place? Also right in the middle of humanities biggest war where millions of tonnes of cargo was being sunk by U-boats and resources were strung thin.
Q -WHY INDIA 's INDEPENDENCE PREPONED FROM JUNE 1948 to AUGUST 1947 WITH TRAGIC CONSEQUENCES ;;;;;Why after a visit to London , Mountbatten suddenly declared that the Partition of India would take place with inexplicable haste on August 15, 1947, almost a year ahead of schedule?
Ans - The British knew that MA Jinnah had TB and that he would not live for long. Without Jinnah there would have been no partition ////
Excellent presentation again IWM.... Thank you.. My Father was there at the time with the British forces having served part of his WW2 service in Calcutta as it was then known... At his young age he was astonished at the depth of Racial violence and far reaching social effects of the Cast system coupled with the Religious cultures... None of which were really apparent back home in Wales... Realistically the British gave nothing to the people of India over the 200 years they were there, they only took from them.... It was never likely that they were ever likely to do anything other than leave with the Indian people left in a state of turmoil... Roger.. Pembrokeshire
Overall Empire was good it gave India, Pakistan & Bangladesh the basis of a Country ie Train & Railways, roads, courts etc
INDIA was more advanced than the British.
It Was 27% of the global gdp. Why the British came in the first place no one invited them? And when they left GDP of INDIA was 3%
Return the $50 trillion and you'll be poorer than Somalia.
Entire UK is build on INDIAN money.
@@martin96991 Why didn’t the Indians defend themselves if they were so rich? Indian history is a succession of the Indians not doing anything about foreign invaders. The Indians were ruled by a foreign power when the British arrived.
@@martin96991 In part yes
@@YorkGod1 165 million INDIANS di@d in just 40 years under British rule.
The British should have retained localised presence in parts of India like North East india or in one or many of the colonial Indian cities they had established using their own power and ingenuity, that would have prevented the sectarian killings and would have saved lot of would be new vulnerable minorities like the Christians of North East India and Goa, daman and diu or even the other minorities like the Sikhs and Muslims, all of whom are suffering injustice at the hands of majority hindu population and a heavily biased, corrupt, incompetent and myopic hindu nationalistic govt.
3 million died in Bengal because their food was expropriated and shipped to British WW2 soldiers. This detail has been glossed over in this video. Other than that, a decent attempt at recounting a sad history.
i already knew what this video would be by the accent
This is a lie
@@elswick4636 Google this "Churchill's legacy leaves Indians questioning his hero status" - BBC Article. Also Wiki "Bengal Famine"
I didn't know that
Jinnah vs gandhi . Islamic interests vs hindu interests and a fault line involving certain Raja.
Why doesn't India, Pakistan and Bangladesh reunify again? Surely they are now more mature people in these countries and can reunify peacefully? And then include Sri Lanka too.
No thanks
The dislike or characterisation of Hitler’s Nazi Germany as the common enemy, united the Soviets and the West, the nature of the British united the Hindu and Muslims. Once Hitler was gone, the West and the Soviet went back to hating each other and once the British left India, the Hindus and Muslims found something to hate. This hatred or need for hatred is very similar to the characterisation of the predominantly European Caucasian Pilgrims who became the settlers of the USA depicted in Michael Moore’s Bowling for columbine. Identity is based on fear. Only a dead man has no fear. The living need fear to survive. The anger is natural, everything else is cultural.
@clovisdacruz6078 very superficial and naive understanding of the history, I must say..!!
Great presentation. Thank you.
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.
They looted $50 trillion from the subcontinent not try to justify that.
Entire subcontinent was a country. The concept of modern boundaries is very new. BHARAT have a history of 10000+ years.
@ Nope… it was an Empire.
@@alcapone6796 “Exploited”…. by that you mean giving a flogging to anyone who attacked them, or those under their protection.
Whenever they say "On both sides" you just know they mean the religion of Piece.
"One name, Jinnah! He is the true villain. He advocated for partition to serve his own interests. It is disheartening to see Pakistanis honoring him today. They should seek to understand the true history."
Maybe Jinnah was right, and let's see what happened after that: now India is ruled by the BJP, RSS, and Hindutva nationalists that only want Hindu power and language over everyone else. Muslims in India are being killed, discriminated against, and forced out of their homes daily; the media are being censored; and Muslim MPs in Parliament, who had an average of 10%, are now sheering over 4.2% while being 14-15% of the population. The current ruling party has no minorities in it. I personally do not support the partition and wanted a united Hindustan that even includes Sri Lanka and the Maldives, but when I see the current situation of India and Pakistan, I think it is their fault, and they will suffer for it, and one day probably people will look back in the past and realize that maybe power is in unity and not hostility, and that day would be in a far future where even our grandchildren would not see it.
even the India of today was never 1 single country besides during British colonial rule
Same BS for justifying the horrors done by your ancestors.
@@martin96991 The comment wasn't "justifying" anything, it's just a matter of FACT. You should thank your lucky stars that British rule was imposed as opposed to the alternatives which included Turkish, Persian and FRENCH rule. Yeah, good luck with any of those.......
Stop being a victim.
@@MrBannystar $50 trillion was stolen by the biggest robbers.
165 million d!ed in just 40 years of that rule.
You entire country is build on that money and was industrialized on the cost of resources from INDIA.
@@martin96991 Utter laughable nonsense from start to finish, and is typical historical illiteracy that I'd expect from a victim. I won't be wasting anymore time here.
@@MrBannystar don't you have Google? It will show you real history which is censored in UK schools.
INDIA was the world's richest country throughout its history.
In 1700 INDIA's global gdp share was 25-27% after the brits left it was just 3%
Bengal famine rivals what happened in Ukraine by the soviets at the same time just sayin....
Because there would have been a civil war.
This report helps to dispel the myth that the problems and violence between India and Pakistan is solely the fault of the British. Clearly it is far more complex, with age-old tensions between religious and ethnic populations, a caste system and feudalism, which had been held in some kind of cohesion by imperial rule. The British concept of a nation state never really existed here and was destined to fail when arbitrary borders were applied. However it was done with the full participation of indigenous leaders, and furthermore India and Pakistan have had over 75 years now to resolve the issues peacefully. We've seen many European nations either sub-divide or reunite since the end of Soviet imperialism, with the will of the peoples concerned. Where there is a will there is a way.
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.
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?
The British should plan to save their loaned economy
For those supporting partition, this idea had a comparitively few takers before this artificially created sentiment and artificial feuling of this sentiment in the common civility by his hon'ble comparatively new muslim, Md.Ali Jinnah. His call for Direct Action Day sparked the never ending riots throughout the nation and was the reason why partition really was forced on everybody.
This movement was created and feuled by British themselves and AIMIM with their newly found loyalist Jinnah.
Not really. There were countless riots even before Direct Action Day. 😅
You sound naive
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.
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
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!"
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa : Afghanistan 🇦🇫...
PoK ,Punjab , Sindh : India 🇮🇳...
Balochistan Independent...
@@tarunpandey8339 khalistan says hi
@@tarunpandey8339 no thanks
@@yasirshahani2544Khalisthan exists only in Canada ha ha
5:21 That imperial system is called “divide and rule”, say it!
I don't know which one to blame. The British, religion, or the politicians.
...what about the Indians and Pakistanis?
Why blame anyone man? You know, just let it go and move on, stop being a victim. Tomorrow is another day.
@@therealmrfishpastePakistan was created by British so that they can never live with peace ever.
Similarly Palestine was created.
@@paulreilly3904 There's no population that doesn't love being told that they're owed something by someone due to historical wrongs against them.
Things can (and usually do) have mutliple causes.
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.
It was Indians who deliberately butchered over a million other Indians just because they didn't like their religion.
Own it and quit passing the buck.
Lots of racists in the comments
"Nationalists" is the word you're looking for. There's almost no mention of any race in the comments.
Without knowing anything about you, I know that is your favourite word.
@@Sid-om9zv They're indoctrinated lot.
@@williamfitch1408 >Without knowing anything about you, I know...
Well, ain't that just the problem?
@@alphamikeomega5728 Huh?
Please use the correct Indian map
curious what was wrong with the indian thumbnail map assuming that's what you were referring to?
Kashmir was a princely state at the time of partition, so was (albeit briefly) neither part of India nor Pakistan at the time. The map is correct for that moment.
Idk seems like the whole thing together would be a benefit for the world. Can u imagine the brain power collaborating? The subcontinent wouldbe the global epicenter run by brown folks. But nope lets fight among ourselvez 😢
As an observer, Indian central governments really had little to no control over each state since its formation. This meant local aristocracy still wield immense power and control to this day. They would’ve dominated local politics and able to resist or undermine central government policies. China, on the other hand, the political regime seized power through essentially military conquest, thus local governments officials were appointed thus bend to the central government’s will.
@@JvmCassandra
Not true
The Central Govt has good control over the states
Some say more than necessary
The Indians divided themselves on religious grounds, leave us out of it.
Oh the British CERTAINLY did not pit Hindus against Muslims in all places.
Communal electorates are an example.
It's your country, which has caused most of the border problems in the global south.
You are DEFINITELY in
Utter devastation
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 ?
People who know nothing blame the British
People who know nothing make sweeping generalisations like this one ^^^.
"What have the Romans ever done for us??"
Cannot agree more, that has been the new traditions in post independence scenarios of all these places.
But actually I will add more.
If one notices carefully almost all activists of these countries who had wanted self rule from British and who carried some substance had not blamed the british for what they did not do, almost all of them were western educated and I am sure all of them as well as most of the public had high regards for the british and larger european race.
So far i have not come across a single instance of those people foul mouthing the british people or european public.
Indians and south asians always had high regard for white skinned people and honestly my experience of studying in an irish run school in calcutta under irish Christian brothers and Portuguese teachers did not betray any of those ideas though to be honest i used to think they were all british until recently when i had to take cognizance of individual surnames and their origins thanks to rising sectarian, casteist political and social vibes in India when I was staying there.
Fast forward nearly 80 years of self rule by indians, pakistanis and bangladeshis and one finds all sorts of new allegations of which most are unsubstantiated and some fed from western countries and public themselves, as if white people just does not wish to let go off their idea of goodness, try to be as good as possible caring little for facts and history while indians and muslims in general gets their ultimate kicks of life blaming others for whatever they fail to do at present.
This is direct result nationalistic politics, a skewed idea of patriotism,a brainwashed schooling structure which was probably needed at some time but surely has gone sour considerably.
Religion really ruins everything.
British too. $50 trillion stolen.
There's a reason INDIA was called the crown jewel of the empire.
South India needs to be a separate country
The partition of Bharat(India) occurred because of a self-proclaimed so-called peace-loving community.
just like you lol
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.
@@thomasbrownriggholden3395have some shame and study how much wealth they looted from INDIAN subcontinent. Your entire country is build on that money.
Partition of British India was the best thing happened for hindhus in the last millenium means last 1000 years it saved millions of hindhus from islamisation and gave hindhus a beautiful country called india ❤
Thank you britan (UK) ❤ britan gave hindhus india and Israel for jews they are god's chosen people at that time
British gave education to many backward classes in india
If you want a safe country and freedom for yourself you have to pay a heavy price
I am tending to agree with you. But then why is india not a hindu only country with places which wanted to be part of hindu india then.
I am sure india would not have become 60% geographically of what it is now if that had been the case.
And why are hindus if they are better than the muslims in dealing with others which i tend to agree with respect to some types if hindus only not letting the sikhs have their own country,the Kashmiris have their own,the nagas, the kukis or anyone else whishes to blt be part of hindu india.
Same with israel,they are gods chosen people ,they are good why forcibly take away lands of palestinians after they have their own country and protection from global powers.
By the way good things come naturally ,safety comes with understanding of one's own position among others and among the natural surroundings and if that has to come with a heavy price the problem is with that type of idea of safety and believe me anything which comes with a heavy price does not last long because they are not sustainable at all.
@ABO-Destiny even today india spent a lot of money for it's defence and security and it will increase only in future
Absolutely correct!!! I feel the same way. I wish the population exchange was 100 %. Would've spared everyone a lot of pain and suffering. Look what's happening in BD today.
But whatever the case, I don't think we need to drag in some random country from the Middle East for these issues as justification. We have nothing to do with them.
@@ABO-DestinyWell, that is because a majority of Sikhs do not want a separate country. Who cares about some fringe radicals.
The king of Kashmir was a Hindu and he joined India. So Kashmir is India. If some people of a certain faith do not like it, they are free to leave India and live in some Islamic Republic.
Answer is pretty simple. You don't really need 25 minutes. 😅
In fact, it just needs 5 letters. Starts with an "I" and ends with an "M".
Kashmir will always be Crown of India, it cherished with our blood, our fatherland....show Right Map of India with its crown..😊
Kadhmir needs independence from both India and Pakistan.
Kashmir was a princely state at the time of partition, so was (albeit briefly) neither part of India nor Pakistan at the time. The map is correct for that moment.
As a Kashmiri, I'm absolutely opposed to the idea of Indian's occupying my homeland.
When the United States dissolves, our mass migration to separate 'conservatives' from 'liberals' will make the Indian partition look like a picnic.
It's a shame that history is not taught freely without changes or omissions and without bias.
Most people don't realize the France was the first nation State or the first geographic area, people's and multiple cultures that was recognized by it's leadership, in there case Napoleon as a nation and a system of assimilation and language propagation through media, like education and forced press media enabled French to be spoken all over modern France.
The idea of nation state is very new, unified Italy in the 1920s had less than 20% of it's population speaking Italian, Germany, Prussia or Weimar and it's many kingdoms and castles we're unified only recently in the late 1800s and so many cases like that.
Imperialism, despite it's huge negative side had a lot of positives too.
China, India, West Asia southeast Asia etc, will not be unified nation's without the British, French and other colonial powers.... because if you thoroughly read their histories, they were all partitioned by feudalism and feudal Lords and factions and very violent especially China and India.
That's how these societies were and till today, to some extent the practice still exists but under their various national governments.
Even Europe especially was like this too, Germany, Italy, France etc.
It was too soon for independence
Given that there was a largely preventable famine only four years earlier, it was also too late.
Because they couldn't agree on what side of a cricket bat had to be roundest
Kashmir belongs to Pakistan
please remember Before the british Hindus and muslim lived in peace. During the colonial period the british would insight division in these groups and as a result we see the creation of the 3 nations
Ah man, this is ancient history dude, never mind what happened in the past, can't change the past. Time to like move on, you know and well stop the blame game yeah? That's like, you know, for oldsters.
...or for those who want to prevent this kind of disaster in future?
Causality is a core tenet of history.
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.
India - Palestine - Cyprus ( Britain , Britain , Britain ) 😮
The most recent imperial power in Cyprus is Turkey. Ask the UN what business Turkey has there, and they will say "none".
Deleting comments you don't like? How stunning and brave of you 😂
Israel: already had jewish population and sectarian violence between arabs and jews, and you people wanted the british to leave,so the jews needed their own state and protection, good that they got it.
Same thing with India ,both hindus and muslims wanted te british to leave and yet none of them could live together after British left, neither inside so called secular india nor inside islamic pakistan or bangladesh and yet everybody wanted the British to leave as early as possible.
Cyprus : i know its a dispute between the greeks and turks , so just say some thanks to the Brits they did not hand over complete cyprus to greeks but you will not say so because your history has no such precedence.
And did you forget armenia deliberately ? I mean i heard there was a genocide coverup
there.
And by the way manage the muslim countries of pakistan and Bangladesh properly or else you will need to blame the british again for those.
India should thank the Axis for their liberation from Imperialist oppression
This was a great decision. India would not have peace with near half of its population being Muslim. Getting them out was definitely beneficial.
Gandhi nehru drew the borders
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...
...because only white people have any agency...all other races are always helpless bystanders in their own lives....lol
@@BiTurbo228Or after we left.
And the Indians were quite quick to absorb the largely-independent-under-the-British Princely States and their treasuries.
That was a very generous white-wash of direct action day. Ah that's alright, hindu people's lives are not significant anyway. It is also too gruesome for RUclips
And also how she said Kashmir as 'muslim majority' but when it comes to Punjab, sikhs are 'significant minority'
Yes that was generous white wash indeed ,too generous for a biased ,corrupt hindu nationalistic govt running a country meant to be for all different kinds of religious groups.
Why did not the hindus create a country for hindus only from the start and include only those places where people wanted to be part of the new hindu only country rather than create an all religious group country with all the lands of all those people.
Yiu people are no better than the genocidal israelis.
How can you people still have the civility to argue a lost case.
Ireland was partitioned, India was partitioned, Cyprus was particioned. Not a coincidence, if you know who the colonial master of these countries was.
true , add yemen to the list
Cyprus was partitioned by Turkey, against the will of the UN.
Yes, thanks to religious tensions. And it was the UN who divided Cyprus after Turkey illegally invaded it.
The master of division is religion. Religion gives people identity. identity is based on fear. The anger of human is natural, everything else is cultural. Ireland was divided between catholic republicans and Protestant unionists. India was divided between Hindu and Muslim. Cyprus was divided between Muslim and Christian.
The British like to divide their former colonies before they depart.
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.
Wrong Map of India..in Thumbnail..
Indian viewers ...
Report this Video...😡😡😡
What will that achieve?
Kashmir was a princely state at the time of partition, so was (albeit briefly) neither part of India nor Pakistan at the time. The map is correct for that moment.
If India was left as it was, it would be a power house right now and be competing with America. China and Russia would be 2nd tier.
India was more developed than China upon independence, having a much higher GDP per capita. China was badly mismanaged till Deng Xiaoping's reforms in the 1980s, when its economy took off. India was never so badly mismanaged (thus avoiding famine), but its interventionist economy and its support of big players like Tata instead of new competitors meant that growth was poor until the 1990s.
I was made to understand that as the colonial master England did poured billions of sterling pounds into India to develop the country, build its infrastructure, educate and feed the people but it all came to nought.