Vox has actually touched on this a few times in the recent past and I found them to be extremely informative: How the British failed India and Pakistan The conflict in Kashmir, explained While on...
Vox has actually touched on this a few times in the recent past and I found them to be extremely informative:
Any video on the Radcliffe line that doesn't mention that both the INC (Indian National Congress) and the Muslim League ("Pakistan") were involved in drawing the line is being intentionally...
Any video on the Radcliffe line that doesn't mention that both the INC (Indian National Congress) and the Muslim League ("Pakistan") were involved in drawing the line is being intentionally misleading. The Radcliff line was not like Sykes-Picot. Both parties agreed to the partition and sent high level people to be on the commission (future Chief Justices in both countries) Radcliffe shoulders some responsibility but it's not on his or Britain's shoulders alone in this case.
There had to be a line and it's a very densely populated area with Hindu and Muslim communities scattered throughout so unfortunately there was always going to be trouble no matter where it was put.
Interesting. That does seem like a very big oversight in the video. But even with their help, 4 months seems like an awful short time to solve such a complex issue.
Interesting. That does seem like a very big oversight in the video. But even with their help, 4 months seems like an awful short time to solve such a complex issue.
Oh definitely, the British Government, Mountbatten and Radcliffe certainly deserve a significant amount of the blame, it was always going to be a mess but the fact the two people on the ground...
Oh definitely, the British Government, Mountbatten and Radcliffe certainly deserve a significant amount of the blame, it was always going to be a mess but the fact the two people on the ground wanted to head home asap definitely added unnecessary suffering.
I just think it's also important not to fall into a false colonial power narrative like it was sykes-picot or the Scramble for Africa with Europeans randomly drawing lines on a map in a smoky gentleman's club in London like the video implies.
I haven't really managed to find any info about this online, but can someone with more knowledge and nuance on this explain to me. Why did Pakistan and India ever have to be divided initially? I...
I haven't really managed to find any info about this online, but can someone with more knowledge and nuance on this explain to me. Why did Pakistan and India ever have to be divided initially? I come from a multicultural background and honestly I see the exact things that were described in the videos. Pakistani and Indian friends arguing over who's country is better for arbitrary reasons meanwhile they both eat the same foods, follow the same cricketeers etc... The whole partition seems nonsensical to me.
I don't know how much of this is true. But I have heard that there were so many protests from indian muslim communities asking for an independent state and there was a staggering amount of...
I don't know how much of this is true. But I have heard that there were so many protests from indian muslim communities asking for an independent state and there was a staggering amount of communal riots between Hindus and Muslims at that period.
Also there is another theory that British was so insecure that India may become more powerful in the future and partition was a part of Britain's divide and rule strategy. But to me latter seems more like a patriotic propaganda. Our history textbooks brushes through these area without giving a definite answer.
Political stability in modern India was based on a framework where the British ruled over a Indians who were divided along lines of caste, religion, language, etc. Since the British were a caste...
Political stability in modern India was based on a framework where the British ruled over a Indians who were divided along lines of caste, religion, language, etc. Since the British were a caste apart, they basically set the rules for everyone else, so everyone was focused on conforming to the role and station assigned to them by the colonial Raj.
Prior to the Raj, the preeminent power in India was the (Muslim) Mughal empire. As a consequence of this, Muslims in India had enjoyed political power and influence that far outweighed their actual numbers for at least 300 years. This was also right around when the Ottoman Empire and the Caliphate was being dismantled, so there was a global movement among Muslims to begin identifying politically as “Muslim” and develop a sense that Islamic civilization was in decline and needed to be restored.
An independent India was going to be democratic, and Muslims felt that they could not make it work in a Hindu majority country. Half measures, like reserving a plurality of seats in parliament for Muslims, were rejected as it would have opened the door for all kinds of other reservations. Ultimately the Muslim League decided they’d rather just be in charge of their own country instead of risking being a minority group in a majority Hindu one.
Vox has actually touched on this a few times in the recent past and I found them to be extremely informative:
How the British failed India and Pakistan
The conflict in Kashmir, explained
While on the subject, I also want to take the time to highlight this beautifully written and horrifying account of what it is like to be a citizen of Kashmir and a journalist, juxtaposed with the country's world famous tulip festival. It very much reminds me of the passion of Pablo Neruda's poem, I'm explaining a few things
Any video on the Radcliffe line that doesn't mention that both the INC (Indian National Congress) and the Muslim League ("Pakistan") were involved in drawing the line is being intentionally misleading. The Radcliff line was not like Sykes-Picot. Both parties agreed to the partition and sent high level people to be on the commission (future Chief Justices in both countries) Radcliffe shoulders some responsibility but it's not on his or Britain's shoulders alone in this case.
There had to be a line and it's a very densely populated area with Hindu and Muslim communities scattered throughout so unfortunately there was always going to be trouble no matter where it was put.
Interesting. That does seem like a very big oversight in the video. But even with their help, 4 months seems like an awful short time to solve such a complex issue.
Oh definitely, the British Government, Mountbatten and Radcliffe certainly deserve a significant amount of the blame, it was always going to be a mess but the fact the two people on the ground wanted to head home asap definitely added unnecessary suffering.
I just think it's also important not to fall into a false colonial power narrative like it was sykes-picot or the Scramble for Africa with Europeans randomly drawing lines on a map in a smoky gentleman's club in London like the video implies.
I haven't really managed to find any info about this online, but can someone with more knowledge and nuance on this explain to me. Why did Pakistan and India ever have to be divided initially? I come from a multicultural background and honestly I see the exact things that were described in the videos. Pakistani and Indian friends arguing over who's country is better for arbitrary reasons meanwhile they both eat the same foods, follow the same cricketeers etc... The whole partition seems nonsensical to me.
I don't know how much of this is true. But I have heard that there were so many protests from indian muslim communities asking for an independent state and there was a staggering amount of communal riots between Hindus and Muslims at that period.
Also there is another theory that British was so insecure that India may become more powerful in the future and partition was a part of Britain's divide and rule strategy. But to me latter seems more like a patriotic propaganda. Our history textbooks brushes through these area without giving a definite answer.
Political stability in modern India was based on a framework where the British ruled over a Indians who were divided along lines of caste, religion, language, etc. Since the British were a caste apart, they basically set the rules for everyone else, so everyone was focused on conforming to the role and station assigned to them by the colonial Raj.
Prior to the Raj, the preeminent power in India was the (Muslim) Mughal empire. As a consequence of this, Muslims in India had enjoyed political power and influence that far outweighed their actual numbers for at least 300 years. This was also right around when the Ottoman Empire and the Caliphate was being dismantled, so there was a global movement among Muslims to begin identifying politically as “Muslim” and develop a sense that Islamic civilization was in decline and needed to be restored.
An independent India was going to be democratic, and Muslims felt that they could not make it work in a Hindu majority country. Half measures, like reserving a plurality of seats in parliament for Muslims, were rejected as it would have opened the door for all kinds of other reservations. Ultimately the Muslim League decided they’d rather just be in charge of their own country instead of risking being a minority group in a majority Hindu one.