A Theory On Partition

[Mad Scientist 2.0]

After reading a bit about the historical happenings in the Indian subcontinent I am proposing a theory about why Britishers left a mess in India . So without farther ado I am going to delve into the reasons on why Britishers left a mess behind that is plaguing the whole subcontinent .

Britishers even though ruling for 190 years (1757-1947) was never assimilated in to the subcontinent which is unlike of previous invaders who came to the subcontinent and later assimilated into the wider population and bringing in flavors of their culture which shaped the culture and enriched it. However the Britishers were a different breed altogether they not only created a barrier among themselves and the native population but also took the plunders to enrich their country in a systematic way causing destruction of the agrarian sector as well as the native industries and making it dependent on UK and western world . But even after employing all tactics of the book the britishers were unable to control the urge for independence in the subcontinent they somewhat dishearteningly left India but even during that they left behind a huge mess perhaps willingly because of the following reasons:

1. Christian Population:
Due to influence of the various european powers Christians were an influential majority in subcontinent consisting of both native born as well as some foreign born. However despite having a soft spot for them the Britishers were highly unwelcome to accommodate them in their country so they created a hectic partition plan in which neither sides were happy innumerable lives were lost consists mainly of hindus muslims and sikhs while christians most often left untouched. The Britishers with all their negativeness they have some keen ability and one of that is the great intuition. They knew if countries are divided in a proper way and if population exchange is done then Christians would be left in alone to fend for themselves giving the religious nature of the subcontinent the Christianity will bear the wrath given their perceived foreignness in belief. However if muslims remained and if a bit propaganda spread and bribes were given muslims can be the punching bag without hurting the christians kind of like bubble raps.

2. Control
Second reason is to indirectly control the country through war and propaganda . If in a proper way partition was done and population exchanged then with time the enmity would be reduced gradually and in future there may be a possibility of union of some sort . If this would have happened then west would invariably loose control in a big market and if they would have became self sufficient and prosperous they might have challenged the hegemony of the west which they are so keen to retain even when there is no empire.

This is just my assumption based upon my readings. However I may be wrong . So constructive criticism is welcome . Share your views too.

@xeuss @AfrazulMandal @TheGreatMaratha @Joe Shearer @Nilgiri @Shantanu_Left @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @Pandora @Mujahid Memon @Foxtrot Delta @SecularNationalist @secular.muslim @Path-Finder @lightoftruth @Death Professor @Trango Towers @American Pakistani @Syed Hammad Ahmed @Cliftonite @Hachiman @AgNoStiC MuSliM @doorstar @IMARV @

 

[xeuss]

If you look at all British colonies around the world, all are suffering today in some way and form.

 

[Goenitz]

@Joe Shearer @xeuss @Jackdaws
I stated somewhere that if Soviets had succeeded in AFG then in Pak, they wd have taken entire Sub-continent as still in India there are many communist ideology movements like naxalites (Lal Salam) and in Assam etc.
Anyway, panellist in this video states that it was Russian then Svoites who UK empire thought as real enemy. They wanted Pak as Nehru tilt towrads socialism could make Asia 'red' (still communists think of that) if there was no division of sub continent. So UK empire urged US too to arm Pakistan right after independence. Believing Pak wd be front state vs Soviets.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

After reading a bit about the historical happenings in the Indian subcontinent I am proposing a theory about why Britishers left a mess in India . So without farther ado I am going to delve into the reasons on why Britishers left a mess behind that is plaguing the whole subcontinent .

Britishers even though ruling for 190 years (1757-1947) was never assimilated in to the subcontinent which is unlike of previous invaders who came to the subcontinent and later assimilated into the wider population and bringing in flavors of their culture which shaped the culture and enriched it. However the Britishers were a different breed altogether they not only created a barrier among themselves and the native population but also took the plunders to enrich their country in a systematic way causing destruction of the agrarian sector as well as the native industries and making it dependent on UK and western world . But even after employing all tactics of the book the britishers were unable to control the urge for independence in the subcontinent they somewhat dishearteningly left India but even during that they left behind a huge mess perhaps willingly because of the following reasons:

1. Christian Population:
Due to influence of the various european powers Christians were an influential majority in subcontinent consisting of both native born as well as some foreign born. However despite having a soft spot for them the Britishers were highly unwelcome to accommodate them in their country so they created a hectic partition plan in which neither sides were happy innumerable lives were lost consists mainly of hindus muslims and sikhs while christians most often left untouched. The Britishers with all their negativeness they have some keen ability and one of that is the great intuition. They knew if countries are divided in a proper way and if population exchange is done then Christians would be left in alone to fend for themselves giving the religious nature of the subcontinent the Christianity will bear the wrath given their perceived foreignness in belief. However if muslims remained and if a bit propaganda spread and bribes were given muslims can be the punching bag without hurting the christians kind of like bubble raps.

2. Control
Second reason is to indirectly control the country through war and propaganda . If in a proper way partition was done and population exchanged then with time the enmity would be reduced gradually and in future there may be a possibility of union of some sort . If this would have happened then west would invariably loose control in a big market and if they would have became self sufficient and prosperous they might have challenged the hegemony of the west which they are so keen to retain even when there is no empire.

This is just my assumption based upon my readings. However I may be wrong . So constructive criticism is welcome . Share your views too.

@xeuss @AfrazulMandal @TheGreatMaratha @Joe Shearer @Nilgiri @Shantanu_Left @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @Pandora @Mujahid Memon @Foxtrot Delta @SecularNationalist @secular.muslim @Path-Finder @lightoftruth @Death Professor @Trango Towers @American Pakistani @Syed Hammad Ahmed @Cliftonite @Hachiman @AgNoStiC MuSliM @doorstar @IMARV @

Yawn*

*The British actually left South Asia in less mess then they found it in. Never again would the high riders from Islamic highlands invade Ganges plains.

 

[Mad Scientist 2.0]

If you look at all British colonies around the world, all are suffering today in some way and form.

So my assumption is wrong?

 

[SABRE]

The term partition is incorrect. It gives an impression as if India was a homogenous union, which it was not. Essentially, what is modern-day Pakistan (or a major chunk of it) was already linguistically, culturally, and religiously separate from what is modern-day India. I am not saying this to justify the creation of Pakistan but this is nonetheless a fact. British exploited these separating lines to turn them into national and international faultlines and blood borders both in the Indian Subcontinent and elsewhere. Today we hate each other but not the British. In fact, we still look up to them.

 

[IMARV]

Never again would the high riders from Islamic highlands invade Ganges plains.

Neither they could anymore. Islamic invaders have to be content with owning Indus land and its people.

 

[Mad Scientist 2.0]

The term partition is incorrect. It gives an impression as if India was a homogenous union, which it was not. Essentially, what is modern-day Pakistan (or a major chunk of it) was already linguistically, culturally, and religiously separate from what is modern-day India. I am not saying this to justify the creation of Pakistan but this is nonetheless a fact. British exploited these separating lines to turn them into national and international faultlines and blood borders both in the Indian Subcontinent and elsewhere. Today we hate each other but not the British. In fact, we still look up to them.

It was historically known as such so used that term.

 

[SecularNationalist]

Quite agree with you.
All Invaders before the British became part of India ,they contributed a lot for this piece of land and even sacrificed .
Bit the British scums came solely for the purpose of looting us and enriching their economy in a very systematic way. The Britain became a world power from resources looted from our subcontinent.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Your assumptions are right.

If you read a science subject, you will already know that you make assumptions based on the available data. Given the amount of data that you show in your assumptions and in your model as presented, what you have done is about as good as might be expected. For every additional year of study - even for every additional three months - your assumptions will change radically.

Have fun.

 

[Cliftonite]

I don't think the British cared much about the Indian Christian population. Remember Goa was annexed by India and the Western powers did not bother intervening. Right now I have no one else to blame but the Indian Muslims themselves. Why the hell did they not start regrouping themselves after Modi won in 2014? They are weak and servile. We shouldn't care about them, India has eyes on GB we should be focused on that.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

Sanghis were slaves of Britishers

We shouldn't care about them,

Yeah right. When all India barks around the world and itself of Pakistan's treatment of minorities and Baloch and Pashtuns, we don't care for our Muslim Brothers and find fault in their country

 

[Foxtrot Delta]

They were colonial rulers what do you expect?

See how they treated indians of south asia and indians of native america.

Im sure if it was one of our forefathers with no knowledge of God or fear of him they might have done even worse things.

When you are at the mercy of outsiders bad things happen.

 

[Cliftonite]

Sanghis were slaves of Britishers


Yeah right. When all India barks around the world and itself of Pakistan's treatment of minorities and Baloch and Pashtuns, we don't care for our Muslim Brothers and find fault in their country

Yes. Because those Muslim brothers will be the first to stab us in the back if we help them. I say this as someone whose ancestors came from India. You haven't heard their thoughts on Pakistan. Let them get zaleelofied a little more. Then they'll realize that Two Nation Theory was right all along.

 

[xeuss]

Sanghis were slaves of Britishers

Use of the term "slaves" alludes to a situation where one is not in control of their freedom and largely dependent on another entity.

The Sanghis were never in this "slave" situation. They willingly licked the boots of the British and served them.