What's new

Do you think that the British decided to create a permanent mess in the subcontinent?

typewriter

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
87
Reaction score
0
When the British left S. Asia they had left the region in a state of choas, especially the countries of India & pakistan who were left to fight like dogs over everything from kashmir to gujrat to hyderabad. Even the boundary lines with China/Tibet was not properly done & there is historical proof that the Tamils also requested a separate homeland in Sri Lanka much like Pakistan in India.

So do you think that it was a strategic ploy or just plain bungling by the British not to have foreseen regional problems by not dividing the areas properly to the countries in the subcontinent?
 
.
They were no one's friend but their own. To this day, the goras are making $$$ form us all. We just have to read their history in India how they treated us.................................
There was this sign I saw in a documentary or a film that read:" Indians & dogs not allowed" so go figure. It is not just the sub-continent. Look at Africa & Middle East.
 
.
When the British left S. Asia they had left the region in a state of choas, especially the countries of India & pakistan who were left to fight like dogs over everything from kashmir to gujrat to hyderabad. Even the boundary lines with China/Tibet was not properly done & there is historical proof that the Tamils also requested a separate homeland in Sri Lanka much like Pakistan in India.

So do you think that it was a strategic ploy or just plain bungling by the British not to have foreseen regional problems by not dividing the areas properly to the countries in the subcontinent?

I think it was more of Jinnah and Nehru which allowed it to happen. How can you blame outsiders if people of your country wanted it to happen ?
 
.
I think it was more of Jinnah and Nehru which allowed it to happen. How can you blame outsiders if people of your country wanted it to happen ?

Nevertheless, that doesn't negate the fact that the then BRistish Indian goverment tried their best to play Hindu-Muslim differences to supress the Independace movement after 1857 and to leave the possibility of strategic involvement in the future. You' can't blame them. They were looking after British Interests.

Before the British, the Mughal empire of India contributed upto 25% of the world GDP and there was no famine e.t.c. By the time British left, the contribution was less than 1% of world GDP and famines had become commonplace.
 
.
I am not complaining about the partition rather the way or lack thereof that it was done. They certainly had ways/means & the ability to realize that details must be worked out to the fullest & any outstanding or impending issues be resolved ahead of time.
 
.
They could easily resolve Kashmir dispute back then they had a lot of leverage on Pakistan and India but they decided not to.
 
.
They could easily resolve Kashmir dispute back then they had a lot of leverage on Pakistan and India but they decided not to.

Saad,

Pray, how could the British solve Kashmir if they had to leave on Aug 14th 1947. Their jurisdiction ending at that time. What happened in Kashmir,Junegadh and Hyderabad happened post 1947.
 
. .
When the British left S. Asia they had left the region in a state of choas, especially the countries of India & pakistan who were left to fight like dogs over everything from kashmir to gujrat to hyderabad. Even the boundary lines with China/Tibet was not properly done & there is historical proof that the Tamils also requested a separate homeland in Sri Lanka much like Pakistan in India.

So do you think that it was a strategic ploy or just plain bungling by the British not to have foreseen regional problems by not dividing the areas properly to the countries in the subcontinent?

Well if we did a bad job why are you still fighting after 60 years like (ur word not mine) dogs ? Sit round the table and resolve it and get on with life.

Regards
 
.
Back
Top Bottom