The Partition of India

[Caspiana (Ancient)]

What a weird coincidence, I'm watching Gandhi now! But anyway, I think they should have voted on it, or just had a look at the general opinion, but I'm undecided on the actual question

[EnragedMaldivians]

Well, it would have been best if the British had stayed around for a while to stabilize the region, but that probably would have ended with India becoming a bit like Canada; sort of under Britain's rule for a while, before becoming an independent state with the same monarch.

As it stands, I feel like the partition was probably the best thing that could have come out of full withdrawal from the colonies in India.

Caninope, where've you been!?

Anyway, the British left precisely because there was an administrative breakdown, because they didn't really have the manpower to contain Hindu-Muslim violence, nor the ability to force a compromise between the Muslim League and the National Congress. Contrary to what Attlee said, the British did not have a long standing policy of gradually granting self government to the Raj; if they could have held on to it, they would have.

[Free foundation]

ur views seem excessively biased even for a china fan.

Biased in what way. Large nations are always pushing around small ones. Only by outsmarting the big nations can small nations, especially buffer States, survive. In the former Kingdom of Sikkim they miscalculated and paid the price.

And when it comes to China, there South China Sea policy is kind of overdoing it when it comes to trespassing into the Philippines territorial waters in the Western Philippine Sea. However, Chinas land border agreements have been an example to follow.

It was the Chinese aggression in Tibet and war against India which forced India to give up the policy of non intervention. Also such policies were followed by only one prime minister Indira Gandhi. India has left interventionist role since her death. There were no grand designs of Indian hegemony before her nor after her. China on the other hand not only usurped Tibet, but also has disregarded all the treaties made by Tibet with its neighbors only to prove that Tibet was never an independent state. In what way the you are implying that China's land border agreements have been exemplary? It is much more to the credit of India that people of Sikkim , Bhutan and Nepal do not have to suffer the fate of Tibetans.

[Caninope]

Well, it would have been best if the British had stayed around for a while to stabilize the region, but that probably would have ended with India becoming a bit like Canada; sort of under Britain's rule for a while, before becoming an independent state with the same monarch.

As it stands, I feel like the partition was probably the best thing that could have come out of full withdrawal from the colonies in India.

Caninope, where've you been!?

Anyway, the British left precisely because there was an administrative breakdown, because they didn't really have the manpower to contain Hindu-Muslim violence, nor the ability to force a compromise between the Muslim League and the National Congress. Contrary to what Attlee said, the British did not have a long standing policy of gradually granting self government to the Raj; if they could have held on to it, they would have.

Here and there. Oh, and dealing with lots of work and lack of sleep, mostly. Translation: Lurking.

I'm not saying that a partition wouldn't have occurred in the Indian subcontinent anyways, I'm just saying that this particular situation of partition wasn't the best possible solution. If the British had the will to involve other nations (such as the US) it's possible that they could have brought some sort of temporary peace to the region. Of course, I'm not an expert in that region, so it's possible I could be wrong.

But as to what you say, I know the British didn't have a policy of granting self government to the Raj. It was, after all, the crown jewel of the Empire, the home away from the British homeland. There's absolutely no reason to assume that they would have gave up that power if that didn't have the chance. What they should have done was to do something similar to what happened in Canada; gradual independence (which didn't end in full constitutional independence for Canada until 1987, IIRC).

I'm of the opinion that slowly granting self government would have been better. The violence in the Irish Civil War should have taught the Brits that you can't just partition a region and hope nothing bad comes of it.

EDIT: I should also add that the Irish Civil War, paradoxically, came about because of gradualization of Irish home rule. It should be noted that the gradualists (supporters of the Irish Free State) won though.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Caninope, where've you been!?

Anyway, the British left precisely because there was an administrative breakdown, because they didn't really have the manpower to contain Hindu-Muslim violence, nor the ability to force a compromise between the Muslim League and the National Congress. Contrary to what Attlee said, the British did not have a long standing policy of gradually granting self government to the Raj; if they could have held on to it, they would have.

Here and there. Oh, and dealing with lots of work and lack of sleep, mostly. Translation: Lurking.

I'm not saying that a partition wouldn't have occurred in the Indian subcontinent anyways, I'm just saying that this particular situation of partition wasn't the best possible solution. If the British had the will to involve other nations (such as the US) it's possible that they could have brought some sort of temporary peace to the region. Of course, I'm not an expert in that region, so it's possible I could be wrong.

But as to what you say, I know the British didn't have a policy of granting self government to the Raj. It was, after all, the crown jewel of the Empire, the home away from the British homeland. There's absolutely no reason to assume that they would have gave up that power if that didn't have the chance. What they should have done was to do something similar to what happened in Canada; gradual independence (which didn't end in full constitutional independence for Canada until 1987, IIRC).

I'm of the opinion that slowly granting self government would have been better. The violence in the Irish Civil War should have taught the Brits that you can't just partition a region and hope nothing bad comes of it.

Aaah; isn't college wonderful.

Even that wasn't an option, given the speed with which they were losing control. You might like this article:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40105370?seq=1

To quote an excerpt:

A closer examination of the events leading up to the 20th of February suggests that....the labor governments decision to transfer power was not motivated by any strong commitment to Indian independence, but precipitated by an administrative breakdown which the British felt was beyond their control.

Though I'm not really sure how it would have played out if they asked for American assistance; my gut tells me that it probably would not have helped much, but it's not something I've ever considered in depth to be honest.

[Caninope]

Though I'm not really sure how it would have played out if they asked for American assistance; my gut tells me that it probably would not have helped much, but it's not something I've ever considered in depth to be honest.

Better India than French Indochina.

That's my personal view on American involvement on South and Southeast Asia.

[Pingxiang]

It was the Chinese aggression in Tibet and war against India which forced India to give up the policy of non intervention. Also such policies were followed by only one prime minister Indira Gandhi. India has left interventionist role since her death. There were no grand designs of Indian hegemony before her nor after her. China on the other hand not only usurped Tibet, but also has disregarded all the treaties made by Tibet with its neighbors only to prove that Tibet was never an independent state. In what way the you are implying that China's land border agreements have been exemplary? It is much more to the credit of India that people of Sikkim , Bhutan and Nepal do not have to suffer the fate of Tibetans.

What fate. Tibet is being modernized. It took China for the Tibetian nomads to have well built homes instead of those tents. They love there new homes. In nomad society women do most of the work and many of them prefer a job to being a nomad. Also, they want better conditions including education for there children which being a nomad cannot provide. Tibet has always been part of China. Going back to the Empire age.

And Chinas border treaty with Russia, Central Asia and SE Asia have been a success. China had larger claims with some of those nations but gave the majority of those claims up in order to sign a friendship treaty which would benefit all involved. Only one really left is India.

Aksai Chin was never part of India. It was part of Tibet which was part of the Qing Empire. It was the UK. which claimed that part. At this time the European powers were assaulting China.

The era of the late 19th century and the early 20th century was ripe with the European colonial powers finding new ways of exerting their influence in Asia and dividing it up. Tibet was no exception. For years, many kings and empires, from Muhammad Tukluq to the British, had tried to wrench Tibet from China, with no significant successes.
Finally, the British came up with an underhand ploy to divide Tibet from within; so as to create a buffer state between British India and China; just as Mongolia had been divided and part of it made into a buffer between Russia and China. Sir Henry McMahon proposed the division of Tibet into an ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ Tibet. The Chinese representative saw through British imperial designs and smelt a rat; and thus left the Simla conference.

But the matter didn’t end there. A note was appended to the Simla accord, which contained a map showing a part of Tibetan territory as Indian, based on a thick red line known as the McMahon line. Furthermore, China was barred from any rights and privileges of the Accord with respect to Tibet.

Read this - http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2010/03/2 ... -of-tibet/

[Free foundation]

Politically oppressed, culturally destroyed and ethnically marginalized can not be called a great fate for Tibetans in spite of all fancy plumbings arriving from China.
Qing empire was essentially Mongolian empire. Tibet was free from China before Qing dynasty. Since the Qing dynasty had collapsed/lost the power to control Tibet at the time of Simla conference ,Chinese claim that Tibet was still part of China is only a rhetoric to prove their occupation of Tibet justified. India has the claim to Aksai chin because it was won by Maharaja of Kashmir.
Though I agree with u that part of the problem lies with colonial powers who had neither motive nor credibility to solve issues permanently.

[Spiral Sun]

I for one am glad that the Chinese outed the feudalistic, theocratic Lamaists.

[Keronians]

I for one am glad that the Chinese outed the feudalistic, theocratic Lamaists.

Yeah, but the Tibetans supported the Lamaists.

In fact, they still do.

[Pingxiang]

I for one am glad that the Chinese outed the feudalistic, theocratic Lamaists.

Yeah, but the Tibetans supported the Lamaists.

In fact, they still do.

But the Lamaist are divided against there leader.

Watch this short video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThCz77R56I4

A longer more informed video from Swiss Public TV -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_zkwfyC ... re=related

[Spiral Sun]

I for one am glad that the Chinese outed the feudalistic, theocratic Lamaists.

Yeah, but the Tibetans supported the Lamaists.

In fact, they still do.

That's because they are too long to know how it was like. Look how the Burma, Nepal, Cambodia, and the like ended up. Not all Buddhists are nice.

[Yootwopia]

Contrary to what Attlee said, the British did not have a long standing policy of gradually granting self government to the Raj; if they could have held on to it, they would have.

Not really, seeing as it was made a lot more independent in the thirties, and Cripps' wartime offer (when he was deputy PM, no less) was pretty clear about generally sorting the rest of it out.

[Yootwopia]

I for one am glad that the Chinese outed the feudalistic, theocratic Lamaists.

Yeah, but the Tibetans supported the Lamaists.

In fact, they still do.

Yeah but if you look at the Potala Palace for even a second you can kinda tell the Tibetan ancien régime was not so friendly and democratic.

[Spiral Sun]

Contrary to what Attlee said, the British did not have a long standing policy of gradually granting self government to the Raj; if they could have held on to it, they would have.

Not really, seeing as it was made a lot more independent in the thirties, and Cripps' wartime offer (when he was deputy PM, no less) was pretty clear about generally sorting the rest of it out.

I read somewhere that the modernization of India had been put on hold when some revolts came about against progressiveness (at least that is how some spun it be the motives), as well as slaughternig British civilians. They even where against Christian missionaries trying to convert, as they viewed it as offending the locals. Also makes a fair bit of sense, as it showed the hypocrisy of the colonial elite. There were also many instances of missionaries trying to help the locals, like with British missionaries trying to stop the opium trade, a Russian priest refusing to abandon hundreds of Chinese Christians for the safety of the Foreign Quarter during the Boxer Revolt, and a writing campaign by American missionaries to their hometowns to stop the Chinese being forced into unfair railway deals, leading to Congress getting involved to stop it.