to end this lies and disscussion for ever

[Conserative Morality]

remember 1905 huh forgot you britisher

End of the Russo-Japanese war?

[Avenio]

well the british stirred up anti-hindu /anti-muslim sentiments and thus played some role in the partition not major but minor and if the british had not been their many things could have happend

I never said anything about the partition. The only reason I included Islamabad in my statement is that it was under British jurisdiction as a part of 'British India' and were thus obliged to have English as a major language. Without the stabilizing influence of English as a lingua franca, arguably, Pakistan and India would not have existed, and we would see a collection of tribal and religious-based states, like I said. Perhaps even the Indian states could be under Chinese suzerainty now, who knows.

[Jedi 999]

remember 1905 huh forgot you britisher

End of the Russo-Japanese war?

no partiton of bengal

you britshers forgot ?

[Tagmatium]

See, I think one of your main issues is that there's too much "us vs. them" in your mind. I'm one of the many "Britishers" who has an indifferent view of colonialism - I don't know enough to really say anything. But, since you've regularly gone out of your way to paint us, as an entire nation, as racists and pro-colonial jingoistic vampires or something, I've found myself in disagreement with many of your posts. And, therefore, you've seen fit to paint me as something else.

Not everyone in Britain thinks the empire was great, but you discount anything we say as propaganda and lies without bothering to even look, I swear.

Hell, you'll either disregard this post or accuse me of being racist and an empire-lover, when if you'd read it...

[SD_Film Artists]

remember 1905 huh forgot you britisher

End of the Russo-Japanese war?

no partiton of bengal

If India wants to unite peacefully with its Muslim "brothers", why did they have so many wars after the British left?

[Cameroi]

i'm kind of having a hard time seeing the point of ragging on yesterday's dead horses, when today's problems are real and immediate.

Because 'Yesterday's dead horses' have an effect on today's real problems. History influences the present, furthermore, perception of history influences the present.

These 'Dead horses' remain incredibly important in today's world.

only because people choose to obsess on them and imagine them scripts to be guided by.

which IS part of the problem and NOT of any sort of solution.

[Jedi 999]

well the british stirred up anti-hindu /anti-muslim sentiments and thus played some role in the partition not major but minor and if the british had not been their many things could have happend

I never said anything about the partition. The only reason I included Islamabad in my statement is that it was under British jurisdiction as a part of 'British India' and were thus obliged to have English as a major language. Without the stabilizing influence of English as a lingua franca, arguably, Pakistan and India would not have existed, and we would see a collection of tribal and religious-based states, like I said. Perhaps even the Indian states could be under Chinese suzerainty now, who knows.

well i think positive and india would have been better off without the brits they stole much of india's wealth

[Conserative Morality]

no partiton of bengal

you britshers forgot ?

You mean when the British did their best to lessen tensions by splitting an area already very much split by geography to improve administration?

Those monsters!

[Jedi 999]

remember 1905 huh forgot you britisher

End of the Russo-Japanese war?

no partiton of bengal

If India wants to unite peacefully with its Muslim "brothers", why did they have so many wars after the British left?

kashmir and the britishers won by dividing us

[Jedi 999]

no partiton of bengal

you britshers forgot ?

You mean when the British did their best to lessen tensions by splitting an area already very much split by geography to improve administration?

Those monsters!

liar they did it too increase tension between the hindus and muslims

[Tagmatium]

not trying to pic a fight but what was the literacy rate prior to English rule?

no records

Ha, brilliant.

[Conserative Morality]

only because people choose to obsess on them and imagine them scripts to be guided by.

which IS part of the problem and NOT of any sort of solution.

History is important, history shows us how people have acted in the past, history shows us humanity at it's best and worst, furthermore, history shows humanity. Period. History tells us everything about power, about mankind, it's like Machiavelli without the commentary. People look to the past for guidance because they want to be guided, and because they are human.

So unless you plan to exterminate the human race, please, stop complaining.

[Dododecapod]

I'll just repost this for emphasis, as it was taken from your previous thread;

According to this map, shortly before the Bengal famine you mentioned, India was a very divided place. Kingdoms, principalities and smaller states were constantly carving out territory in what were most likely fierce internecine conflicts. (Another thing you fail to address in your anti-colonial tirade) These conflicts had been going on for millenia, dating all of the way back to the first Muslim invasions back in the twelfth century, (If memory serves) and showed no intention of slowing down. Had the British (Or any other colonial power, for that matter) not gotten involved in the subcontinent at all, come the turn of the 21st century, I would no doubt think that India would be a collection of small, tribal-tied states bitterly fighting over resources.

Though colonialism has wrought terrible, terrible things onto the subcontinent, (And even in places like my home country, Canada) simply glossing it over as 'evil' and accusing us Anglo-Saxons of being 'racist' is ignoring a significant piece of the puzzle. History cannot be seen in black-or-white, it has to be appreciated and understood for the murky shade of grey it is, warts and all.

In conclusion, even though the British did terrible things to India and the subcontinent, they did give them two important things. The first is a lingua franca, English, that practically everyone, from Sri Lanka to Islamabad, had to learn in order to function in a British-dominated society. Secondly, the British presence itself served as an enormous motivator; everyone, whether they were Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or Christian, they all disliked the British and wanted independance.

In short, if the British hadn't colonized India, it would be a largely tribal, violent and undeveloped place, with nations largely based upon ethnic or religious divides constantly bickering with one another and little hope of meaningful unity.

well the british stirred up anti-hindu /anti-muslim sentiments and thus played some role in the partition not major but minor and if the british had not been their many things could have happend

No. British policy was to not engage in religious matters; not a particularly successful policy, actually, and one which almost certainly had a hand in the lead-up to the Indian Mutiny, but one which had a major effect in the suppression of inter-religious violence during the period of British rule. Being strongly Christian-biased, they treated Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus more or less equally.

The partition was largely spawned by pressures from within the subcontinent. Of course, there would have been no partition without the British - because there would have been no unified India to partition.

[Conserative Morality]

liar they did it too increase tension between the hindus and muslims

Because pandering to the Hindus when there's a large Muslim minority decreases tension?

[Jedi 999]

I'll just repost this for emphasis, as it was taken from your previous thread;

According to this map, shortly before the Bengal famine you mentioned, India was a very divided place. Kingdoms, principalities and smaller states were constantly carving out territory in what were most likely fierce internecine conflicts. (Another thing you fail to address in your anti-colonial tirade) These conflicts had been going on for millenia, dating all of the way back to the first Muslim invasions back in the twelfth century, (If memory serves) and showed no intention of slowing down. Had the British (Or any other colonial power, for that matter) not gotten involved in the subcontinent at all, come the turn of the 21st century, I would no doubt think that India would be a collection of small, tribal-tied states bitterly fighting over resources.

Though colonialism has wrought terrible, terrible things onto the subcontinent, (And even in places like my home country, Canada) simply glossing it over as 'evil' and accusing us Anglo-Saxons of being 'racist' is ignoring a significant piece of the puzzle. History cannot be seen in black-or-white, it has to be appreciated and understood for the murky shade of grey it is, warts and all.

In conclusion, even though the British did terrible things to India and the subcontinent, they did give them two important things. The first is a lingua franca, English, that practically everyone, from Sri Lanka to Islamabad, had to learn in order to function in a British-dominated society. Secondly, the British presence itself served as an enormous motivator; everyone, whether they were Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or Christian, they all disliked the British and wanted independance.

In short, if the British hadn't colonized India, it would be a largely tribal, violent and undeveloped place, with nations largely based upon ethnic or religious divides constantly bickering with one another and little hope of meaningful unity.

well the british stirred up anti-hindu /anti-muslim sentiments and thus played some role in the partition not major but minor and if the british had not been their many things could have happend

No. British policy was to not engage in religious matters; not a particularly successful policy, actually, and one which almost certainly had a hand in the lead-up to the Indian Mutiny, but one which had a major effect in the suppression of inter-religious violence during the period of British rule. Being strongly Christian-biased, they treated Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus more or less equally.

The partition was largely spawned by pressures from within the subcontinent. Of course, there would have been no partition without the British - because there would have been no unified India to partition.

wrong they used divide and rule everywhere remember palestine guys they are champions at that

[Birnadia]

note : this kind of ignorance angers me

Rofl irony.

[SD_Film Artists]

remember 1905 huh forgot you britisher

End of the Russo-Japanese war?

no partiton of bengal

If India wants to unite peacefully with its Muslim "brothers", why did they have so many wars after the British left?

kashmir and the britishers won by dividing us

Well in the latter half of the 20th century India and Pakistan done a pretty good job at keeping themselves divided.

[Jedi 999]

liar they did it too increase tension between the hindus and muslims

Because pandering to the Hindus when there's a large Muslim minority decreases tension?

wrong dont shamelessly lie and prove that there was no divide and rule motive behind it

[Tagmatium]

liar they did it too increase tension between the hindus and muslims

Because pandering to the Hindus when there's a large Muslim minority decreases tension?

wrong dont shamelessly lie and prove that there was no divide and rule motive behind it

Seriously...

Would it be better if we all just agreed with you, as this seems what you want us to do?

[Conserative Morality]

wrong dont shamelessly lie and prove that there was no divide and rule motive behind it

I won't shamelessly lie. I'm not lying at all. They divided them to decrease tension and civil unrest.

[Jedi 999]

As details of the plan became public knowledge, prominent Bengalis began a series of demonstrations against partition and a boycott of British products. While protest was mainly Hindu-led the Muslims nawab of Dhaka was also initially opposed to the plan, even though Dhaka would serve as capital of the new province. Baxter suggests that the "divide and rule" policy was the real reason for partition. Lord Curzon said, "Bengal united is a power; Bengali divided will pull in several different ways."[3

[Jedi 999]

wrong dont shamelessly lie and prove that there was no divide and rule motive behind it

I won't shamelessly lie. I'm not lying at all. They divided them to decrease tension and civil unrest.

wrong to increase tension and civil unrest since there was a strong anti british sentiment in bengal http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent ... ngal_(1905)#Reason_for_Partition

[Birnadia]

EDIT: Just ignore this post, I think I forgot to take my smarty pills when I wrote this post.

[Jedi 999]

As details of the plan became public knowledge, prominent Bengalis began a series of demonstrations against partition and a boycott of British products. While protest was mainly Hindu-led the Muslims nawab of Dhaka was also initially opposed to the plan, even though Dhaka would serve as capital of the new province. Baxter suggests that the "divide and rule" policy was the real reason for partition. Lord Curzon said, "Bengal united is a power; Bengali divided will pull in several different ways."[3

Obvious copy/paste from Wikipedia is obvious.

smart its called source which you lack

[Conserative Morality]

As details of the plan became public knowledge, prominent Bengalis began a series of demonstrations against partition and a boycott of British products. While protest was mainly Hindu-led the Muslims nawab of Dhaka was also initially opposed to the plan, even though Dhaka would serve as capital of the new province. Baxter suggests that the "divide and rule" policy was the real reason for partition. Lord Curzon said, "Bengal united is a power; Bengali divided will pull in several different ways."[3

Notice the notice.

This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page