Jedi 999 wrote:remember 1905 huh forgot you britisher
End of the Russo-Japanese war?
Advertisement
by Conserative Morality » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:02 pm
Jedi 999 wrote:remember 1905 huh forgot you britisher
by Avenio » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:03 pm
Jedi 999 wrote: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
by Tagmatium » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:04 pm
North Calaveras wrote:Tagmatium, it was never about pie...
by SD_Film Artists » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:05 pm
by Cameroi » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:05 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Cameroi wrote: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.
by Jedi 999 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:05 pm
Avenio wrote:Jedi 999 wrote: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.
by Conserative Morality » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:05 pm
by Tagmatium » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:07 pm
North Calaveras wrote:Tagmatium, it was never about pie...
by Conserative Morality » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:08 pm
Cameroi wrote: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.
by Dododecapod » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:08 pm
Jedi 999 wrote:Avenio wrote: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
by Conserative Morality » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:08 pm
Jedi 999 wrote:liar they did it too increase tension between the hindus and muslims
by Jedi 999 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:09 pm
Dododecapod wrote:Jedi 999 wrote:Avenio wrote: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.
by SD_Film Artists » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:09 pm
by Tagmatium » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:11 pm
North Calaveras wrote:Tagmatium, it was never about pie...
by Conserative Morality » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:11 pm
Jedi 999 wrote:wrong dont shamelessly lie and prove that there was no divide and rule motive behind it
by Jedi 999 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:11 pm
by Jedi 999 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:12 pm
by Birnadia » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:12 pm
by Jedi 999 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:12 pm
Birnadia wrote:Jedi 999 wrote: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.
by Conserative Morality » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:12 pm
Jedi 999 wrote: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
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
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: 0rganization, Dazchan, Eahland, Free Radio States, Google [Bot], Haganham, Himmelland, Ineva, Kostane, New Temecula, Soviet Haaregrad, Statesburg, The Vooperian Union, Tiami, Verkhoyanska
Advertisement