I just watched a documentary about the India/Pakistan partition of 1947

What was the name of the documentary. I'd be interested in watching it.

Was it it this one?

The Brits were broke and tired after saving the world from Hitler so they got out as quickly as they could knowing the last days of the Raj had arrived. Blame? Churchill let them starve during the war.

The missus was fucking Nehru and Mountbatten surrounded himself with handsome young aides-de-camp who looked good in and better out of uniform.

Fabulous occasional seating, though...and those gowns, too.

There really was no realistic alternative to partition.

OP must have a really low opinion of non-white people - somewhere between children and animals.

But, they should have expected and better prepared for the religious minority population transfers.

I love The Raj period. What a gorgeous setting for books and movies.

OP, Gandhi wanted one India but Jinnah wanted a separate state so once again it was Islam that basically caused the problem, the British were on their way out by that time. It seems to me that if you really have an interest in history an objective approach to an analysis of any historical development is best, any historian would probably tell you that. "Fuck the British right in the ass" is probably not how you would begin being objective, otherwise, whatever...............

r7 = evil Western imperialist

"OP, Gandhi wanted one India but Jinnah wanted a separate state so once again it was Islam that basically caused the problem, the British were on their way out by that time. It seems to me that if you really have an interest in history an objective approach to an analysis of any historical development is best, any historian would probably tell you that. "Fuck the British right in the ass" is probably not how you would begin being objective, otherwise, whatever..............."

Don't waste your breath R8, this is just the daily DL "white people are terrible!" thread. Because non-whites are NEVER responsible for anything that goes wrong for them. It's always whitey's fault!

Tell me about their jewelry.

Not to hijack your thread, but you might also be interested in this "hidden war". Three million killed. Also 1/2 million women raped under the sanction of Islamic religious leaders.

White people never accept responsibility for what they do, always blaming "darkies" and insisting that all non-whites blame whites for "everything."

The stories of men killing their female relatives and/or shoving them into wells was the most awful thing I had ever heard of when I saw one family story on WDYTYA.

I went down the rabbit hole of research for two days after that.

I don't blame the British. There was nothing they could do that would have prevented the slaughter.

As someone who has traveled to India 8 times over the last 15 years, I can say that the average Indian is very happy the Brits are gone. However, one legacy of their occupation is that English is widely spoken, which has allowed India to progress in many, many ways.

So how did the whole East Pakistan/Bangladesh thing get so screwed up?

They like to bitch and moan about the Brits robbing them of their treasures, but when it comes to hoarding resources no one beats the Indians

The Brits sucked as many resources as they could from India during their century of rule.

They built the train system specifically to take those resources from the interior of India to the sea ports to get them to England.

The financing for the London subway system apparently came from stolen wealth in Calcutta

The Brits created KolKata. It was a collection of three fishing villages. So they stole NOTHING from Calcutta, that they didn't create a market for and promote. No Brits, no Kolkatta.

Stole resources, Bah. They bargained for and bought RENEWABLE goods. Cotton, indigo, opium, cloth etc. Shit, they had to import iron into India.

Railways? So what? That what they are for, for the most part, a transportation system for goods. That's what they are now in this country. When was the last time YOU were on a train? Didn't the Indians use them, need them, for transporting goods as well? Why is that suppose to be an argument against the Brits. Frankly I wish now that the Brits had shipped the train system away from India just so I could stop hearing that useless argument.

India should have been broken up into lots more separate counties. It had never been a united country before 'British Rule' but ruled regionally be lots of Maharaja's. The sheer size of it with a centralized government is it's weakness.

It was a condition of The US Marshall Plan that The British Empire was dismantled so hastily after WWII with catastrophic effects.

R20 "It was a condition of The US Marshall Plan that The British Empire was dismantled so hastily after WWII with catastrophic effects."

And reasonably so. How could it have been otherwise? The US was not going to underwrite continuing imperialism and the continuation of imperial privilege by any European power because Americans and US companies weren't going to pay for it. That doesn't absolve the British for their abysmal exit strategy.

Marshall, Marshall, Marshall!

a Mountbatten had her own partition going on down below with the natives. Read up on it. Interesting woman.

It wasn't long before the Americans were complaining about the Brits running away from empire too quickly.

R15 but in many ways still backwards, no? India has not been able to progress its economy like China.

R19 that’s the biggest bs I’ve ever heard.

The British made Kolkata the capital— they wouldn’t have chosen a bunch of fishing villages. They chose an existing city.

They stole gold, jewels, starved Bengalis by taking the food out of the country, and on and on.

The rail system wasn’t made with the well being of Indian in mind

India and Pakistan was divided on a map by a Brit who have never even visited the areas he was cutting apart

Calcutta was three fishing villages when the BEIC arrived. They were the ones who settled there and built the warehouses and the fort. The Mughal Nawab gave them a trading license . They built the city.

None of that is bullshit. All verifiable.

The BEIC alway chose fishing villages because they wanted a ready food source. Chennai/Madras was a fishing village.

Mumbai existed before the Brits came but that was because of the Arab traders.

Tell it r26. There was a palace in Bengal that one of the Brits robbed for 40 days straight during the last days before they got permanently turfed.

The Brits have a lot to answer for: Palestine, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), South Africa, Sudan... and on and on.

Why South Africa?

Because the Brits, along with the Dutch, introduced the racial segregation there that laid the groundwork for apartheid.

R16, a united Pakistan with east and west wings separated by miles and miles of India was disastrous from the get-go.

Thank you R32

You're half right. It was the Dutch who instituted racial segregation.

In fact the Dutch were brutal brutal racists throughout the colonial period. Much, much worse than any other nation but they never get called on it.

What R13 said.

India was the only country that the UK was forced to quit (Marshall Plan).

The UK never pulled out of any other colony in the same hurried fashion, it was a disaster. An orderly transition over 10+ years would have produced a much smoother result, but Jinnah & Ghandi smelled blood and forced the issue.

As R34 says The Dutch introduced racial segregation into SA, not the British. SA got independence almost 100 years ago. We were only involved in Sudan between 1899 - 1956.

What about all of the colonies that were given Independence in a proper way (without US interference) ?

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore etc. They are some of the most successful counties in the world

Bit of Brit-Bashing going on here without looking at the full picture.

India today remains the world's largest democracy and it's a functioning one too.

Unlike the United States which has devolved into an oligarchical client state of of the Russian Federation.

r33 Right, but why didn't anyone think of that when they were setting up the partition?

some tears ago I was traveling in Nepal, and y guide was an older man. I asked him if he'd ever guided anybody famous, and he said he was Lord Mountbatten's guide. I asked my guide what he thought of Mountbatten, and he said he was the biggest sonofabitch he ever met.

R38

It was rushed (done in less than 12 months) The UK weren't given sufficient time to evolve a proper plan. Jinnah & Ghandi were each fighting for as much land as possible.

If the British had never shown up, it's not like that region would be all that different today. They would still be very third-worldy.

[quote] The Brits have a lot to answer for: Palestine, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), South Africa, Sudan... and on and on.

All that happened 70+ years ago. The British have been gone from those places for decades and decades and decades.

Those countries have to solve their own problems now.

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

Yes the Dutch introduced racial segregation into South Africa and the British continued it.

You’re point?

^your

^Dammit, I forgot about the stupid independent block. That post at R43 should read: R34/R36, the Brits played a huge role in the rise of apartheid as well. It was under British rule that non-whites were disenfranchised and blacks were forced off their land and into early versions of shantytowns.

Here's another link that discusses it:

R42 the disastrous effect of British rule continues in those places until today.

For example, there were few, in any, Hindu-Muslim conflicts in India until the British arrived.

The British ruled by divide and conquer wherever they went

R41 and you know this how?

The British purposely dispatched tall soldiers to India to show their dominance over the natives.

In fact, one Indian (don’t remember who) wrote that he was shocked when he went to London and saw short Brits.

The Brits detested Indian and thought that they were highly sexed. Highly sexed was considered less civilized

One good thing about the British is they weren’t overly violent for the sake of violence. The reason that Gandhi succeeded is the Brits respected him and followers and tolerated the peaceful protests.

The Portuguese, who ruled Goa, would have just shot everyone.

Imperialists are NEVER kind to the people they rule. They always rape the countries for whatever they have.

Let’s stop the bull shit that the Brits were some benign invaders

Is there jewellery?

[quote] So how did the whole East Pakistan/Bangladesh thing get so screwed up?

For religious reasons but the Bengalis didn't want to be part of Pakistan. They are more progressive than Pakistan.

The Armenians were there as merchants and traders and consultants to the nawabs before the British arrived. I think they served as mediators between the Indians and the Brits.

No, R8, R10, you are the "watch us talk about how evvvvvvil Islam is" posters.

Did you hear about how these white guys made gays wear pink triangles before they killed them?

Plot twist:

They weren't Muslims.

"the disastrous effect of British rule continues in those places until today."

Places like Canada and Australia are doing just fine

The British created the modern world.

Mountbatten was inept and failed upwards all his life. The British knew that the Indian situation was fucked up. They had been dealing with it, arguing over it, establishing deadlines, then extending them, excluding key player from meetings, then including them, bickering over every thing, etc. and Gandhi certainly played his part before he was assassinated by a religious fanatic. Jinnah, Nerhu, the Indian National Congress, the Sikhs, the Muslims, the Hindus, it was always going to be a shit mess and Jinnah contributed more than his share by insisting on partition for his Muslim population.

So appointing Mountbatten the last governor general of India to preside over the debacle was really a case of the British throwing up their hands and in frustration. it didn't really matter whether they were there to force things along in an orderly fashion or whether they left and allowed the Indian and Pakistanis to sort, it all out it would have still ended in a bloodbath. Partition was horrible. It was poorly managed by the Brits, but in many ways the road they were all traveling down could lead to no other destination.

r55 It's too bad another former colony (hint: the one we live in) isn't.

There's this weird idea that the Brits invaded India.

It was nothing of the sort. They started as a handful of traders and numbers slowly rose with the British East India Company increasing their holdings. That went on for two hundred years.

There was never more than 300,000 Brits in India at their height and 130,000 of those were women and children.

The fascinating thing about the British Empire is that the biggest holdings were accomplished by going to war with European countries and securing places like India and Jamaica etc as spoils after defeating France and Spain and The Netherlands. The Seven Year War was very good for the British. They got a huge chunk of India from the French after that one.

Actually the French were the last to leave India in1954, seven years after the British left.

r58 honey I just returned from Mexico and I felt like getting on my hands and knees and kissing the fucking ground as soon as I landed in San Francisco. The US is just fine, in spite of our current problems.

Oops. my mistake the Portuguese didn't leave until 1961. They were the last.

It's been 71 years since the UK left...more than three generations. It must be like paradise there now!

LOL R62

The British relied on a Muslim military caste to rule India. Their attempt to train Indians to run the government just gave rise to the Congress party, which encouraged a violent form of Hindu supremacy. Not officially. Officially, Congress was secular and socialist. But underneath the organizing principle was Hindu supremacy. With partition, the British essentially removed the Muslim caste which would have been large enough and rich enough to prevent Hinduization.

[quote]Did you hear about how these white guys made gays wear pink triangles before they killed them?

R54 Did you hear about those 57 countries where being gay is socially abhorrent and taboo, where gays are jailed, flogged and murdered? Where gay tourists are jailed, fined and deported? The 57 countries who continue to block progress on gay rights in international forums?

Plot twist:

They ARE Muslims.

And Hindus R65

And Christians (see Uganda and Ghana)

[quote]Places like Canada and Australia are doing just fine

The descendents of the colonists are doing just fine. The descendents of the natives are not.

r36, did you ever hear of the United States of America and its revolution which hurried the British out of the 13 colonies which became the United States? Revolutions are often violent and come on suddenly, at least usually, however, such was the case with the beginning of the United States. Canada's move toward independence by contrast was gradual and peaceful at least for the most part.

R66 India recriminalized homosexuality in 2013, but this year, the Indian Supreme Court is set to reconsider whether to legalise same-sex sexual activity . India does not block gay progress internationally as Muslim countries do.

R67. Nigeria (with a sizable Muslim population) and Uganda are not the power and control or at the forefront of the MUSLIM bloc preventing gay rights progress internationally.

[quote]The Dutch introduced racial segregation into SA, not the British.

Yeah, it was the British that introduced the concentration camp. The Dutch settlers known as Boers were the first victims.

After WWII, it was a given Indian would be independent. What you have to understand is the British ruled India by two ways, first was the British Raj, and the second was by the sworn allegiance of literally thousands of tiny independent princely states.

The Muslims declared they could never get a fair shake in Hindu India, a theory that has been disproven. Muslims form a much stronger middle class in India, indeed the three richest Indians are Muslim.

The princely states could in theory choose to be independent, go to Pakistan or India. In reality, those in the West had to choose Pakistand and independence was not an option. For instance, the State of Hyderabad was ruled by a Muslim prince, but had an overwhelmingly majority Hindu population. The prince wanted Pakistan or Independence. But since Hyderabad is right in the middle of southern India, it would be illogical to allow it independence or to be with Pakistan.

In some areas like the Punjab you had Muslims, Sikhs and Hindu, all thoroughly intermixed. So relocation of populations was to be a given.

In the East they divided Bengal into East Bengal and West Bengal. East Bengal mostly Muslim became East Pakistan. East Pakistan had more than 51% of the total population of Pakistan, the theory was the religion would unite the Bengalis with the other Muslims in the west. This never even came close to happening.

In the North Kashmir was ruled by an Indian prince but with a Muslim majority. The prince wanted independence, but neither India nor Pakistan would allow it. When the Pakistanis invaded to enforce the claim, the Hindu prince signed on to India for protection.

The Chittagong Hills in what is now Bangladesh was 97% non-Muslim (mostly Buddhist) but given to East Pakistan.

So you can see it wasn't as easy at it looks to divide India into neat packages. Indeed for the next ten years after independence, India was reorganizing it's states, combining some, eliminating others.

R79, you mean Gandhi did the salt march for nothing?????? If only he your insight and knowledge about his country's problems!!! All that fasting for nothing.

It was horrific. But this is what happens in uneducated countries where religion is central to culture.

^Yeah like the U.S.

Impressive, R75. Very skillful.

The natives were primitive savages who ate each other. Thank God we defeated them. The natives that exist today are 90% white and carry rape genes.

[quote]The Brits were broke and tired after saving the world from Hitler

Go ahead, pull the other one!

The British made Hitler happen by allowing him to stroll into Czechoslovakia when his military was still weak.

When they finally did stand up to him it wasn’t to “save the world” from him, it was for the same reason they had gone to war in Europe for hundreds of years before — to prevent any one power from dominating Europe. This simply wouldn’t do, as it would complicate their making total pigs of themselves in the third world, helping themselves to other people’s countries.

Show us on the doll where the British touched you

r78 everybody was so exhausted and horrified by WWI they didn't want to get involved, and in the beginning it was only thought that Hitler would take Czechoslovakia and Austria and call it a day. You have to look at it in the context of the times and not from an historical perspective.

And what was the US doing, R78? Oh, that's right - fuck all, having turned its nose up at the rest of the world after WW1 and left Britain and France do the heavy lifting. {'What is this League of Nations'?}

Fascinating thread.

r81 The US was not a world power at that time and felt that Europe should take care of its own mess. Most Americans were isolationist between the wars.

The US had become a world power during WW1, butthen chose not to act like one - fair enough, but don't complain about the countries left trying to deal with Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.

Ever hear of the Depression?

r84 do you know any history? Americans were very isolationist in the late 30s. If Roosevelt wanted military action in Europe at that time, he would've been run out of office. Americans did not want to be involved in Europe's affairs. It only turned with the Pearl Harbor attack.

In terms of resources, the creation of Pakistan was not of no great loss to India. And there’s less Muslims in India. Winners all round I’ll say.

"The Brits were broke and tired from saving the world from Hitler."

The Brits, broke and tired from WW1 and the Depression, failed to stop or even attempt to match Hitler's re-creation of the German armed forces by building weapons of their own in any great number until 1938. Nor did the French. They were in no position to stop him because weak as Hitler was, the British were weaker. Absent public support and increased taxation, democracies can't marshal the resources needed to re-arm as Hitler did when they won't (until 1938) or can't (1938-39) or they'll almost never have another chance (Dunkirk. 1940) get the money, the will, and the methods of transport and production needed to make and move material in sufficient quantities. The British and the Soviets were able to resist (the Brits) and bog down (the Russians) the Nazis long enough for the United States to ramp up production.

The British weren't doing a good job maintaining the balance of power in Europe in the 1920's and 30's. To their credit, they did hang in there long enough to benefit from the unequalled manufacturing capacity of the United States when the Japanese gave Roosevelt a pretext to declare war. In that sense the Brits certainly saved the world.

The US had a sad history with a different kind of Indians.

R30 You forgot Cyprus where The British still have military bases. They were the co-creators of the current problems in Cyprus along with Turkey,Greece and the manipulation done to the Greek and Turkish Cypriots.

The British knew who and what Hitler was. A little book published in 1923-24 called 'my struggle' told them.

This is DL now, The topic is the Indian Pakistan war. But no, it's a debate about who is responsible for WW2.

Here's a hint 1938, Germany invades the Sudetenland. Another hint 1939 Germany invades Poland.

The French army was big enough to stop Hitler, but its leading generals were on his payroll and hated the French republic more than they hated Hitler.

France had built the Maginot LIne, after all, at a cost of billions of today's dollars. They had more tanks than Hitler and no small amount of planes, but they were dispersed among army units which had no modern communications.

What a wonderful thread! I’ve never wanted to visit India because it looks filthy and they have a terrible rape culture, but I’m fascinated by the history. Keep it up gents!