Why do Brits get hated on by Pakistanis and Indians for the partition when they also hate each other and dont want to be in the same country anyway...

Why do Brits get hated on by Pakistanis and Indians for the partition when they also hate each other and don’t want to be in the same country anyway?

And why is it a common belief that the British somehow created the division and hatred between Indians and Muslims when they already hated each other prior, Muslims had invaded India, anti muslim Hindus rose up to push them back.

Finally, why do Indians feel entitled to all of India? They were never an actual subscontinent until the British United it for them.

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    because of the borders, the guy who drew the borders never stepped foot on India, over 14 million were forced to move
    > why do Indians feel entitled to all of India?
    > Muslims had invaded India
    > anti muslim Hindus rose up to push them back
    you answered your own question
    > the British United it for them
    not out of love, Brits were pulling out so they said lets fuck up the place one last time, gave Pakistan Bengal for some unknown reason

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      most indians never set foot in "india" either but remained in their tribal lands from cradle to grave
      The english had more knowledge about India in a general way than any indians had.
      He didnt answer his own question, he is asking why Hindus and Muslims get mad about being put on different reservations when they are both locked in a mortal struggle
      >not out of love
      wrong
      >lets fuck up the place
      if they wanted to fuck up the place theyd just invade it.
      >some unknown reason
      it is culturally closer to northern india than it is to southern india
      >THE BRITISHERS FUCK EVERY SAAR
      no they didnt, Britishers dragged shitskindians kicking and screaming out of the middle ages, and not only are they not thankful, they are actively anti-British.

      If Karma was real Indians would go extinct for being one of the most ungrateful races on the planet.
      >incompetent
      >ugly
      >brown
      and self aggrandizing to the point of parody

      its like a race designed to be miserable and laughed at.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >if they wanted to fuck up the place they'd just invade it
        Moron

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >because of the borders, the guy who drew the borders never stepped foot on India, over 14 million were forced to move

      So? You do realise the borders were based on census surveys to find out the best way to divide the region without it immediately devolving into a civil war?

      The fact you think 14 million people moving in a region that had 318 million in 1925 is some huge problem when the alternative was millions dying. Is laughable

      Try using basic reasoning instead of being a retard.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      There was no border that could be drawn that didn't result in millions moving. If they moved it X miles in a certain direction the millions of muslims/hindus who now didn't have to move merely be replaced by millions of the opposite who now did have to move. Millions moving was inherent to the concept of partition itself since the Muslims did not neatly end where the Hindus began. Blame Jinnah for asking for a partition in the first place.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      In all fairness there was no way to draw a border that wouldn't have caused mass population displacement, because Muslims and Hindus often lived in the same communities or in neighboring communities.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Muslims invaded India
      Yes but that was over 1100+ years ago? Almost all the Muslims in India and those of Pakistan are indigenous Hindus/Indians who converted.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >what are the mughals

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      If tje brits wanted to fuck india up royally, they'd make sll princely states actually independent guarantee independence of them and fuck indias estance.

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      The answer to this is that old and new world nations are different. The nation states of Europe were created through centuries of killing people slightly different.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        How do you kill people "slightly different"?

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's the generic post-colonial butthurt. If they can blame their former colonial overlords for everything they don't have to deal with the fact that their ancestors - while doing many impressive things over the millennia - ultimately failed as a society. That is a fairly horrific realisation to have to deal with (I shudder to think what future generations of westerners will have to deal with) and largely explains why the populations there are so eager to hit that particular button.

    Politicians there keep pushing it because if you were a politician and had a 'I am not responsible for any of the problems wrecking your lives, don't rebel against or depose me' card you would be playing it all the damn time as well.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Same reason India has a massive inferiority complex to this day. They know they were conquered by a fucking COMPANY from Britain. Their most spoken language is English. Their government follows the parliamentary system. Their national sports are football and cricket.

      They hate England but see them as symbols to follow

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Cope. The only one with an inferiority complex is you.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Local WEF rentboy happens to brown
          >live india reaction:
          SARS WE HAVE REDEEMED SARS SARS

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Cope. Now give your tax money to your new British overlord.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              I am not british you ethnically resented hindoo
              Ypur voubtry will not magically better via cheap schadenfreude

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I am not british you ethnically resented hindoo
                >Ypur

                I can tell by your lack of understanding of the English language.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >A FUCKING company
        It was one of the most powerful military forces on the planet, being made up of both the dutch/British merchant fleets, the founders where all veterans of the battles with the Spanish armada/battle of cadiz, including my own ancestor John Watts, who was described by the King of Spain as the finest priveteer on the face of the earth. The founders of the east India company where piratical gigachads.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          what? most EIC soldiers were Indian
          they paid Indian soldiers to fight each others kingdoms

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Britain pls leave
    >But if we leave there will be bloodshed
    >Pls leave
    >*Leaves*
    >*Bloodshed ensues*
    >Why would the British do this to us?

    Many such cases.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      at first I was like
      >Britain, can you please redeem?
      but then I was like
      >BRITAIN NO NO NO NO DO NOT REDEEM BRITAIN!!!111

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Pakis were promised more by the Brits and The Hindus/Indians did not want partition at all

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Congress didn't want partition, but they also demanded Indian independence and really ought to have realised how much the Muslims would fear ending up at the mercy of Hindus.

      The mature thing would have been to accept early on the continuation of British authority as the price of an undivided India. But the Hindu masses had been worked up into a frenzy about the idea of becoming masters of India.

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >And why is it a common belief that the British somehow created the division and hatred between Indians and Muslims
    leftists think muslims dindu nuffin

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Of the subcontinent had remained united when the British left, how many pakis would be killed In the inevitable pogroms?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >pakis slaughtered en masse
      >the entire Islamic world wages a jihad against pagan India

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why do Brits get hated on by Pakistanis and Indians for the partition when they also hate each other and don’t want to be in the same country anyway?
    They created the modern borders of India and its society so they are responsible for anything that went down
    >And why is it a common belief that the British somehow created the division and hatred between Indians and Muslims when they already hated each other prior, Muslims had invaded India, anti muslim Hindus rose up to push them back.
    because Jinnah and co. were a fringe gang of Indian Muslims who supported the partition of India when literally everyone from Pashtuns to Indian Muslims genuinely were against it

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Pashtuns were against it because they wanted their own ethno-state instead, not a cobbled-together-monstrosity comprising the parts of India with a contiguous Muslim majority

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, the Muslims and Hindus were busy slaughtering each other in the streets because they were so enthusiastic about the idea of being neighbours and countrymen.

      Pashtuns were against it because they wanted their own ethno-state instead, not a cobbled-together-monstrosity comprising the parts of India with a contiguous Muslim majority

      If Britain had carved out ethnostates for every Indian tribe then wouldn't partition have resulted in a few dozen different Indian nations?

      Why did independent India need to be one or even two countries? Bigger isn't always better.

      Why did India need to be independent? They seem to have a lot of trouble in running things even half as well as the British managed from the other side of the world.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Why did India need to be independent?
        It's not that they needed to be independent. They wanted to be independent, and the will to retain the colony as part of the empire was absent after WWII. The British people wanted gibs after the end of the war, and they burnt the empire to the ground as a way of paying for said gibs.

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why did independent India need to be one or even two countries? Bigger isn't always better.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      India is not a coherent entity no matter which way or how many times you slice it.
      Had it been split into 4, 8, 12, or even 50 separate states it would've just ended up similar to Africa and the Middle East.
      The post-colonial seethe would've been exactly the same.
      The wars would've been the same.
      The Indian subcontinent wouldn't be any more stable than it has been, and it would likely have ended up even less stable.
      Unity at least gave them a numbers advantage. A dozen fractured subcontinental states would not have been able to ally with Brazil, Russia, China, and South Africa all at once.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Bigger isn't always better
      It generally is in geopolitics. Funnily enough for all the seething about the Britishers dividing it in two the British actively encouraged the various Indian princes to remain in India instead of further balkanizing it

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        I do wish at least Hyderabad and Goa could have gotten away. Would add a little colour to the Indian map, sort of San Marino-tier curiosities in Europe

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      3 countries weren't enough btw.

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not all Indians are against the partition or hate on it. Imagine an India with 400m+ more Muslims.

    My great grandparents were Hindu refugees to India and nobody ik criticizes it. And if they did they’d blame Muslims for turning Sindh or Punjab Islamic to begin with, more than blaming the British for drawing a line in the sand.

    But why would any Indian look at British rule fondly? Imagine reading about countless famines and being treated second class and looking at that positively. India gave Britain wealth for its industrialization, suffered fighting for the empire in world wars only for British people to be ungrateful and entitled.

    At least the British went their own way tho and don’t deny the wrongs of the past. Cant say the same about Muslims

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >suffered fighting for the empire in world wars only for British people to be ungrateful and entitled.
      Ungrateful and entitled? How so?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        India didn't benefit from Britain winning ww1 and 2

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        India was actually promised Dominion status in the early 1910s. WW1 stalled this so the India Office promised Dominion as a reward for helping in the war effort. Once the war was over, the British reneged because they were worried that the British public might perceive it as losing land even after winning the war and they needed their monopoly on Indian export profits for paying back lenders.
        This caused an immediate outrage among the Congress and kick-started the famous stage of the independence movement.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Haha, people like you always fall for the Nirvana fallacy.

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Has any one made the case India wasn't balkanized enough? It's essentially another Europe before colonization, it should have been divided up some more.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      It was never one country so it should have been divided more. I wonder why more parts aren't dividing up land amongst themselves

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *