The issues would have never happened if they hadn’t colonized India to begin with. It’s more nuanced (and interesting) for the exit.
Pakistan wanted to not be a part of India with Muhammad Ali Jinnah pushing the two nations theory. The reverse was less true but the Indian leadership under Nehru reluctantly agreed to the split. That’s despite the British best effort to meditate because in places like Kashmir and Bangladesh the separation would be hard and economicly ruinous for the area. Not to mention displacing millions of peoples
Viceroy Mountbatten rushed the exit out of india.
And the Radcliffe line (the hastly drawn border between the two sides) was a complete mess but also a result of being rushed in 5 weeks.
Both this led to a horrible refugee crisis/mutual genocide. But a longer British stay would have been difficult with all sides pushing for their exit and fear of mutiny in the army whith the recent Indian navy mutiny of 1946
All that to say stuff if complicated. But border ends up shity like you said. We could have a whole debate about how much this messy independence is to blame for the multiple conflict between india and Pakistan and the Bangladesh genocide
As we all know wars, conflicts, conquest, exploitation, and oppression were totally unknown to the rest of the world before Europeans exported them worldwide. Coincidentally Europeans also removed all supplies of agency from the rest of humanity and hoarded it in the imperial core.
Hi.
Sorry if this didn’t come across, but my point was specifically that the local independent movement had agency and it wasn’t just a top-down colonial mismanagement.
The Empire can obviously take a large part of the blame here for being here to begin with and having a rushed exit. But the conflicting Pakistani and Indian view had a lot of influence in the resulting chaotic border.
it was Hindu, Sikh and Muslim massacring each others as millions moved across the border. But it was an independence planed and executed in less than 6 months, amidst existing religious tension, that made a tense situation worse by forcing a mass emigration on short notice. To the point people were staving on the road and supplies had to be parachuted to the columns of migrants.
As for my invitation to debate the impact of the British exit of India, it is not meant to carry an opinion but to open discussion. I am less knowledgeable about the subject, but my opinion is that even if good border had been drawn the Kashmir would have ever been contentious and conflict would have flared there. But again, open to debate.
I hope this clears things up.
Also my grammar is awful but bear with me English isn’t my 1st language.
The issues would have never happened if they hadn’t colonized India to begin with. It’s more nuanced (and interesting) for the exit.
Pakistan wanted to not be a part of India with Muhammad Ali Jinnah pushing the two nations theory. The reverse was less true but the Indian leadership under Nehru reluctantly agreed to the split. That’s despite the British best effort to meditate because in places like Kashmir and Bangladesh the separation would be hard and economicly ruinous for the area. Not to mention displacing millions of peoples
Viceroy Mountbatten rushed the exit out of india. And the Radcliffe line (the hastly drawn border between the two sides) was a complete mess but also a result of being rushed in 5 weeks. Both this led to a horrible refugee crisis/mutual genocide. But a longer British stay would have been difficult with all sides pushing for their exit and fear of mutiny in the army whith the recent Indian navy mutiny of 1946
All that to say stuff if complicated. But border ends up shity like you said. We could have a whole debate about how much this messy independence is to blame for the multiple conflict between india and Pakistan and the Bangladesh genocide
As we all know wars, conflicts, conquest, exploitation, and oppression were totally unknown to the rest of the world before Europeans exported them worldwide. Coincidentally Europeans also removed all supplies of agency from the rest of humanity and hoarded it in the imperial core.
Wait am I coming off as sea-lioning?
Hi. Sorry if this didn’t come across, but my point was specifically that the local independent movement had agency and it wasn’t just a top-down colonial mismanagement. The Empire can obviously take a large part of the blame here for being here to begin with and having a rushed exit. But the conflicting Pakistani and Indian view had a lot of influence in the resulting chaotic border.
it was Hindu, Sikh and Muslim massacring each others as millions moved across the border. But it was an independence planed and executed in less than 6 months, amidst existing religious tension, that made a tense situation worse by forcing a mass emigration on short notice. To the point people were staving on the road and supplies had to be parachuted to the columns of migrants.
As for my invitation to debate the impact of the British exit of India, it is not meant to carry an opinion but to open discussion. I am less knowledgeable about the subject, but my opinion is that even if good border had been drawn the Kashmir would have ever been contentious and conflict would have flared there. But again, open to debate.
I hope this clears things up.
Also my grammar is awful but bear with me English isn’t my 1st language.