slapphead_otool

No its ok, the Russians would have come over and fixed it all up.

Ask anyone who lived in Eastern Europe what it was like.....

Swerv-o

They still might - as US influence begins to wain, and Russian influence behind to grow again, they are becoming a very major power once again, plus they sulk have an awful lot of unexploited resources to tap into too.

Plus all those parades in Red Square aren't just for the benefit of the locals...


S

slapphead_otool

Here is a funny thing.

From the time of the East India Company in 1600 until the end of British involvement in 1947, some 562 Indian Princely States were allowed to retain internal autonomy. They were independent states. Britain did not invade or subdue them.

When some of these Princely States decided not to join India, the Indian government cut off supplies of fuel and coal, severed air and postal links, sent troops to the frontier, and occupied the principalities.

Despite appeals to the British Government and to the King for assistance, and the vocal support of Winston Churchill and the British Conservatives, on 13 September 1948 Indian troops invaded Hyderabad from all points of the compass as part of "Operation Polo".

Bit ironic that the independence allowed to regions of India was taken by force by Indians.

rajj

1) No but probably to annoy people like your good self or perhaps to thank you for all the 'good' you did while colonising us. Actually, given one of the other threads on this site a while back, it seems a lot of brits are moving out of the uk and coming over here to oz to 'escape' the foreign types now in the uk.... you did say half of punjab is in the uk afterall. Soon we will be the majority in your land and won't have to end up being ruled by you again. LOL
Actually, I do agree with a fair bit of what you say, but the comments on how 'you' helped to create a united India is so fricken off the mark, it deserves ridicule of the highest order. The strategic aim of british rule at time of independance was and became crystal clear even to simpletons who see the history of india from the eyes of a few old style british historians or BBC presentors ...
The creation of East and West Pakistan was in the belief and intense hope that india would fragment shortly after independance giving britain proxy control via the smaller princely states that would eventually form. It was a truly bad miscalculation on the old style colonialists who tried every dirty trick in the book to fragment the country. British strategic thinkers changed their minds much, much later (early 70's I believe). By the way, British blood is being spilled in Afghanistan partly (large part in my opinion but that's another story and requires a thread of its own) becase of this blunder!!

2) In general I agree with this (and very strongly agree with what you say about the inheritance of the legal system, despite problems administering it given the complex nature of the country). The 'soft' stuff as you put certainly helped democracy to work in such a complex place.
Thank you kindly sir

3) Once again, agreed - Thank you very kindly sir

Rambi

Funny. I thought the idea for the partition of India came from the All-India Muslim League.

It's probably also worth noting that a lot of Indians in the UK came from or are descended from those that came from Africa rather than India itself.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

I guess we could have just ignored the demands for Muslim States and just left them to sort it out for themselves. They managed to kill a million between them and that was after Jinnah got his way. God alone knows how many would have died without the formation of East and West Pakistan.

I still believe that, eventually, they will nuke one another.

slapphead_otool

True, I remember Dadda kicking them out, and India not wanting then so the UK took them. But they certainly were not indigenous to Africa.

Swerv-o

Yes, that's true - the immigration from Uganda ofter the atrocities of Idi Amin represented a significant portion of overall Indian immigration.


S

Rambi

Of course they're not indigenous to Africa

slapphead_otool

Rajj one interesting point worth discussing is the extent to which India influenced Britain during the time of its involvement with India.

I am sure that some aspects of the British legal system, the social order and the civil service in the UK changed dramatically during its involvement with India.

This change may have been as a direct result of what the British saw in India and copied or modified for use in Britain, or as a result of the new systems that were developed to suit the requirements in India and were found to be suitable for Britain.

Certainly bodies like the Indian Civil Service developed a reputation for quality, reliability and integrity that didn’t exist in the UK at the time. Similarly the HIC army were better organised, better led and fitter than the British army of the time. HIC officers were promoted on merit at a time when British army officers were buying their commissions.

Paul B

Yes indeed, but I don't think they were demanding a new state/country that was divided into two halves hundreds of miles apart.

I always see it as a last parting piss take by the Brits.

Rambi

I get the impression that the Brits didn't want to partition. That's why it was a rush job in the end.

rajj

With respect, you are dead wrong. I go back to what I said earlier, it was in the strategic interest of Britain to have a divided and fragmented India and actively encouraged it (prior to leaving). To be fair tho, I don't believe they interfered too much thereafter (think they had enough of it all and didn't know how to handle the violence that ensued mainly due to the policy of partition they created...not their problem after independance I guess). Indeed the brits have been a reliable and by and large a good friend to the indian govt and people.
Despite the colonial history, the british are very much liked there (in my opinion anyway).
With my Indian hat on and in hindsight, I for one am glad they don't have to deal with what is now Pakistan.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

..and with respect, it's you who is dead wrong. Mountbatten, supported only by Gandhi, fought long and hard to maintain India as a single entity. Mountbatten failed and Gandhi was assassinated for his support for a multi-religious State.

If he had been following your idea, to create a fragmented India, how come there isn't a Sikh nation as well? They certainly wanted one. They still do.

Bernieboy

Sikhs do have their own nation,it's called manchester