Originally Posted by Bernie Barfly

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

Originally Posted by iamthecrurefromuranus

..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.

Originally Posted by iamthecreaturefromuranus

1) 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.

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

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by rajj

Nah...Mountbatton was a mere figurehead sent over to help oversee the transition. The decisions were taken well before he was dispatched.
The Sikhs made up less than 2% of the population! They probably weren't even in the majority in the Punjab at the time.

Originally Posted by rajj

1) Yes you should have! But from an indian perspective, India as a whole is much better off without Pakistan and the failed state it has become. I'm glad your forefathers were so concerned with their welfare

2) Go on admit it, youre wishing it aren't you?

Originally Posted by iamthecreaturefromuranus

Well as I know that you're wrong, I think we will have to agree to disagree then.

Originally Posted by iamthecreaturefromuranus

1) ...and if we had, you would now be complaining that the British allowed a slaughter of tens of millions and forced people to live together who didn't want to. We can't win because what ever the solution settled upon somebody would be complaining how it's 'all the fault of the British' generations after the event.

2) Yes. I can't think of anything that would be better for the IT industry !

Originally Posted by Rambi

Sorry but I think I'm probably right. People like to pull out the divide and rule card but usually division came where the people getting independence were unable to work together. If it was a general principle of British withdrawal how come so many countries weren't divided (e.g. Rhodesia, Australia, Canada, NZ, Bermuda, etc...). Those that were divided were those where the people couldn't get on with each other.

It is however more convenient to blame the Brits.

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool

Have agree Rambi, we Brits specialised in building nations out of tribal villages, and sadly after we left a lot went back to petty tribal village warfare.

I guess Britain thought that if the Irish, Scottish, English and Welsh could be persuade to live alongside each other without mass slaughter, anyone could.

I’m surprised Yorkshire hasn’t declared UDI.

Originally Posted by rajj

Righto and wise....besides I seem to be highjacking the thread which slapphead had intended to use to discuss business practice rather than moot points of history.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Paul B

You're obviously far more learned than I on the subject, so can you tell me how did they decide on the exact areas and locations for the two halves of Pakistan? And who actually decided?

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool

No real idea. My interest in India ended when they handed over the keys in 47 and said take care of it... .