[The Immortal Goon]

This whole thread is a reminder of how shallow, identity politics is making a boring comeback. It's like the dumb "alternative politics" of pofo has spread to the real world like a cancer.

@The Immortal Goon and @followthemonkey

Being perfect examples.

I'm not exactly sure what you're speaking about here.

If you're denying that the British cut India and Pakistan apart based on a religious narrative, it should be noted that the BBC of all sources tends to disagree with you. So, incidentally, does India.

[SolarCross]

I'm not exactly sure what you're speaking about here.

If you're denying that the British cut India and Pakistan apart based on a religious narrative, it should be noted that the BBC of all sources tends to disagree with you. So, incidentally, does India.

You insinuated that the British partitioned India in order to cause trouble whereas the exact opposite is true. Your sources don't even back you up on that either.

- BBC says they wanted to be shot of the place so rushed through the process.

- The Time of India asserts that Britain wanted Pakistan as a Cold War ally providing lots of quotes that demostrate nothing of the sort.

"The first, most important is the Pakistan issue. It is essential HMG should have some policy on this... They may decide that the unity of India is of such importance that they will in no circumstances allow a complete partition of India and discount the adverse effect this will have on Muslims not only in India but in other parts of the world and are prepared to face the consequences that might include civil war in India and enmity in other Muslim countries"

The chiefs of staff concluded, "The alternative of Scheme B (Pakistan) in spite of the disadvantages listed below is better than no agreement at all as this would lead to widespread chaos".

[The Immortal Goon]

You insinuated that the British partitioned India in order to cause trouble whereas the exact opposite is true. Your sources don't even back you up on that either.

What?

But I would propose that no small part of this also comes down with how the British tend to decolonize anyway. When they left India, for instance, they cut it apart with an eye to the religious break down.

Of all the things that this could mean, you not only assumed it was, "to cause trouble," for no reason, but also that, "no small part," meant, "the entire reason."

And then, when I posted sources that disagreed with your imaginary interpretation, you took that to mean that my sources were wrong--not your assumption.

There's a kind of arrogance there against all reason that I almost respect.

But no, all I meant to imply was that the British, as products of European civilization in their time and place, tend to see national struggles through the lens of religion. This is not uncommon, the Americans and French do as well.

The Indian, Irish, and other anti-colonial movements tended to be less worried about that stuff. This is not to say that it didn't come up, but there was no problem for Sinn Fein and the volunteer movement to be run by protestants in the same way that it would had a Catholic been running the UVF or leading the Orange Order.

[layman]

@The Immortal Goon

It was partitioned because it was breaking apart anyway and so best do it as peacefully as possible. You implied the split was engineered for imperialist motives as usual.

I'm sure you are really perfectly well aware of the Muslim nationalist movement that was happening and that there is no way the British could have stopped it. Only India could have , probably through brute force.

I'll throw in some speculation that you just want to draw parallels to Ireland like always.