Crosswords2 mins ago
Is David Cameron turning into the Charlie Sheen of British Politics?
Popping over to Pakistan and announcing that Britain is "responsible for many of the world’s historic problems, including the conflict in Kashmir between India and Pakistan"
The ill-advised ramblings of a man who shouldn't be allowed near a live microphone, or are there grains of truth in his statement?
http://www.telegraph....-worlds-problems.html
The ill-advised ramblings of a man who shouldn't be allowed near a live microphone, or are there grains of truth in his statement?
http://www.telegraph....-worlds-problems.html
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jackthehat
/// the fact is that India had been 'The jewel in the crown' for Britain for the preceding 150 years and therefore *of course* we were instrumental in any subsequent conflict. ///
Yes of course I agree that, it is an historic fact (not that I am agreeing, but that Britain ruled India)
But Britain's rule of India surely cannot be blamed for the differences shown between the Muslims, the Hindus, and the Sikhs.
In fact, as already mentioned if it had not been for the involvement of the British, these three would have created a blood-bath in India, even if the British had not previously been in control.
It was Jinna who took the opportunity of Britain's withdrawal to seek an independent state for the Muslims, well two actually East & West Pakistan, and even those two could not get on with each other, and then with India's involvement in East Pakistan they became an independent nation, Bangladesh.
So in this instance we cannot lay the blame on Britain's doorstep.
/// the fact is that India had been 'The jewel in the crown' for Britain for the preceding 150 years and therefore *of course* we were instrumental in any subsequent conflict. ///
Yes of course I agree that, it is an historic fact (not that I am agreeing, but that Britain ruled India)
But Britain's rule of India surely cannot be blamed for the differences shown between the Muslims, the Hindus, and the Sikhs.
In fact, as already mentioned if it had not been for the involvement of the British, these three would have created a blood-bath in India, even if the British had not previously been in control.
It was Jinna who took the opportunity of Britain's withdrawal to seek an independent state for the Muslims, well two actually East & West Pakistan, and even those two could not get on with each other, and then with India's involvement in East Pakistan they became an independent nation, Bangladesh.
So in this instance we cannot lay the blame on Britain's doorstep.
Agreed.
At least the Indians and Pakistanis had a say in their borders.
Africa and the Middle East are a post-colonial disaster of inbuilt conflicts caused by the careless drawing of boundaries by civil servants from the european powers and post WW1 Armistice processes; Iraq, Palestine, Rwanda, Nigeria, Sudan and many, many more.
.
At least the Indians and Pakistanis had a say in their borders.
Africa and the Middle East are a post-colonial disaster of inbuilt conflicts caused by the careless drawing of boundaries by civil servants from the european powers and post WW1 Armistice processes; Iraq, Palestine, Rwanda, Nigeria, Sudan and many, many more.
.
AOG - With the greatest of respect...you have no idea what India would have looked had Britain not meddled in the very first place.
Of course there would have been tribal battles in the disputed regions but there may well have been a solution thrashed out long before now (or1947).
I would love to be able to claim that Britain should only accept the 'glory' of any success whilst ignoring the legacy of it's meddlesome failures but in the real world it is just not possible.
Of course there would have been tribal battles in the disputed regions but there may well have been a solution thrashed out long before now (or1947).
I would love to be able to claim that Britain should only accept the 'glory' of any success whilst ignoring the legacy of it's meddlesome failures but in the real world it is just not possible.
British India Trading company wanted spices & Indian moghuls wanted weapons.....it was trade not colonialism initially
http://history1800s.a...p/indiatimeline01.htm
http://history1800s.a...p/indiatimeline01.htm
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.