Did British empire made a blunder in 1947 by not balkanizing India further?

[sweep_shot]

I feel like British Empire made a mistake in 1947 when they only made Pakistan and India.

What they should've done is make Pakistan, Kashmir, Khalistan, and divide India into 5-10 small countries.

Had they done that, many of the future conflicts could've been prevented. It could've also kept Indians humble like the Sri Lankans or the Nepalese.

Missed opportunity.

Anyway, I still expect India to be balkanized due to domestic problems as well as conflicts with China/Pakistan. Balkanization of India can result in more peace in the subcontinent region in my opinion.

What do you think? Discuss.

 

[sweep_shot]

I feel like British Empire made a mistake in 1947 when they only made Pakistan and India.

What they should've done is make Pakistan, Kashmir, Khalistan, and divide India into 5-10 small countries.

Correction: I think Kashmir should've been included within Pakistan.

Also, Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh should've been independent or gone to China. Those people are ethnically closer to China.

 

[Rajdeep]

Correction: I think Kashmir should've been included within Pakistan.

Also, Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh should've been independent or gone to China. Those people are ethnically closer to China.

Why should Kashmir have been included with Pakistan and not a separate country? Any reason?

 

[Rajdeep]

@sweep_shot any response to the above question?

Why open a thread when you run scared and won't debate?

 

[IronShield]

India is a fake country invented by foreigners and particularly by the British through the implementation of their administrative system. If it wasn't for the British, there would be no India.

What does South Indian have any connection to a Punjabi other than tenuous link through collection of some superstitious beliefs.

 

[sweep_shot]

Why should Kashmir have been included with Pakistan and not a separate country? Any reason?

Kashmiris themselves feel closer to Pakistan. So, they should've been included in Pakistan. All the Kashmiri people on PP are pro-Pakistan.

@sweep_shot any response to the above question?

Why open a thread when you run scared and won't debate?

I am not here always. Please be patient.

 

[sweep_shot]

India is a fake country invented by foreigners and particularly by the British through the implementation of their administrative system. If it wasn't for the British, there would be no India.

What does South Indian have any connection to a Punjabi other than tenuous link through collection of some superstitious beliefs.

Agree.

There was no India in the past. It was divided into many small kingdoms just like we see in modern day African continent.

Mughals and Sultanates unified all these kingdoms under their rules. After that, British Empire gave India the final identity.

 

[Devadwal]

I don't know about the British but India has definitely balkanized Pakistan

 

[Rajdeep]

Kashmiris themselves feel closer to Pakistan. So, they should've been included in Pakistan. All the Kashmiri people on PP are pro-Pakistan.




I am not here always. Please be patient.

When the partition happened in 1947, Britishers divided India and Pakistan whereas Kashmir was given a separate land.

Then immediately in the Oct of the same year, Pak army launched a war trying to annex Kashmir. To negotiate that, India also engaged in that war. The next result being half of Kashmir is now with India and other half is with Pakistan.

Will you not agree that had Pakistan not attacked in 1948 trying to annex Kashmir, we would not have any problems of present day? Kashmir by now will be a separate country like Bangladesh

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I always commend India for creating a reasonably robust national identity despite big regional and religious differences.

The British had to business balkanizing anything. In an ideal world they should have handed the country back to the Mughals.

 

[sweep_shot]

When the partition happened in 1947, Britishers divided India and Pakistan whereas Kashmir was given a separate land.

Then immediately in the Oct of the same year, Pak army launched a war trying to annex Kashmir. To negotiate that, India also engaged in that war. The next result being half of Kashmir is now with India and other half is with Pakistan.

Will you not agree that had Pakistan not attacked in 1948 trying to annex Kashmir, we would not have any problems of present day? Kashmir by now will be a separate country like Bangladesh

No. I do not agree with you because the region was seeing conflicts even before the 1948 war. Poonch rebellion, for example --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_Poonch_rebellion.

Kashmiris were pro-Pakistan and still is pro-Pakistan. So, the logical thing to do at that time was to make it a part of Pakistan.
I think all the issues happened due to Hari Singh (ruler of Kashmir at that period).

 

[Rajdeep]

India is a fake country invented by foreigners and particularly by the British through the implementation of their administrative system. If it wasn't for the British, there would be no India.

What does South Indian have any connection to a Punjabi other than tenuous link through collection of some superstitious beliefs.

Same connection that a Pashtun has with a Punjabi

 

[Rajdeep]

If, as some people claim, the British made a blunder and India is a "fake country," then how is India progressing by leaps and bounds—now becoming the 4th largest economy in the world—while Pakistan, with whom they argue Kashmir should have aligned, is struggling and surviving on IMF bailouts?

Where does this level of false confidence even come from?

 

[sweep_shot]

I always commend India for creating a reasonably robust national identity despite big regional and religious differences.

The British had to business balkanizing anything. In an ideal world they should have handed the country back to the Mughals.

There was no Mughal in 1947. So, they couldn't have handed it to Mughals.

I think dividing India into 5-10 small countries could've prevented Hindutva ideology from blossoming.

2 examples would be Nepal and Sri Lanka. Nepal is a Hindu-majority state while Sri Lanka has a large number of Hindus. But, they don't believe in Hindutva and they are pretty humble in nature.

When countries are small in size, people tend to be more humble and they tend to avoid military conflicts.

So, I definitely think British Empire made a blunder in 1947. Their blunder caused many of the future conflicts.

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

Both pak, India have different races.

Sindhi, baloch, hazara, pashtun, kashmiri, punjabi to name a few in pak. Does not mean pak will also break into multiple smaller nations.

 

[sweep_shot]

Both pak, India have different races.

Sindhi, baloch, hazara, pashtun, kashmiri, punjabi to name a few in pak. Does not mean pak will also break into multiple smaller nations.

Well, Pakistan is not causing issues to neighboring countries. India is causing issues in other countries (Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan etc.).

So, balkanizing India in 1947 would've been better in hindsight.