Was Great Britain responsible for recent Chaos in Pakistan?

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Was Great Britain responsible for recent Chaos in Pakistan?

---

I got this thrown at me by poster @Local.Dada when I said that the bombing chaos in the subcontinent was a consequence of lack of intelligent application of law and order which I think was probably better applied during colonial times.

Thoughts?

 

[LordJames]

I got this thrown at me by poster @Local.Dada when I said that the bombing chaos in the subcontinent was a consequence of lack of intelligent application of law and order which I think was probably better applied during colonial times.

Thoughts?

1. Was Britain responsible for creating Pakistan?
2. Application of law and order was better under the British?

Whats the topic?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

1. Was Britain responsible for creating Pakistan?
2. Application of law and order was better under the British?

Whats the topic?

Let's just go with 1 seeing as it is the topic title.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

It was responsible for creating both Pakistan and India.

 

[IronShield]

No. It was Hitler.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

It was responsible for creating both Pakistan and India.

So does that mean the British should bear responsibility today for terrorist attacks going off in major cities in both Pakistan and India?

That was the claim made by the poster mentioned, which I disagreed with.

 

[sweep_shot]

Was Great Britain responsible for recent Chaos in Pakistan?

---

I got this thrown at me by poster @Local.Dada when I said that the bombing chaos in the subcontinent was a consequence of lack of intelligent application of law and order which I think was probably better applied during colonial times.

Thoughts?

Local.Call.Center.Scammer has a habit of coming up with wild theories (typical sanghi trait).

No need to take sanghi opinion seriously.

 

[KingKhanWC]

As far as I know, the British didnt want a divide but Jinnah and his team insisted. The movie Jinnah shows a great scene regarding this.

But ultimately it was the British arrival which paved the way down the line.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

So does that mean the British should bear responsibility today for terrorist attacks going off in major cities in both Pakistan and India?

That was the claim made by the poster mentioned, which I disagreed with.

Nah this is self inflicted

 

[DeadlyVenom]

As far as I know, the British didnt want a divide but Jinnah and his team insisted. The movie Jinnah shows a great scene regarding this.

But ultimately it was the British arrival which paved the way down the line.

Hindus got really lucky to be given a country.

British rule worked out well for them.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

O man people are still stuck in April in November, not even a good one for November fool

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Hindus got really lucky to be given a country.

British rule worked out well for them.

Most of them realise it to be fair, but they won't admit it openly these days.

 

[Theanonymousone]

Hindus got really lucky to be given a country.

British rule worked out well for them.

You make it sound like Muslims didnt want a country.

They may be freeloaders of the Independence movement majorly driven by the sacrifices from Hindu population??

But I have to say Middle Easy got lucky with Oil money. Else, there is hardly any Islamic nation that is worthy to be talked about.

Hinduism is one of the oldest religions on earth and as a civilization itself, it is dated back to 3000 BC. So, Pakistani’s got lucky to get a land from Bharat in that sense.

 

[JaDed]

British along with five eyes are responsible for enabling dictators in Pakistan… if that counts for something.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

You make it sound like Muslims didnt want a country.

They may be freeloaders of the Independence movement majorly driven by the sacrifices from Hindu population??

But I have to say Middle Easy got lucky with Oil money. Else, there is hardly any Islamic nation that is worthy to be talked about.

Hinduism is one of the oldest religions on earth and as a civilization itself, it is dated back to 3000 BC. So, Pakistani’s got lucky to get a land from Bharat in that sense.

You got unnecessarily sensitive and made it into a religious issue lol, in the context of this thread it is quite clear I meant Hindus living under British rule in India, not Hindus of Java or Nepal, so it was not necessary to bring in Islamic nations. I am not sure where you are getting the sacrifices majorly being from Hindu population, it is a very myopic view of history.

Before the British arrived, Hindus had a small part of India; when they left, they had a large part. This is factual and there is no need for such sensitivity on a historic topic. When Muslims realised India was being handed to Hindus on a plate they had to fight to protect their own future.

 

[Theanonymousone]

You got unnecessarily sensitive and made it into a religious issue lol, in the context of this thread it is quite clear I meant Hindus living under British rule in India, not Hindus of Java or Nepal, so it was not necessary to bring in Islamic nations. I am not sure where you are getting the sacrifices majorly being from Hindu population, it is a very myopic view of history.

Before the British arrived, Hindus had a small part of India; when they left, they had a large part. This is factual and there is no need for such sensitivity on a historic topic. When Muslims realised India was being handed to Hindus on a plate they had to fight to protect their own future.

Factual??
Muslim population is a fraction (<10%) of Hindu population even in Mughals rule.

India in the World; the World in India 1450-1770 - Association for Asian Studies

“World history” means many things to many scholars, teachers, and students. So does “Indian History.” This article explicitly brings these two enterprises together, to situate the history of India in ongoing larger processes that were transforming the entire world through three centuries, from...

www.asianstudies.org

Barring few regions, India then was majorly Hindu populated. Dont know where you get your facts.

Being a Hindu dominated country, Muslims freeloader the efforts of Hindus during independence. This is far more logical than any of your sentences. Lol.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

You got unnecessarily sensitive and made it into a religious issue lol, in the context of this thread it is quite clear I meant Hindus living under British rule in India, not Hindus of Java or Nepal, so it was not necessary to bring in Islamic nations. I am not sure where you are getting the sacrifices majorly being from Hindu population, it is a very myopic view of history.

Before the British arrived, Hindus had a small part of India; when they left, they had a large part. This is factual and there is no need for such sensitivity on a historic topic. When Muslims realised India was being handed to Hindus on a plate they had to fight to protect their own future.

The British left the best part of a century ago. Neither Pakistan nor India should have the temerity to blame the Brits for what is happening in the subcontinent these days. Or at least if you want to do so, then make a cogent argument for it.

 

[Major]

Indra Gandhi and the foreign policy of India in the 60s is responsible for the chaos in Pakistan, India and in Kashmir. Now i am not sure how much Nehru was involved in the foreign policy.

The whole proxy war strategy is something Pakistan was forced to adopt. It Pakistan were surprised by the Mukti Bahini which led to us losing East Pakistan. India had been funding, providing training and weapons to Mukti Bahini, which was a terrorist group in East Pakistan but based in India. When civil war broke, Pakistan army and the West Pakistani civilians were caught by surprise and couldn't handle the Mukti Bahini which caused massive chaos.

Pakistan in return lost East Pakistan, and while that happened, Pakistan made sure it will adopt a similar proxy strategy in future.

Its no secret that Pakistan has been behind the Mumbai attacks and some other attacks in India, and the reason is that once India opened the gates for such tactics, Pakistan was never gonna hold itself back. India has never admitted or taken responsibility of what Mukti Bahini did, while they do celebrate East Pakistan's independence.

Now when attacks happen in India, India now retaliates by getting terrorist attacks done in Pakistan like we saw the Jaffar express or todays blast in Islamabad.

So its not the British who are at fault or responsible. British rightly gave independence to Pakistan due to Quaid E Azam, but its the Indian foreign policies that ended up setting the precedence for future course of action.

The move in 1971 might have bought dividends for India interms of getting Pakistan to lose its territory, but it has put us and many of our future generations at risk of dieing due to suicide attacks.

 

[Major]

As far as I know, the British didnt want a divide but Jinnah and his team insisted. The movie Jinnah shows a great scene regarding this.

But ultimately it was the British arrival which paved the way down the line.

The British ended up doing 2 good things when they gave handed India its independence. They gave them an army which was well trained, and they enforced the princely states to unite and merge which made India what it is today.

The army factor was a big thing and it often goes unappreciated around here. The Indian army is well known how it got its behinds delivered by the East Indian companies soldiers, not even the army. But the British than train the Indians and taught them how to defend themselves. And this is no small feat, the main issue in Afghanistan is exactly this that they dont have a trained or resource funded army, which allows it to be attacked and taken over by anyone.

Than the princely states. Its funny how Indians talk about its civilization when that land of the civilization is in our part of the lands and not even in theirs. Had the princely states not been merged, we would have had multiple small countries existing, which would had caused for problems and wars that could had gone on for years. British merged them as one, and credit to India aswell with its policies to keep those lands intact in to India through its nationalism and not having one single language as its official language.

 

[Major]

It was responsible for creating both Pakistan and India.

I wouldnt say Britain created Pakistan. Because the concept of Pakistan was unknown to them. It was Jinnah and Muslim League (not noon ) that created the idea of Pakistan and forced it. Britain did give us independence.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The British ended up doing 2 good things when they gave handed India its independence. They gave them an army which was well trained, and they enforced the princely states to unite and merge which made India what it is today.

The army factor was a big thing and it often goes unappreciated around here. The Indian army is well known how it got its behinds delivered by the East Indian companies soldiers, not even the army. But the British than train the Indians and taught them how to defend themselves. And this is no small feat, the main issue in Afghanistan is exactly this that they dont have a trained or resource funded army, which allows it to be attacked and taken over by anyone.

Than the princely states. Its funny how Indians talk about its civilization when that land of the civilization is in our part of the lands and not even in theirs. Had the princely states not been merged, we would have had multiple small countries existing, which would had caused for problems and wars that could had gone on for years. British merged them as one, and credit to India aswell with its policies to keep those lands intact in to India through its nationalism and not having one single language as its official language.

The big question is how did the British , with ONLY 40,000 troops manage to conquer and take over £4 trillion out of peoples pockets?

Anyone can answer this please. @KB @Technics 1210

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Some very good posts by @Major and certainly plenty for all to mull over. I really don't know why there aren't more Indian posters willing to acknowledge the great debt they owe the British, or if they really believe they lost out with the creation of Pakistan, spell out why.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Some very good posts by @Major and certainly plenty for all to mull over. I really don't know why there aren't more Indian posters willing to acknowledge the great debt they owe the British, or if they really believe they lost out with the creation of Pakistan, spell out why.

Some Hindutva types may feel its no loss due to many Muslims getting out but it was a huge loss! Imagine huge chunks of lands separated, from Bangladesh to Pakistan and Kashmir. Pakistan esp has a strategic land mass with a sea port and bordering many nations. Not to mention the masses of minerals and other assets out of the Earth. Finally war is always on the horizon.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I wouldnt say Britain created Pakistan. Because the concept of Pakistan was unknown to them. It was Jinnah and Muslim League (not noon ) that created the idea of Pakistan and forced it. Britain did give us independence.

Yeh that's true you are spot on

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Factual??
Muslim population is a fraction (<10%) of Hindu population even in Mughals rule.

India in the World; the World in India 1450-1770 - Association for Asian Studies

“World history” means many things to many scholars, teachers, and students. So does “Indian History.” This article explicitly brings these two enterprises together, to situate the history of India in ongoing larger processes that were transforming the entire world through three centuries, from...

www.asianstudies.org

Barring few regions, India then was majorly Hindu populated. Dont know where you get your facts.

Being a Hindu dominated country, Muslims freeloader the efforts of Hindus during independence. This is far more logical than any of your sentences. Lol.

I wasn't talking about population.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

The British left the best part of a century ago. Neither Pakistan nor India should have the temerity to blame the Brits for what is happening in the subcontinent these days. Or at least if you want to do so, then make a cogent argument for it.

If you take the argument that it is mainly territorial disputes then yes you can blame them, because they drew the lines on the ground.

 

[Major]

If you take the argument that it is mainly territorial disputes then yes you can blame them, because they drew the lines on the ground.

The old time indians hate Britain for some other reasons. This new generation of indians dont know their history and are mostly high on nationalism all the time.

The old timers resentment to Britain stems from the 1935 Act. That act is what laid down the foundation of 1947.

The biggest punch the British ended up giving to the Hindu population was the seperate electorate, and this seperate electorate demand was achieved due to Muslim League who for the first time showed their power to congress. The whole concept of Indian secularism got shaken.

 

[Technics 1210]

The big question is how did the British , with ONLY 40,000 troops manage to conquer and take over £4 trillion out of peoples pockets?

Anyone can answer this please. @KB @Technics 1210

Simply because Hindutva doesn't invoke aspirations, but promotes subjection through the magnitudes of segregation and discrimination baked into the cult. The cult is born to take orders.

This is why India will forever be the nation of subservient slaves - home and abroad.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

The old time indians hate Britain for some other reasons. This new generation of indians dont know their history and are mostly high on nationalism all the time.

The old timers resentment to Britain stems from the 1935 Act. That act is what laid down the foundation of 1947.

The biggest middle finger the British ended up giving to the Hindu population was the seperate electorate, and this seperate electorate demand was achieved due to Muslim League who for the first time showed their power to congress. The whole concept of Indian secularism got shaken.

I have mentioned to some of these Indians here that the so called provisions they gave to Indian Muslims and secularism to keep them part of the country, wasn't doing Indian Muslims a favour, but ensuring that they Hindus themselves got something.

 

[Rajdeep]

Not sure if Britain is responsible for all the chaos in Pakistan but one thing for sure Pakistanis are definitely causing most chaos in Britain.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Not sure if Britain is responsible for all the chaos in Pakistan but one thing for sure Pakistanis are definitely causing most chaos in Britain.

Made me lol

 

[LordJames]

The big question is how did the British , with ONLY 40,000 troops manage to conquer and take over £4 trillion out of peoples pockets?

Anyone can answer this please. @KB @Technics 1210

The same way Taliban rule over Afghanistan by "buying loyalties", pitting rivals against each other weakening them and then taking over.

India (under Mughuls) were still a dominion of Rajas, Maharajs, Nawabs and British bought loyalty, requested concessions in the beginning then made alliances and backed 1 against the other and eventfully sold patronage (in the form of providing pension) and eventually just took it over.

​

 

[RexRex]

Indra Gandhi and the foreign policy of India in the 60s is responsible for the chaos in Pakistan, India and in Kashmir. Now i am not sure how much Nehru was involved in the foreign policy.

The whole proxy war strategy is something Pakistan was forced to adopt. It Pakistan were surprised by the Mukti Bahini which led to us losing East Pakistan. India had been funding, providing training and weapons to Mukti Bahini, which was a terrorist group in East Pakistan but based in India. When civil war broke, Pakistan army and the West Pakistani civilians were caught by surprise and couldn't handle the Mukti Bahini which caused massive chaos.

Pakistan in return lost East Pakistan, and while that happened, Pakistan made sure it will adopt a similar proxy strategy in future.

Its no secret that Pakistan has been behind the Mumbai attacks and some other attacks in India, and the reason is that once India opened the gates for such tactics, Pakistan was never gonna hold itself back. India has never admitted or taken responsibility of what Mukti Bahini did, while they do celebrate East Pakistan's independence.

Now when attacks happen in India, India now retaliates by getting terrorist attacks done in Pakistan like we saw the Jaffar express or todays blast in Islamabad.

So its not the British who are at fault or responsible. British rightly gave independence to Pakistan due to Quaid E Azam, but its the Indian foreign policies that ended up setting the precedence for future course of action.

The move in 1971 might have bought dividends for India interms of getting Pakistan to lose its territory, but it has put us and many of our future generations at risk of dieing due to suicide attacks.

^ This is an extremely dishonest and disingenuous post.

 

[KB]

The big question is how did the British , with ONLY 40,000 troops manage to conquer and take over £4 trillion out of peoples pockets?

Anyone can answer this please. @KB @Technics 1210

The British empire in India depended on Indian intermediaries and elite alliances. Take the East India Company in the eighteenth century. It relied on Indian agents obtaining commodities, on Indian merchants and bankers providing loans and capital, and on Indian soldiers to fill the ranks of its armies. Some historians have even suggested that Britain was sometimes drawn into territorial control at the invitation of wealthy Indian merchants.

The support of Indian bankers – in particular the Benares bankers - was crucial in ensuring the army was paid. The bulk of the Company’s troops consisted of Indian personnel, commanded by a small number of British officers. Company officials also relied on local agents: Bengali banians of Calcutta, Tamil dubashes of Madras and Parsee brokers in Bombay. These men acted as interpreters and translators, as secretaries and supervisors, as moneylenders and intermediaries between 'native' Indians and Company personnel.

By the twentieth century British presence was more firmly entrenched but they continued to rely on a network of alliances. There could be no other way, for there was a minuscule British physical presence. The census of 1921 reported a population of 247 million in British India. The European population was just under 157,000. The imperial state depended on alliances with princely rulers and other key groups such as landed magnates. Britain distributed land, chairs at darbars, certifications of appreciation written in gold or silver lettering, lunghis, guns and swords. In return, landlords ensured order, collected revenue, helped provide manpower for the army, assisted with the capture of criminals and were involved in arranging a workforce to work on roads and canals.

This is not to deny the role of violence and repression. If needed, British rulers could unleash brutal force. Raw force was certainly part of the story. But the empire functioned as a hybrid structure that relied heavily on Indian intermediaries, which provided an anchor of stability and degree of legitimacy for colonial rule.

 

[LordJames]

The British empire in India depended on Indian intermediaries and elite alliances. Take the East India Company in the eighteenth century. It relied on Indian agents obtaining commodities, on Indian merchants and bankers providing loans and capital, and on Indian soldiers to fill the ranks of its armies. Some historians have even suggested that Britain was sometimes drawn into territorial control at the invitation of wealthy Indian merchants.

The support of Indian bankers – in particular the Benares bankers - was crucial in ensuring the army was paid. The bulk of the Company’s troops consisted of Indian personnel, commanded by a small number of British officers. Company officials also relied on local agents: Bengali banians of Calcutta, Tamil dubashes of Madras and Parsee brokers in Bombay. These men acted as interpreters and translators, as secretaries and supervisors, as moneylenders and intermediaries between 'native' Indians and Company personnel.

By the twentieth century British presence was more firmly entrenched but they continued to rely on a network of alliances. There could be no other way, for there was a minuscule British physical presence. The census of 1921 reported a population of 247 million in British India. The European population was just under 157,000. The imperial state depended on alliances with princely rulers and other key groups such as landed magnates. Britain distributed land, chairs at darbars, certifications of appreciation written in gold or silver lettering, lunghis, guns and swords. In return, landlords ensured order, collected revenue, helped provide manpower for the army, assisted with the capture of criminals and were involved in arranging a workforce to work on roads and canals.

This is not to deny the role of violence and repression. If needed, British rulers could unleash brutal force. Raw force was certainly part of the story. But the empire functioned as a hybrid structure that relied heavily on Indian intermediaries, which provided an anchor of stability and degree of legitimacy for colonial rule.

@KingKhanWC @Cpt. Rishwat

The Anarchy: The Relentless Rise of the East India Company

Download and read here for free.

Buy it here.

 

[Hitman]

Not sure if Britain is responsible for all the chaos in Pakistan but one thing for sure Pakistanis are definitely causing most chaos in Britain.

KO!

 

[Champ_Pal]

1. Was Britain responsible for creating Pakistan?
2. Application of law and order was better under the British?

Whats the topic?

Thank you Britain.

 

[Champ_Pal]

The British empire in India depended on Indian intermediaries and elite alliances. Take the East India Company in the eighteenth century. It relied on Indian agents obtaining commodities, on Indian merchants and bankers providing loans and capital, and on Indian soldiers to fill the ranks of its armies. Some historians have even suggested that Britain was sometimes drawn into territorial control at the invitation of wealthy Indian merchants.

The support of Indian bankers – in particular the Benares bankers - was crucial in ensuring the army was paid. The bulk of the Company’s troops consisted of Indian personnel, commanded by a small number of British officers. Company officials also relied on local agents: Bengali banians of Calcutta, Tamil dubashes of Madras and Parsee brokers in Bombay. These men acted as interpreters and translators, as secretaries and supervisors, as moneylenders and intermediaries between 'native' Indians and Company personnel.

By the twentieth century British presence was more firmly entrenched but they continued to rely on a network of alliances. There could be no other way, for there was a minuscule British physical presence. The census of 1921 reported a population of 247 million in British India. The European population was just under 157,000. The imperial state depended on alliances with princely rulers and other key groups such as landed magnates. Britain distributed land, chairs at darbars, certifications of appreciation written in gold or silver lettering, lunghis, guns and swords. In return, landlords ensured order, collected revenue, helped provide manpower for the army, assisted with the capture of criminals and were involved in arranging a workforce to work on roads and canals.

This is not to deny the role of violence and repression. If needed, British rulers could unleash brutal force. Raw force was certainly part of the story. But the empire functioned as a hybrid structure that relied heavily on Indian intermediaries, which provided an anchor of stability and degree of legitimacy for colonial rule.

Its the same with Mughals too.

Most of the army of British were Indians. Its basically Indians conquering other Indians. Same with Mughal armies too. Most foot soldiers were Indians. Rajputs formed a big chunk of Mughal army and they were instrumental in conquering most of India. Only the generals and important people were actual foreigners.

Indians blame foreign forces for conquering their country. But they forget that their own countrymen played a key role in the conquest. Aurangzeb did not go on a horse conquering India. He sat in Delhi enjoying delicious food. Same with Akbar, Humayun etc. British soldiers did not go and conquer India. It was all Indian soldiers who were happy to serve their new overlords.

 

[Hitman]

Its the same with Mughals too.

Most of the army of British were Indians. Its basically Indians conquering other Indians. Same with Mughal armies too. Most foot soldiers were Indians. Rajputs formed a big chunk of Mughal army and they were instrumental in conquering most of India. Only the generals and important people were actual foreigners.

Indians blame foreign forces for conquering their country. But they forget that their own countrymen played a key role in the conquest. Aurangzeb did not go on a horse conquering India. He sat in Delhi enjoying delicious food. Same with Akbar, Humayun etc. British soldiers did not go and conquer India. It was all Indian soldiers who were happy to serve their new overlords.

It's pathetic when I think of the Jalianwala Bagh massacre. I believe every single one of them pulling their trigger was an Indian, weren't they?​

 

[sweep_shot]

It's pathetic when I think of the Jalianwala Bagh massacre. I believe every single one of them pulling their trigger was an Indian, weren't they?​

Yes. I believe that is correct.

Here is from Wikipedia:

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre, also known as the Amritsar massacre, took place on 13 April 1919. A large crowd had gathered at the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar, Punjab, British India, during the annual Baisakhi fair to protest against the Rowlatt Act and the arrest of pro-Indian independence activists Saifuddin Kitchlew and Satyapal. In response to the public gathering, Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer surrounded the people with Gurkha and Sikh infantrymen of the Indian Army. The Jallianwala Bagh could only be exited on one side, as its other three sides were enclosed by buildings. After blocking the exit with his troops, Dyer ordered them to shoot at the crowd, continuing to fire even as the protestors tried to flee. The troops kept on firing until their ammunition was low and they were ordered to stop. Estimates of those killed vary from 379 to 1,500 or more people; over 1,200 others were injured, of whom 192 sustained serious injury.

Jallianwala Bagh massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[BouncerGuy]

THREAD IS NOT ABOUT RELIGIONS... STAY ON TOPIC

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Some really informative posts here by posters @KB @LordJames @Major

The only serious Indian contribution so far from @Champ_Pal so my appreciation for that.

Other than that there was a jibe from Rajdeep at Pakistanis in Britain which got a big like from @Hitman as usual.

But come on guys it was your own compatriot who was blaming the British in another thread and now he's hiding pretending not to see it.

 

[Red-Indian]

Hindus got really lucky to be given a country.

British rule worked out well for them.

I think Hindus and Muslims in the subcontinent were both pretty unlucky to inherit primarily religion based countries which are set up for failure because they don't have the necessary separation of church and state.

India was pretty lucky to to have enough leaders so inclined and be left with enough of a religious minority to avoid sliding too much into Hinduism as a basis for the Nation at least for it's formative years. Pakistan was unlucky from the beginning to tie itself to a particular religion.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I think Hindus and Muslims in the subcontinent were both pretty unlucky to inherit primarily religion based countries which are set up for failure because they don't have the necessary separation of church and state.

India was pretty lucky to to have enough leaders so inclined and be left with enough of a religious minority to avoid sliding too much into Hinduism as a basis for the Nation at least for it's formative years. Pakistan was unlucky from the beginning to tie itself to a particular religion.

Pakistan should have been set up for Muslims of the subcontinent.

After a while they focused too much on the Muslims part and less so on the of the subcontinent part.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The British empire in India depended on Indian intermediaries and elite alliances. Take the East India Company in the eighteenth century. It relied on Indian agents obtaining commodities, on Indian merchants and bankers providing loans and capital, and on Indian soldiers to fill the ranks of its armies. Some historians have even suggested that Britain was sometimes drawn into territorial control at the invitation of wealthy Indian merchants.

The support of Indian bankers – in particular the Benares bankers - was crucial in ensuring the army was paid. The bulk of the Company’s troops consisted of Indian personnel, commanded by a small number of British officers. Company officials also relied on local agents: Bengali banians of Calcutta, Tamil dubashes of Madras and Parsee brokers in Bombay. These men acted as interpreters and translators, as secretaries and supervisors, as moneylenders and intermediaries between 'native' Indians and Company personnel.

By the twentieth century British presence was more firmly entrenched but they continued to rely on a network of alliances. There could be no other way, for there was a minuscule British physical presence. The census of 1921 reported a population of 247 million in British India. The European population was just under 157,000. The imperial state depended on alliances with princely rulers and other key groups such as landed magnates. Britain distributed land, chairs at darbars, certifications of appreciation written in gold or silver lettering, lunghis, guns and swords. In return, landlords ensured order, collected revenue, helped provide manpower for the army, assisted with the capture of criminals and were involved in arranging a workforce to work on roads and canals.

This is not to deny the role of violence and repression. If needed, British rulers could unleash brutal force. Raw force was certainly part of the story. But the empire functioned as a hybrid structure that relied heavily on Indian intermediaries, which provided an anchor of stability and degree of legitimacy for colonial rule.

In short , they sold out their land, people and wealth for European worldly pleasures.

Its similar to the African slave trade, in terms of selling out.

 

[RizwanT20Champ]

With due respect GB is an irrelevant country in the grand scheme of things. We look at GB like GB looks at the 3rd world. Parts of London and Birmingham look worse than Lyari. We saw how the puppet PM of UK was on stage with other world leaders. Trump even humiliated him and SS stole the show.

 

[LordJames]

With due respect GB is an irrelevant country in the grand scheme of things. We look at GB like GB looks at the 3rd world. Parts of London and Birmingham look worse than Lyari. We saw how the puppet PM of UK was on stage with other world leaders. Trump even humiliated him and SS stole the show.

No part of London or Birmingham look anything like Lyari!

I am not a British citizen and don't live there and I understand that you have some deep issues but a Muslim should always speak the truth.

I also understand that you probably take your information from Elon Musk but London is a far safer city then most cities in US and clearly.

 

[RizwanT20Champ]

No part of London or Birmingham look anything like Lyari!

I am not a British citizen and don't live there and I understand that you have some deep issues but a Muslim should always speak the truth.

I also understand that you probably take your information from Elon Musk but London is a far safer city then most cities in US and clearly.

Bro no need to be condescending, as a Muslim yourself you should learn to be patient and humble. I don't care about Musk and no, GB has some really terrible parts and I have been there. Yes I have some issues with those who claim to represent us in GB. Will not say more here and sidetrack.

 

[LordJames]

Bro no need to be condescending, as a Muslim yourself you should learn to be patient and humble. I don't care about Musk and no, GB has some really terrible parts and I have been there. Yes I have some issues with those who claim to represent us in GB. Will not say more here and sidetrack.

Yes, there are terrible parts but no part of London or Birmingham looks like Lyari at all.

That's the bottom line.

 

[RizwanT20Champ]

Yes, there are terrible parts but no part of London or Birmingham looks like Lyari at all.

That's the bottom line.

Compared to US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and most of Europe, London and Birmingham are terrible. I have seen all of them and can form my own opinion. If you love Birmingham that is fine.

 

[LordJames]

Compared to US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and most of Europe, London and Birmingham are terrible. I have seen all of them and can form my own opinion. If you love Birmingham that is fine.

This is what you said:

With due respect GB is an irrelevant country in the grand scheme of things. We look at GB like GB looks at the 3rd world. Parts of London and Birmingham look worse than Lyari. We saw how the puppet PM of UK was on stage with other world leaders. Trump even humiliated him and SS stole the show.

If you want to say that perhaps you exaggerated and made a mistake and meant to say that "Parts of London and Birmingham" are terrible

That's all you have to say.​

 

[RizwanT20Champ]

This is what you said:

If you want to say that perhaps you exaggerated and made a mistake and meant to say that "Parts of London and Birmingham" are terrible

That's all you have to say.​

I would rather be in Lyari than certain parts of London or Birmingham - safer too. Let's leave it at that.

 

[LordJames]

I would rather be in Lyari than certain parts of London or Birmingham - safer too. Let's leave it at that.

That's fine, but...

Doesn't absolve you from standing in front of Allah Ta'ala on the day of judgement for the words which you utter.

With due respect GB is an irrelevant country in the grand scheme of things. We look at GB like GB looks at the 3rd world. Parts of London and Birmingham look worse than Lyari. We saw how the puppet PM of UK was on stage with other world leaders. Trump even humiliated him and SS stole the show.

 

[RizwanT20Champ]

That's fine, but...

Doesn't absolve you from standing in front of Allah Ta'ala on the day of judgement for the words which you utter.

Bro no offense but you seem to have a chip on your shoulder all the time. Is it because of what I said about IK? Let it go!

 

[Bhaijaan]

People who fail in life often live in the rearview mirror.

They cling to the past, reciting the same sob stories and lost opportunities but with them as the victim and the world as the antagonist.

They will also usually keep mentioning someone from their circle who was once their equal or even below them but went on to succeed, making it seem they too were destined for great things but the cruel world came in the ways.

It seems that Nations too behave the same way. Pakistanis for instance, spends an unhealthy amount of time talking about 1947, 1971, the British Raj, or the Mughal era etc struggling to hide the nostalgia and regret. They are the symptoms of a wounded nation still unsure of its own identity. The obsession with the past is for many a coping mechanism for the failures of the present. It’s not remembrance but paralysis and unfortunately many don’t realize it.

Frankly speaking, the world moved on, the subcontinent moved on, very late but it did move on. In India, pre-1947 discussions are fading into academic corners only. The younger generation understands that history is to be studied, not lived in. They’ve seen enough of what a liberalized, self-confident economy can achieve. The focus now is on competing economically and ensuring India doesn’t waste the 21st century.


A nation’s mindset determines its trajectory. Those who glorify their pain stay in it. Those who learn, adapt, and build, outgrow it.

 

[LordJames]

With due respect GB is an irrelevant country in the grand scheme of things. We look at GB like GB looks at the 3rd world. Parts of London and Birmingham look worse than Lyari. We saw how the puppet PM of UK was on stage with other world leaders. Trump even humiliated him and SS stole the show.

@KingKhanWC

Some "Pakistani immigrants to US" who struggle to express themselves clearly in English still try to project a sense of elitism toward Britain, this is what parts of Philly look like

This is Kensignton Avenue Philadelphia

Houston, Texas

LA

 

[RizwanT20Champ]

@KingKhanWC

Some "Pakistani immigrants to US" who struggle to express themselves clearly in English still try to project a sense of elitism toward Britain, this is what parts of Philly look like

This is Kensignton Avenue Philadelphia

Houston, Texas

LA

Bro, you have a severe chip on your shoulder because of our previous discussion on IK. All that facade quickly fades away when you are pushed a little. It is fine. Enjoy Birmingham.

 

[RexRex]

The British empire in India depended on Indian intermediaries and elite alliances. Take the East India Company in the eighteenth century. It relied on Indian agents obtaining commodities, on Indian merchants and bankers providing loans and capital, and on Indian soldiers to fill the ranks of its armies. Some historians have even suggested that Britain was sometimes drawn into territorial control at the invitation of wealthy Indian merchants.

The support of Indian bankers – in particular the Benares bankers - was crucial in ensuring the army was paid. The bulk of the Company’s troops consisted of Indian personnel, commanded by a small number of British officers. Company officials also relied on local agents: Bengali banians of Calcutta, Tamil dubashes of Madras and Parsee brokers in Bombay. These men acted as interpreters and translators, as secretaries and supervisors, as moneylenders and intermediaries between 'native' Indians and Company personnel.

By the twentieth century British presence was more firmly entrenched but they continued to rely on a network of alliances. There could be no other way, for there was a minuscule British physical presence. The census of 1921 reported a population of 247 million in British India. The European population was just under 157,000. The imperial state depended on alliances with princely rulers and other key groups such as landed magnates. Britain distributed land, chairs at darbars, certifications of appreciation written in gold or silver lettering, lunghis, guns and swords. In return, landlords ensured order, collected revenue, helped provide manpower for the army, assisted with the capture of criminals and were involved in arranging a workforce to work on roads and canals.

This is not to deny the role of violence and repression. If needed, British rulers could unleash brutal force. Raw force was certainly part of the story. But the empire functioned as a hybrid structure that relied heavily on Indian intermediaries, which provided an anchor of stability and degree of legitimacy for colonial rule.

Good read. It should be a matter of national shame for Indians that it took only 30,000 british officers to control 300 million people in the subcontinent. A lot of brits seem to take subtle pride in it, from what I've read in their media and literature.

 

[LordJames]

Bro, you have a severe chip on your shoulder because of our previous discussion on IK. All that facade quickly fades away when you are pushed a little. It is fine. Enjoy Birmingham.

Above all, I am a Muslim, and I try not to belittle, mock, or make fun of anyone, whether for where they live, what they do, or who they are. Such behavior is petty and demeaning.

I don’t know where you come from or what kind of upbringing you’ve had, but you are clearly not American, even if you were to post an American passport in response.

You have repeatedly insulted @KingKhanWC without cause, relying on imagination and childish taunts. You have no right to insult anyone based on their citizenship or profession.

If you have any decency, morals, or faith, you should reflect on your arrogance and refrain from such insults.

​

 

[RizwanT20Champ]

Above all, I am a Muslim, and I try not to belittle, mock, or make fun of anyone, whether for where they live, what they do, or who they are. Such behavior is petty and demeaning.

I don’t know where you come from or what kind of upbringing you’ve had, but you are clearly not American, even if you were to post an American passport in response.

You have repeatedly insulted @KingKhanWC without cause, relying on imagination and childish taunts. You have no right to insult anyone based on their citizenship or profession.

If you have any decency, morals, or faith, you should reflect on your arrogance and refrain from such insults.

​

I have not mentioned him in this thread at all. You are two faced, mischievious and deceitful so spare me the moral lecture. I posted my own opinion on 3 places, nothing to do with anyone. By your own admission you are neither British nor Pakistani and yet you decided to jump up and down with ChatGpt replies.

 

[KB]

Its the same with Mughals too.

Most of the army of British were Indians. Its basically Indians conquering other Indians. Same with Mughal armies too. Most foot soldiers were Indians. Rajputs formed a big chunk of Mughal army and they were instrumental in conquering most of India. Only the generals and important people were actual foreigners.

Indians blame foreign forces for conquering their country. But they forget that their own countrymen played a key role in the conquest. Aurangzeb did not go on a horse conquering India. He sat in Delhi enjoying delicious food. Same with Akbar, Humayun etc. British soldiers did not go and conquer India. It was all Indian soldiers who were happy to serve their new overlords.

But we mustn’t read back into history contemporary ideas of national allegiance. Before the era of nationalism, nation-states and mass politics, empire was the default political order throughout the world. It is unhistorical to think people thought of themselves as Indians in the same way as they do now. Loyalties were layered and owed to dynasties, kinship groups or localities.

Ideas of legitimate rule in the ‘premodern’ era were also different. There were particular popular ideas of what ethical government should be: one that sought equity, that listened to the counsel of wise men, one where the ruler was perceived as a great gift-giver and where he aimed at the balancing of the different humours of the body politic. Ethnicity or geographic origin mattered less than a “good king” that upheld these norms.

Nor can we ignore the very different economic context which meant choices were restricted. Soldiers enlisted because of pay, survival, status or local loyalties and not necessarily because they were at one with the ambitions of the highest rulers of the land. They served whoever offered them a living and stability and not for a nation that did not yet exist.

***

“In so shapeless, so jumbled a bundle of societies, there were not two nations, there was not one nation, there was no nation at all. What was India?—a graveyard of old nationalities and the mother of new nationalisms struggling to be born.”

Anil Seal on nineteenth century India in The Emergence of Indian Nationalism

 

[sweep_shot]

British Empire should've balkanized India into 4-5 parts. That way they could've prevented many of the issues we are seeing now.

If India was divided into 4-5 countries, they could've been humble like the Nepalese and Sri Lankans.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Above all, I am a Muslim, and I try not to belittle, mock, or make fun of anyone, whether for where they live, what they do, or who they are. Such behavior is petty and demeaning.

I don’t know where you come from or what kind of upbringing you’ve had, but you are clearly not American, even if you were to post an American passport in response.

You have repeatedly insulted @KingKhanWC without cause, relying on imagination and childish taunts. You have no right to insult anyone based on their citizenship or profession.

If you have any decency, morals, or faith, you should reflect on your arrogance and refrain from such insults.

​

I don’t see it as an insult bro . Every city in the world has a few bad areas . It’s a political agenda mentality as those who support the corrupt / have personal investment with such entities so oppose , pretty much ever foreign nation due to no support .

Ironically if sharifs and zardari were in power over Mughal India when the Brits arrived , they would have also sold out their people .

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

British Empire should've balkanized India into 4-5 parts. That way they could've prevented many of the issues we are seeing now.

If India was divided into 4-5 countries, they could've been humble like the Nepalese and Sri Lankans.

This would have made more sense linguistically and culturally. Instead you now have divided Bengal, Punjab, Kashmir and Sind, neither of whom understand where they really belong.

 

[KB]

British Empire should've balkanized India into 4-5 parts. That way they could've prevented many of the issues we are seeing now.

Balkanisation was not in the interests of the main parties. The Congress, having built an impressive pan-Indian organisation, yearned for a united India with a strong centre. The British wanted to keep India out of the Communist bloc and within the Commonwealth, which would enable them to maintain a global role, protect economic trade with India and permit defence cooperation. Such aims were easier to achieve if the reins of power were handed to a single party. In the case of the Muslim League they sought to re-direct the regionalist energies of the Muslim majority provinces towards a semblance of trans-provincial political unity amongst Muslims.

If we step back, though, it is perhaps interesting to observe how the ideas of India and Indian nationalism changed over time. Group loyalties transcending village and clan based solidarities often took a regional flavour and early Indian nationalism was often envisaged as, in the words of one historian, a “union of regional homelands.” This was reflected even in the Indian national anthem. Others saw the Indian nation as a federation of religious communities - Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Parsi. India was initially conceived by many as a collection of communities rather than a single homogeneous nation.

But by around 1920, a more centralised and unitary conception of India became dominant. We see this in the life and intellectual journey of the Punjabi politician, Lala Lajpat Rai (1865-1928), as shown in a recent work on him by Vanya Vaidehi Bhargav. Earlier in his political life he saw India as being made up of different nations largely defined by religion. Later, he abandoned the idea of Hindu and Muslim “cultural nations” and began to speak of Indian nationhood in the singular, which religious communities were expected to be subordinate to.