this post was submitted on 27 May 2025
263 points (93.7% liked)

Memes

51451 readers
490 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TwoBeeSan@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago

It worked so well the first time.... let's do it in Palestine!

[–] slacktoid@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

More British accountability finally. First this, next the kohinoor diamond!

[–] match@pawb.social 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Plenty of Benin Bronzes to return too.

[–] slacktoid@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago

Oh yes! I mean just empty out the British Museum

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

The bronzes are so heartbreaking.

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] dellish@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Britan: the tan you get by standing the the English rain.

[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is rather naive. Do you think the fighting wouldn't have happened if they were kept as one big country?

[–] Samsuma@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This is rather a colonial narrative. Do you think the fighting would've lasted as long if the British never colonized that area?

[–] breecher@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Of course it would have lasted long. It had lasted basically the entire existence of human populated India up until then.

[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If the British had never come, I expect the situation would be very different. But I thought we were talking about partition.

[–] Samsuma@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago

Of course the situation might've been different. You wouldn't have dumb needless animosity on sectarian lines as they do today. Understand that by saying dumb shit like "The fighting would've happened anyway!" serves two purposes: a) to minimize the depravity of the British, the British Raj and colonialism in general and b) assumes that clashes on the basis of sectarianism is an inevitable pathway. Btw, partitioning is a tried-and-tested, colonial "divide and conquer" tactic.

Point is, a lot more lives could've been spared had it not been for colonialism that plagued the area, this is indisputable.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Basic divide and conquer strategy. Nigeria, Armenia/Azerbaijan, Israel/Palestine.

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What, they were one big peaceful team until the British? Need a little background here

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Scanned that, and it appears that the Muslim and Hindu peoples were fighting

As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated.

There's a statement earlier that the fighting was instigated by the British, but it lacks citation.

The Congress was secular and strongly opposed to having any religious state.[96] It insisted there was a natural unity to India, and repeatedly blamed the British for "divide and rule" tactics based on prompting Muslims to think of themselves as alien from Hindus.[citation needed]

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I didn't downvote you, for the record lol.

The tl;dr is that India and Pakistan used to be a dozen different countries until foreigners showed up with guns and decided to redraw the map. All those international tensions didn't evaporate, and it's more or less the equivalent of trying to put angry cats together in the same bag. The British didn't cause the tensions, but their fuckery absolutely made it worse.

The article also doesn't cover the Sikh separatists, but they've also been around since the East India Trading Co merged their empire with India, and the current Indian government has been assassinating supporters.

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You know what would improve Wikipedia? A "search this page" option.

I was looking to see if the formation (imposing) of Pakistan and India was around 1918 along with all those other great Treaty of Versailles decisions like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.

I gave up. With long articles, we need a search within the article.

Speaking about the app. I don't know about the website because all Wikipedia opens the app. I can't even go there deliberately in a browser.

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Oh, lame, it asks which one I want to use on my phone. Their app is okay, but there's some rough spots still. It also doesn't help that you have to read multiple articles in order to get a full picture, since they split off the history of the British Raj from the overview.

The Treaty of Versailles shook it up a bit and there were various revolutions that softened British rule, but the Brits were there until the 40s and formed Pakistan on their way out.

[–] Bigfishbest@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The Empire podcast goes quite deep into some of the issues and roots of partition. It was very clear that the English wanted out ASAP. One reason was the sectarian violence they could no longer contain.

[–] colourlessidea@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 month ago

Sectarian violence that was fostered by the British thanks to their ‘divide and rule’ strategy.

[–] MissJinx@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

oh britain.. one more thibg for your museum

[–] unfnknblvbl@beehaw.org 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Never attribute malice to that which can be easily explained by incompetence

[–] saigot@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago

No Britian very much partitioned things in a way to minimize local power. I don't know about Pakistan in particular but the province of west bengal and Bangladesh were intentionally split up to weaken what was a strong nationalistic group.

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I thought Kashmir was run by a Hindu at the time and they chose to go with India rather than Pakistan.

Definitely we can blame imperialism for a lot but some of the disputed territory wasn't Brittain's fault, afaik

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

My history is lacking on the conflict but IIRC the area was 'run' as a monarchy under British rule. The monarchy was Hindu but the population was largely Muslim.

So you had a local population in conflict with a ruling class inheriting being a mechanism of the colonial apparatus.