The brits were to blame for process of partition (or lack there-of). The haste, wanton disregard for life, the casual approach towards the largest refugee crisis in human history was certainly avoidable. They were also to blame for further exacerbating divisions via divide-and-conquer.
But the divisions already existed. The idea of a Muslim state had had been stewing for decades in certain circles. It was inevitable.
That's why I pointed to the 'process of partition'.
The border-lines were drawn by a man who had never visited India over a few months. They withdrew all state machinery overnight, and somehow expected 2 nations born into war to fare alright. Did they expect millions to cross borders and leave their homes behind without any resulting repercussions ? How is a country (Pakistan) divided in 2 by its biggest enemy (India) even supposed to work ? How are Sikhs supposed to live if the borders go right through their fields, dividing their 2 holiest sites ?
Animals when kept in captivity, cannot return back into the wild without supervision. Systems of govt are no different.
So it's the Brits fault that Pakistan/India immediately went at each others throat the moment they were gone and the solution was to keep both under "supervision" i.e. empire control? When exactly could they have left without that outcome? Or is the idea here that the British empire still exists in the 21st century?
At what point do the people living there take responsibility for ending their own violence, in this scenario?
If an outsider comes into your family (in the form of a wife or husband or some such relationship), destroys it from within, ensures your family is split and creates lifetime hostility. Then washes his/her hands off the mess and says "Sorry boys, you fight it out, I am out of here! Ciao!" would you be kind to someone coming up to you and saying "At what point do you take responsibility for ending your own violence?".
> At what point do the people living there take responsibility for ending their own violence, in this scenario?
Name your Country and I'll give you at least 3 examples of this.
So before the British, there was absolutely no Hindu/Muslim tension in south east Asia at all, it was all peace and friendship? The Mughals were taxing non-Muslims just for being infidels in the 1600s and that led to the Maratha empire which then proceeded to conquer parts of the Mughal empire, often inflicting retribution in return.
The idea that India was one happy family until the British came along is ridiculous. If anything the Brits were suppressing this conflict which is why it re-emerged literally the very same day they left.
I never said we were one happy family until the Brits came along. Whatever wars we had pre-Colonization was always the internal matter of the Indian subcontinent. It did not involve outsiders who took decisions on our behalf. Even when we fought the Greeks, it still did not end up in Colonization of any kind. Only post the Portuguese, the French and then finally the British did we experience Colonization. And this Colonization was through "trade" not through "wars". It was a gradual process because even the Brits knew they could not fight militarily (Wars not battles/skirmishes) and had to adopt a "Divide and Rule" policy to subjugate India.
Again, sticking to the analogy of a family, there is never a "happy family" anywhere in the World. Every family has its warts. I bet you have plenty of fights within your family. But still you stick together despite the fights. But all it takes is one outsider to undo it all. And that "undoing" cannot be reversed. Colonization is what happens when you let outsiders into your family and take decisions on behalf of your family.
> If anything the Brits were suppressing this conflict which is why it re-emerged literally the very same day they left
The Brits weren't "suppressing this conflict" by any stretch of imagination. They actually were fomenting it even more. It only turned against them in the 1857 First War of Independence when both Hindus and Muslims united. The reason for that is simple. Brits used cow and pig fat to grease gunpowder cartridges which required one to tear it open with his teeth. This insulted both Hindus and Muslims for obvious reasons. That was the trigger for both communities to unite and fight the Brits. But that still did not stop the Brits from exploiting the division based on religious lines.
> The Mughals were taxing non-Muslims just for being infidels in the 1600s and that led to the Maratha empire which then proceeded to conquer parts of the Mughal empire, often inflicting retribution in return.
And that won't stop even now. We still have groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda etc which still wreck havoc in all parts of the World. I bet your Country is no different either and I am pretty sure your Country has been at the receiving end of Terrorism since you are unwilling to divulge which Country you belong to. Makes it all the more obvious since you are willing to pontificate to Indians about how we should let all enmity be set aside and live like one happy family while not saying anything about your own Country.
> Name your Country and I'll give you at least 3 examples of this.
To explain it better, we have had fights/relationships between both communities going all the way back to 6th century. And the people who are Muslims today were of various Religious ethnicities (majority of whom were Hindus, Persian/Zoroastrians etc). So our relationships run way back before Anglo-Saxons entered our shores as traders/merchants. If you pick up our History you will see references to not just trade, politics or wars but also familial relations that spanned from present day Bangladesh all the way to the other corners of Iran. Even our Ancient Scriptures like Ramayana and Mahabharata has references to these regions and the Kingdoms within them. So yes when I say Indian Subcontinent I mean the entire extant region that includes present day Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. So even if we fought wars with each other and one Kingdom sometimes reigning over other Kingdoms, we never felt it was some "outsider" who ruled over us.
The reason we blame the Brits is purely because of the Partition of India and the mess they created with drawing the various borders. That does not just include borders between India and Pakistan. It also includes borders between India and China. Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pakistan and Iran. Afghanistan and Iran. They left a huge mess when they left as the lines drawn did not account for natural resource sharing or even towns/cities. In some states, the border lines ran through actual homes. The Partition of India is heavily criticized also because the British Empire decided to divide British-India based on Religious lines. The ones who claimed to talk about "Freedom, Democracy, Rule of Law, Equality, Liberty" etc decided to divide the Country on Religious lines. This resulted in millions dying as they crisscrossed these artificially drawn borders which required them to leave their homes, family, everything on the basis of religious lines. There was absolutely no requirement for the Brits to divide India at all.
The consequences of the division directly resulted in all the crazy stuff that happened after 1947. It was a ticking time bomb. 9/11 attacks, bombing of WTC, Taliban taking over Afghanistan, Iran going towards autocracy, emergence of ISIS and Al-Qaeda... all of this could have easily been prevented if India was not Partitioned. It was not just Indians but the World that paid the price for the British folly. And we Indians were in the right because in the entire Region we are the only prosperous ones as we chose Democracy, Freedom, Liberty, Rule of Law over Religious nonsense. The rest of the region fell apart into chaos after the Partition. Bangladesh is an outlier only because it took the support of India to help it achieve Independence from Pakistan and liberate itself. If not for India, Bangladesh would be in ruins today.
> The idea of a Muslim state had had been stewing for decades in certain circles.
How much of this was fostered by the "divide-and-conquer" approach the British took to ruling the country, including the partition of Bengal on religious lines decades before the partition of the country itself?
is a kind way of framing "were partitioned intentionally to foment division, by the departing colonizers"