Britain is responsible for "so many of the world's problems", said David Cameron

Morlar

I would be interested in hearing differing viewpoints on this issue. Personally I would be inclined to agree with Cameron, and it looks like another positive step forward from him (following on from the unequivocal apology for Bloody Sunday).

Here is a BBC Article offering 2 sample differing responses to his statement :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12992540

7 April 2011 Last updated at 11:03 GMT

Is Britain to blame for many of the world's problems?

David Cameron in Pakistan David Cameron made the remarks in Pakistan

David Cameron has suggested that Britain and the legacy of its empire was responsible for many of the world's historic problems. But is that view fair?

Answering questions from students in Pakistan on Tuesday, the prime minister said: "As with so many of the problems of the world, we are responsible for their creation in the first place."

Here two historians give their view.

Nick Lloyd, lecturer in defence studies, King's College London

Mr Cameron's remarks about the painful legacy of colonialism could not be further from the truth and they reveal a disappointing lack of historical judgment. The British Empire in India, known as the Raj, was the greatest experiment in paternalistic imperial government in history.

By the time the British left India in 1947 they had given the subcontinent a number of priceless assets, including the English language, but also a structure of good government, local organisation and logistical infrastructure that still holds good today. Far from damaging India, British imperial rule gave it a head start.


Nick Lloyd

The empire gave its colonies real, tangible benefits”



At the centre of this was the Indian Civil Service, the 1,000 strong "heaven-born" group of administrators that ran the country. Their role in laying the foundations for strong, efficient government in India has never been accorded the respect and admiration it deserves.

While history has recorded that the ICS were aloof and disdainful of the "natives", in reality, the men who ran India were selfless, efficient and - most importantly of all - completely incorruptible.

Not only did they oversee the spread of good government, western education, modern medicine and the rule of law, they also put in place local works, famine relief, and irrigation projects, most notably in the Punjab, which benefited enormously from what was then the largest irrigation project in the world.

Perhaps the most priceless asset of all was the English language itself, which gave a unity to the subcontinent that it had never known before and which is allowing India's people to do business around the world today with great success.

Indeed, it is indicative of this that in February 2011, a Dalit (formerly untouchable) community in Uttar Pradesh built a shrine to the goddess English, which they believe will help them learn the English language and climb out of their grinding poverty.

Although Britain was not able to replicate its success in India everywhere across its vast colonial empire, it is still clear the empire gave its colonies real, tangible benefits. Wherever the British ruled, they erected a light, relatively inexpensive form of government that was not corrupt, was stable, and was favourable to outside investors.

Its imperial civil servants may not always have been completely sympathetic to local peoples, but they were always motivated by humanitarian impulses and did their best in often difficult circumstances. Indeed, when we look at Africa, many of the benefits of imperial rule were squandered in the generations after independence with a succession of corrupt and brutal regimes.

Dr Nick Lloyd is the author of the forthcoming book The Amritsar Massacre: The Untold Story of One Fateful Day

Andrew Thompson, professor of imperial and global history, University of Leeds

Does Britain's colonial legacy still poison its relations with Africa, the Middle East and Asia? Mr Cameron's remark raises important questions for society about how we relate to history.
Continue reading the main story

Andrew Thompson

Detention without trial, beatings, torture, and killings punctuated the twilight years of colonial rule”



There's the inheritance of colonial violence. What you saw in the later stages of empire was a series of British counter-insurgency operations, exported from one hot spot to another. In places such as Kenya, Palestine, Malaysia, Zimbabwe, and of course Northern Ireland, the British were forced to resort to repressive legal and military measures in what was to prove an ultimately vain attempt to curb the tide of political unrest and nationalist opposition.

Detention without trial, beatings, torture, and killings punctuated the twilight years of colonial rule. The disclosure this week of a large tranche of Foreign Office files, hitherto kept secret about full extent of British brutality against Mau Mau in Kenya, suggests there may be further revelations still to come. Will there be similar stories and claims from Palestine, Malaya, Cyprus or Nigeria?

There is also the question of whether the violence that characterised these counter-insurgency operations during decolonisation then set the scene for the way in which independent, post-colonial African and Asian governments dealt with political dissent from their own peoples.

The imperial past is far from being dead. On the contrary it is actually very much part of contemporary politics.

Perhaps we should not be surprised then when British foreign policy interests and interventions today are seen and perceived as "neo-colonial" in their nature.

The reaction of Iran in 2007 when 15 Royal Navy personnel were seized is instructive here. As heavy-handed as it may have seemed to people in Britain, it needs to be understood in the wider context of Iranian sensitivities over the presence of any western powers in or near its territorial waters - sensitivities arising in part from a very fraught and fragile 20th Century relationship over oil and territory.

In a deeper and more fundamental sense still, Britain's colonial legacy can be seen in the ways in which globalisation is being experienced today. From the 1870s onwards, the integration of labour, capital and commodity markets promoted by empire was very much skewed towards its "white" settler societies.

The economic benefits of empire for the so-called dependent colonies were much more meagre in comparison or did not exist at all. When we find critics of globalisation questioning whether economic integration and cultural diversity can comfortably co-exist, we should remember that for much of the last century the form of globalisation the world experienced rested on a view of social relations governed by racial hierarchies.

Finally, we might reverse the colonial encounter and think about how empire has left an imprint on British society. Despite its multi-ethnic empire, Britain did not embrace ethnic diversity at home.

There was the rhetoric of an inclusive imperial citizenship for the peoples of all Commonwealth countries. But in reality in post-war Britain there was little desire to promote integration for immigrants from the likes of the West Indies and the Indian subcontinent.

The consequences are perhaps reflected in experiences today, especially in terms of the so-called ethnic penalty many of these communities face in education, employment or housing.

The consensus among british media is interesting :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/06/ignoring-imperial-history-licence-west

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/a-world-of-troubles-ndash-all-made-in-britain-2264328.html


& sometimes predictable:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1374257/David-Cameron-compelled-knock-Britain-abroad.html

David Cameron observed that many of the world’s other problems were likewise our fault, and maybe he was thinking of Ireland.

I am among those who believe that the 1922 partition at Irish independence was a mistake. But it derived from hatreds between Protestants and Catholics as bitter as those between Muslims and Hindus.

The British, in admittedly clumsy fashion, sought to separate the warring parties, to prevent the two from slaughtering each other, as they had so often done in the past — and would do again in our own times.

Successive British governments who addressed the ‘Irish problem’ which haunted these islands for centuries did not do very well. But they acknowledged a basic truth which David Cameron will learn to recognise from his own experience as prime minister.

There are seldom, if ever, ‘solutions’ to great problems — whether in the Middle East, Ireland, Africa, India, the Balkans. Politicians can only strive to manage them, to identify the least bad expedients available to protect human lives and avert outright catastrophe.

So it was for the British politicians struggling with the fate of Ireland in the closing days of 1921, and of India in 1947. They were decent men, faced with vast difficulties and violent passions, who did their best.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8432332/David-Cameron-criticised-for-being-simplistic-and-trendy-and-more-PC-than-PM-over-empire-apology.html

Judgement Day

Very interesting and possibly true but you might as well blame the Roman and later Norman invasions of Britain for the ills of the World - it just depends where your version of history starts. I have to admit that mine begins in 1066 with the Norman Conquest, everything before then being a primeval swamp -including the Roman Empire era. Afraid there's no hope for me I'm just an incurable Anglophile.

Morlar

Judgement Day wrote: »

...you might as well blame the Roman and later Norman invasions of Britain for the ills of the World - ....

I don't accept the comparison, unlike roman or norman invasions the extended british empire exsisted until (more or less) the middle of the last century, it's effects and aftermath are clearly of far, far more relevance to the political landscape and to the times we live in. This would be one of the reasons why the current british pm decided to comment on it in this way.

Also a great many of it's former assets either are, or recently were, troublespots.

MarchDub

Morlar wrote: »

I would be interested in hearing differing viewpoints on this issue. Personally I would be inclined to agree with Cameron, and it looks like another positive step forward from him (following on from the unequivocal apology for Bloody Sunday).

I saw those reports yesterday and I am inclined to agree with you that it is another positive step forward. Ignoring the bloody downside of imperialism and denying the reality of superior odds behind a flawed apologist narrative of 'we gave them railways and canals' doesn't teach any lessons and worse, doesn't bode well for how any of us develops a sense of justice IMO.

Good for Cameron.

jonniebgood1

This type of statement seems to me to be made purely to satisfy popular belief in those who it is aimed at. I would be cynical when hearing this due to Britains current policies. Take Libya or Afganistan for example- without overcomplicating it seems to me that after years of providing weapons to one side or another to support their own arms industry, Britain (and others) then goes to war against 'evil'. What arms are in gadaffi's soldiers possesion? The same for other regions- Where does Ivory coasts different factions get their weapons. Thus to talk repentfully with regret about Britains past when it suits and then allow this type of situation occur elsewhere is hypocritcal in the extreme. Mealy-mouthed pleasantries aside Cameron has not addressed such issues although I would point out that the same problems can be put to the French, Russians and Americans for a start.

In summary- Hypocritical

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This type of statement seems to me to be made purely to satisfy popular belief in those who it is aimed at. I would be cynical when hearing this due to Britains current policies. Take Libya or Afganistan for example- without overcomplicating it seems to me that after years of providing weapons to one side or another to support their own arms industry, Britain (and others) then goes to war against 'evil'. What arms are in gadaffi's soldiers possesion? The same for other regions- Where does Ivory coasts different factions get their weapons. Thus to talk repentfully with regret about Britains past when it suits and then allow this type of situation occur elsewhere is hypocritcal in the extreme. Mealy-mouthed pleasantries aside Cameron has not addressed such issues although I would point out that the same problems can be put to the French, Russians and Americans for a start.

In summary- Hypocritical

I can not think of any other examples of a serving british pm making a statement about the legacy of the british empire such as that one. If anyone can point out where this has happened before - a previous statement expressing a similar sentiment (regarding the british empire) then I'd be interested to hear it.

The other point being made that in the post above that this was merely an example of 'playing to the crowd' doesn't stand up either in my view.

Cameron is fully aware that any public utterance from him on the monumental subject of 'The legacy of the british empire' is not 'to the crowd' it is guaranteed to be picked up by the media and so is 'to everyone everywhere'.

My take on it would be that Cameron has (again) expressed a degree of maturity and political smarts that previous british pm's have not. What is the actual benefit in continuing to deny that the british empire left a legacy that included a lot of violence, pain and misery ? I mean that literally, in what way is this to the benefit of britain or british people/interests to continue that line ? I believe this statement is related to the bloody sunday apology, the reason is that in that instance he realised that there was an untapped source of goodwill from moderate people who have in the past had a genuine and un-addressed grievance. Denying that grievance (or in this context the generalised legacy rather than specific instance) and allowing it to fester can potentailly lead to, or contribute to, violent repercussions.

I think the subject of 21st century arms supply is irrelevant alongside the context of regional, religious or ethnic strife which can legitimately be traced back to the british empire (either as the primary cause or as a contributing factor). Arms supply, whether from france, britain, former soviet bloc countries or the usa etc is incidental in the context of a discussion about arguably the world's most influential empire and it's legacy, and also about how it is currently presented by the relevant political leaders.

Fratton Fred

Imperialism caused a lot of today problems and Britain for a while had a huge empire, so his comments can't really be disputed.

Would India, Pakistan or Bangladesh be in a better shape today if they were under French or Portuguese control? Who knows?

Would the transatlantic slave trade been so huge without Britain? Probably.

Do the Algerians see Britain as the cause of their problems?

Do the Chechens?

I think there is a certain degree of Cameron saying things his hosts want to hear.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

I can not think of any other examples of a serving british pm making a statement about the legacy of the british empire such as that one. If anyone can point out where this has happened before - a previous statement expressing a similar sentiment (regarding the british empire) then I'd be interested to hear it.

The other point being made that in the post above that this was merely an example of 'playing to the crowd' doesn't stand up either in my view.

Cameron is fully aware that any public utterance from him on the monumental subject of 'The legacy of the british empire' is not 'to the crowd' it is guaranteed to be picked up by the media and so is 'to everyone everywhere'.

My take on it would be that Cameron has (again) expressed a degree of maturity and political smarts that previous british pm's have not. What is the actual benefit in continuing to deny that the british empire left a legacy that included a lot of violence, pain and misery ? I mean that literally, in what way is this to the benefit of britain or british people/interests to continue that line ? I believe this statement is related to the bloody sunday apology, the reason is that in that instance he realised that there was an untapped source of goodwill from moderate people who have in the past had a genuine and un-addressed grievance. Denying that grievance (or in this context the generalised legacy rather than specific instance) and allowing it to fester can potentailly lead to, or contribute to, violent repercussions.

I agree with you on most of this- I don't think it has been done and there is much to consider on it but as I said I am cynical. My point about him playing to the crowd refers to him saying this while he is in Pakistan. If he was not playing to the crowd then it is an amazing coincidence that he makes such utterances where they will be so warmly received as opposed to when in front of a crowd less likely to appreciate the comment (maybe a tory party conference!).

Morlar wrote: »

I think the subject of 21st century arms supply is irrelevant alongside the context of regional, religious or ethnic strife which can legitimately be traced back to the british empire (either as the primary cause or as a contributing factor). Arms supply, whether from france, britain, former soviet bloc countries or the usa etc is incidental in the context of a discussion about arguably the world's most influential empire and it's legacy, and also about how it is currently presented by the relevant political leaders.

I disagree strongly. Given that there are many problems in former colony nations it is entirely relevent how their former rulers treat them and deal with them. For example Israel/ Palestine difficulties go back to colony decisions but contemporary arms deals and contemporary opinion (possibly through long held contacts) allow for influence and relevence up to the present day. This includes references to past rule whether positive or negative (i.e. by cameron).

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Imperialism caused a lot of today problems and Britain for a while had a huge empire, so his comments can't really be disputed.

Would India, Pakistan or Bangladesh be in a better shape today if they were under French or Portuguese control? Who knows?

Would the transatlantic slave trade been so huge without Britain? Probably.

Do the Algerians see Britain as the cause of their problems?

Do the Chechens?

I think there is a certain degree of Cameron saying things his hosts want to hear.

I think that the Francophone countries such as Ivory Coast show that colonies of all nations had similar legacies. It was held as the model post colony example but as it heads towards civil war it is a depressing example.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If he was not playing to the crowd then it is an amazing coincidence that he makes such utterances where they will be so warmly received as opposed to when in front of a crowd less likely to appreciate the comment (maybe a tory party conference!).

There is clearly nothing coincidental about the timing or location, no one has said otherwise. Nor was it an off the cuff remark. It's likely to have been considered and well measured in advance.

When you said :

This type of statement seems to me to be made purely to satisfy popular belief in those who it is aimed at

You are wrong however, the remark was made in the full knowledge that it would be picked up by the media and he would have to stand over it.

To dismiss it as playing to the crowd implies it was 'something said to please a room but not really meant'.

I have not seen any evidence to suggest that the remark was not a genuine one. I am as cynical as the next person but it is usually based on things like evidence, experience or track record.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I disagree strongly. Given that there are many problems in former colony nations it is entirely relevent how their former rulers treat them and deal with them. For example Israel/ Palestine difficulties go back to colony decisions but contemporary arms deals and contemporary opinion (possibly through long held contacts) allow for influence and relevence up to the present day. This includes references to past rule whether positive or negative (i.e. by cameron).

As previously stated there is no meaningful connection between a public shift in appraisal of the british empire and it's legacy by the current british Prime Minister and . . . the modern arms trade.

Enkidu

Judgement Day wrote: »

Very interesting and possibly true but you might as well blame the Roman and later Norman invasions of Britain for the ills of the World - it just depends where your version of history starts. I have to admit that mine begins in 1066 with the Norman Conquest, everything before then being a primeval swamp -including the Roman Empire era. Afraid there's no hope for me I'm just an incurable Anglophile.

Wouldn't you be a Normophile then? The high point of Anglo-Saxon culture was before the 1066 invasion of the Normans.

sensibleken

I think Dr Nick from the simpsons would give a better assesment of the British empires legacy than the Dr Nick in that article.

I absolutely hate the idea of inherited guilt. I think he was wrong to say 'was caused by us' rather than caused by britain or the british empire. It is however very significant that he recognises whats right and wrong and holds less of the thatcherite views on foreign policy than i feared.

Morlar

sensibleken wrote: »

I absolutely hate the idea of inherited guilt. I think he was wrong to say 'was caused by us' rather than caused by britain or the british empire. It is however very significant that he recognises whats right and wrong and holds less of the thatcherite views on foreign policy than i feared.

Completely agree with you on that part. I had read it to mean 'british empire' rather than british people. In looking at the reaction to this on the internet (comment sections of newspapers and random blogs) there are a lot of people who took exception to that part so he probably should been more clear.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Imperialism caused a lot of today problems and Britain for a while had a huge empire, so his comments can't really be disputed.

Would India, Pakistan or Bangladesh be in a better shape today if they were under French or Portuguese control? Who knows?

Would the transatlantic slave trade been so huge without Britain? Probably.

Yes, I don't for a moment think that there was anything unique about British Imperialism - it was lock step in march with other European Imperial countries. The French were just as brutal - and even 'little' Belgium has plenty of blood on its hands. We could go down the list.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think there is a certain degree of Cameron saying things his hosts want to hear.

Yes, of course but it's still important to hear it said IMO - far better than ignoring history or a denial. And judging by the reaction in the British Press something that they have to hear also - its not all about winning the ashes and don't we perform well.

Maybe my opinion is coloured somewhat by having to listen to lectures at an English univ back in the day on the countless 'benefits' that imperialism spread. Without any thought given to the downside - it was more like downside, what downside?

brianthebard

sensibleken wrote: »

I absolutely hate the idea of inherited guilt. I think he was wrong to say 'was caused by us' rather than caused by britain or the british empire. It is however very significant that he recognises whats right and wrong and holds less of the thatcherite views on foreign policy than i feared.

Is it really inherited though if a country continues the same treatment and policies of colonies after independence?

Einhard

I think it's fair to say that all empires cause great, and often long lasting, damage to indigenous societies. However, one also has to look at the advantages and benefits of the imperial system to the subject nations, if one wants an objective analysis of the consequences of imperialism, British or otherwise.

Vourney

Inherited guilt is incompatible with the moral belief in personal responsibility. It's not a coincidence that Personal responsibility and individual morals are on a downward spiral.
Inherited guilt is directed at cultures without regard for the actual individual behavior, or collective behaviors of subgroups, classes or cultural groups. It can be unpredictible and does not emphasize fairness. Individuals functioning within this framework who are the "victims" are not encouraged to take personal responsibility, and those who are cast as the "villians", especially if this depiction is incorrect, tend to withdraw from meaningful engagement with politics and the wider culture. Some people favor the concept of inherited guilt over personal responsibility because they believe they exist within a culture that is immune from inherited guilt.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

To dismiss it as playing to the crowd implies it was 'something said to please a room but not really meant'.

I have not seen any evidence to suggest that the remark was not a genuine one. I am as cynical as the next person but it is usually based on things like evidence, experience or track record.
.

I would put Britains arms trading as evidence that that the remark is without genuine meaning

Cameron says that Britain bears responsibility for creating problems in former colonies. I would take it that this is said by Cameron with regret for this situation. This is said in Pakistan. If there was genuine regret then a more meaningful way of dealing with it would be to stop supplying arms to India as this is creating future potential problems for Pakistan. So Cameron regrets Britain creating problems for Pakistan 60+ years ago but does nothing about the creation of problems today. I would suggest also that he should provide evidence to show his dedication to peace in the region as opposed to people proving that he is not genuine.

Morlar wrote: »

As previously stated there is no meaningful connection between a public shift in appraisal of the british empire and it's legacy by the current british Prime Minister and . . . the modern arms trade.

There is, as explained above. Or if you prefer a proverb- Actions speak louder than words.

Reference: http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2003/01/22/19-billion-british-pounds-arms-deal-give-india-power-mass-destruction-across-pakista
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/12754

brianthebard

Einhard wrote: »

I think it's fair to say that all empires cause great, and often long lasting, damage to indigenous societies. However, one also has to look at the advantages and benefits of the imperial system to the subject nations, if one wants an objective analysis of the consequences of imperialism, British or otherwise.

What are these advantages and benefits? If you attempt to stand in an objective, non-Eurocentric position, can you really say that they are benefits? Do they outweigh the damage done or just partially make up for it?

sensibleken

brianthebard wrote: »

Is it really inherited though if a country continues the same treatment and policies of colonies after independence?

If they continue the same policies then no its not inherrited, they are still doing it, should cut it out and say sorry. As said above inherrited guilt is anethema to personal responsibility of the person and of the state.

I personally dont want Cameron (or the queen) to apologise for British history in Ireland any more than I want to apologise for kidnapping St Patrick

MarchDub

sensibleken wrote: »

As said above inherrited guilt is anethema to personal responsibility of the person and of the state.

I personally dont want Cameron (or the queen) to apologise for British history in Ireland any more than I want to apologise for kidnapping St Patrick

I see this as a false analogy. The cases you cite are the difference between state policies i.e. British Empire building and the actions of former British leadership versus the actions of some random individual in the Patrick case.

PatsytheNazi

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I would put Britains arms trading as evidence that that the remark is without genuine meaning

Cameron says that Britain bears responsibility for creating problems in former colonies. I would take it that this is said by Cameron with regret for this situation. This is said in Pakistan. If there was genuine regret then a more meaningful way of dealing with it would be to stop supplying arms to India as this is creating future potential problems for Pakistan. So Cameron regrets Britain creating problems for Pakistan 60+ years ago but does nothing about the creation of problems today. I would suggest also that he should provide evidence to show his dedication to peace in the region as opposed to people proving that he is not genuine.


There is, as explained above. Or if you prefer a proverb- Actions speak louder than words.

Reference: http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2003/01/22/19-billion-british-pounds-arms-deal-give-india-power-mass-destruction-across-pakista
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/12754

Yes good points there. Trying to block Indian demands for independence, the British engineered the creation of Muslim Pakistan through their puppet Jinnah and his Muslim League. So in a way, you could say that for the British their bright idea for the partition of India is now rebounding on them.

Fratton Fred

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Yes good points there. Trying to block Indian demands for independence, the British engineered the creation of Muslim Pakistan through their puppet Jinnah and his Muslim League. So in a way, you could say that for the British their bright idea for the partition of India is now rebounding on them.

Was it Mountbatten that made the Lehore Declaration?

PatsytheNazi

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Was it Mountbatten that made the Lehore Declaration?

Here you go - http://www.google.ie/

dpe

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Yes good points there. Trying to block Indian demands for independence, the British engineered the creation of Muslim Pakistan through their puppet Jinnah and his Muslim League. So in a way, you could say that for the British their bright idea for the partition of India is now rebounding on them.

Since we can't know how a "united" India would have turned out (although evidence from the Balkans and elsewhere suggests, "not well" given human nature), the point is moot. This is what I find annoying about all this; the tendency to look at the past through the lens of the present, and to somehow think if the British Empire hadn't existed everything would be rosy for the populations of its colonies; when its patently not the case. Empires were a construct of economics; and the only difference between the European empires and every other empire that ever existed was one of timing; which meant the European empires had a disproportionate effect because of their technology (and by that I mean economic technology as well as military); but would India have been better off today if the British had never existed? Of course not; they were already partly colonised when the British turned up (by the Mughals) and had been colonised by waves of invaders since the dawn of time, there's nothing to suggest that process would have stopped.

brianthebard

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Here you go - http://www.google.ie/

less of that.

dpe wrote: »

Since we can't know how a "united" India would have turned out (although evidence from the Balkans and elsewhere suggests, "not well" given human nature), the point is moot.

I disagree on this point, some people like to point out that there are more Muslims in India than Pakistan, if India were to truly balkanise this would not be the case or at least it would not have been as acceptable as it is. The truth is India has always been a disperate country/nation/empire and is better suited than most to be able to live with a variety of different people within its borders.

dpe

brianthebard wrote: »

less of that.
I disagree on this point, some people like to point out that there are more Muslims in India than Pakistan, if India were to truly balkanise this would not be the case or at least it would not have been as acceptable as it is. The truth is India has always been a disperate country/nation/empire and is better suited than most to be able to live with a variety of different people within its borders.

First of all, there aren't (160m muslims in India, 174m in Pakistan), and a United India would include Bangladesh so you'd be talking nearly half a billion muslims in total, or approx 1/3 of a "united" India. You're getting into very tricky demographic territory there. Whilst India can live with the current muslim minority (about 13%) - and its not exactly a harmonious relationship; imagine the political situation when the numbers of hindus and muslims are much closer. Imagine if a third of your population starting demanding the impostion of Sharia (as happened in Pakistan), would India have held together then?

I take your point that India was a disprate setup, but I don't agree that somehow makes it better suited to live with variety; the only way India was ever held together in any meaningful way, over the entire history of the subcontinent up to 1948, was by invaders from outside imposing rule on sections of the country (and in fact when every previous invader in history left or was overthrown, the place fell back into a patchwork of territories again).

India has proved to be a remarkable success all told, but this goes back to my point about judging history based on today; at the time of partion you wouldn't have got good odds on India staying whole as a single nation 60 years later.

brianthebard

But why should India be held together? And why should there be such a thing as an Indian and Pakistani nation? These are western concepts introduced for specific purposes. One can reasonably say that relations between hindu and muslims would be different and probably better based on history if nationalism had not been made a feature of life in the subcontinent. Within India there are probably tens of thousands of communities, nations and countries with tenuous links to the national government. That's one of the things that prompted Wallerstein to write his article 'does India exist?'
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2923057/Does-India-exist-

sensibleken

MarchDub wrote: »

I see this as a false analogy. The cases you cite are the difference between state policies i.e. British Empire building and the actions of former British leadership versus the actions of some random individual in the Patrick case.

Fair enough, not the best analogy....and now I cant think of another, feckin Fridays!

dpe

brianthebard wrote: »

But why should India be held together? And why should there be such a thing as an Indian and Pakistani nation? These are western concepts introduced for specific purposes. One can reasonably say that relations between hindu and muslims would be different and probably better based on history if nationalism had not been made a feature of life in the subcontinent. Within India there are probably tens of thousands of communities, nations and countries with tenuous links to the national government. That's one of the things that prompted Wallerstein to write his article 'does India exist?'
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2923057/Does-India-exist-

Well if you're going to go down that road, you could make the same argument (albeit on a smaller scale), about Ireland.




























*runs away*

jonniebgood1

brianthebard wrote: »

But why should India be held together? And why should there be such a thing as an Indian and Pakistani nation? These are western concepts introduced for specific purposes. One can reasonably say that relations between hindu and muslims would be different and probably better based on history if nationalism had not been made a feature of life in the subcontinent. Within India there are probably tens of thousands of communities, nations and countries with tenuous links to the national government.[/url]

This is a pertinent point in many colonies- in Africa only 2 countries (somalia and one I cant remember) are made up of people from the 1 tribe that speak the 1 launguage. It is one of the main reasons for the problems that Cameron is apologising for.

Is nationalism a feature of life in the asian sub-continent though?
I am more familiar with Africa where the problem is more tribalism than nationalism, i.e. the tribal leaders want control over their own people rather than control over the country which they have ended up in. Often these same leaders will seize control of the country as a means of controlling their own people for non- nationalist reasons. This can be mistaken for nationalism. I am not familiar with the level of nationalism in India & Pakistan, have the people in these countries adopted their defined national boundaries?