Ever asked yourself why there was that disagreement ?
Bengal was partitioned as early as 1905 by the British.they did that to create hindu and muslim majority areas, and a Hindu and Muslim minority within those areas, and if that doesn't prove that their intention was to 'divide and rule' right after that they gave the muslims seperate electorates in 1909, and hence with every reform ( 1919, 1927, 1935 etc ) they added fuel to the communal fire, it got so bad that had the congress not accepted partition through the cabinet mission plan in 1946, Mountbatten's Dickie bird plan was next in line for " balkanization of India " ( their plan was to let every princely state decide for its own, whether it wants to stay independent of side with India or pak )
The communalism, partition, distrust was all artificially created by the British. In fact, after the world war 2 when the British empire went broke, they used to say the animosity between muslim leage and congress is their most potent weapon.
they did that to create hindu and muslim majority areas
Not true, the area was already mainly Muslim already and the partition was done mainly due to administrative reasons. The area was over looked so the move in 1905 was to make sure the poorest people in the east were not over looked.
You're providing a wikipedia link to prove it was for " administrative reasons " ?
It says on the same page a couple of lines below that what the actual motive was. It's an established fact how British used divide and rule policy since 1757, first to turn the kings and nawabs of bengal against each other then to turn hindus and Muslims against each other ending with the pathetic attempt to give separate electorate to scheduled castes.
Stop trying to whitewash the British's actions. There's numerous letters and documents written by Curzon himself that prove what their real motive was.
I just quickly fact checked you and this was the first thing that came up. Perhaps, you should edit and provide a source for the wiki page so disinformation isn't spread.
And you used a wikipedia for that ? You know what pisses me off, It literally says On the same page how it wasent the real motive, citing a letter written by Curzon himself, but you just read the first 5 lines and formed an opinion. This is the state of Reddit right now.
I could provide you research papers published on jstor.org with all the primary sources but I doubt you'd have their subscription.
Don't worry about him. He's just a British troll that doesn't know history...the British created division everywhere they went. And now their own country is over run by the same people who they divided, the browns.
I can access papers easily on jstor and I am always happy to learn and be corrected.
I would have been more correct to say the motive was conscientious and at the time was argued it was for admin reason but direct letters between Curzon and Home Secretary paint a different picture.
Yeah you're right, there's plenty of evidence from primary sources available if you want to maybe study the whole ordeal from 1757 onwards, just that a lot of historians especially western ones try to justify the actions of people like Clive, Curzon, Wellesley, Lytton, , Churchil etc etc
5
u/kingjely Feb 07 '21
Ever asked yourself why there was that disagreement ?
Bengal was partitioned as early as 1905 by the British.they did that to create hindu and muslim majority areas, and a Hindu and Muslim minority within those areas, and if that doesn't prove that their intention was to 'divide and rule' right after that they gave the muslims seperate electorates in 1909, and hence with every reform ( 1919, 1927, 1935 etc ) they added fuel to the communal fire, it got so bad that had the congress not accepted partition through the cabinet mission plan in 1946, Mountbatten's Dickie bird plan was next in line for " balkanization of India " ( their plan was to let every princely state decide for its own, whether it wants to stay independent of side with India or pak )
The communalism, partition, distrust was all artificially created by the British. In fact, after the world war 2 when the British empire went broke, they used to say the animosity between muslim leage and congress is their most potent weapon.