Were India and Pakistan the same country before? Do they speak the same language? Why are they so hostile?

Why did India and Pakistan split? This is about the British Empire's colonial period of India. Britain won the final victory through long-term competition with Indian local forces and other European countries that colonized India, and successfully penetrated its own forces into every corner of India. However, western colonists colonized the United States and India in different ways. European colonialists directly destroyed Indian countries or tribes in America, then immigrated and systematically Europeanized America. For India or later China, we adopted a strategy called offshore balance (this is an early version of the current strategy of the United States, which is generally believed to have originated from the colonial management of the East during the Portuguese Empire, and Britain developed this strategy). An obvious reason for adopting this strategy is that western colonists are not fully capable of destroying India's ancient civilization. At that time, the population of the subcontinent was many times larger than that of all the colonial countries in Europe. If you include Indians,

Through their understanding of India, Britain and other western colonists found that India is a country with a long history and complex multi-cultures. In particular, India's native state system makes India not a centralized country like China, and their native state is similar to the form of enfeoffment. Moreover, the time when the British colonists landed on the subcontinent coincided with the later period of the Mughal Empire. The Mughal Empire was established by the Islamic feudal military group that believed in Central Asia and went south to India, which led to the deep-rooted contradiction between the Muslims in India and the Hindus who accounted for the vast majority of India. The British colonists clearly saw this point, and after conquering some soil states that resisted British colonization by force, they began to mediate and arbitrate disputes in other soil states. This mediation and arbitration enabled British colonists to gradually master the sovereignty of Indian States, and ruled out the possibility of other European colonists getting their hands on India. In fact, this behavior of Britain is to divide and rule India, and even go looking for trouble to provoke the struggle between Indian States and aggravate the opposition between different religions and cultures in India.

In the 1940 s, the national democratic movement in Asia, Africa and Latin America accelerated, and the voice of the subcontinent demanding independence became louder and louder. Especially, the attack of Japanese imperialist aggression on British colonial rule in the Far East during World War II objectively accelerated India's demand for independence and democracy, and Britain had to find a way to get rid of it in India (judging from Ho Chi Minh's tragic beating of France in zhina, French India, Britain's liberation was really brilliant), so the Mountbatten plan was offered, and its core was. As for why mountbatten planned to split India in two, one of the reasons at that time was that the father of Pakistani nation, Jinnah, didn't buy the accounts of the British and Indian governments, and thought that the Indian National Congress was only a Hindu party, not a party of Indian masters (mainly Islam), and allocated some areas dominated by Islam to India. Nehru of India also thinks that Pakistan's behavior of splitting Hindu and Islamic populations in some areas is exorbitant, and Jinnah's questioning the views of the Congress Party is a kind of redemption. The final result of the above historical reasons and practical problems is that various sects and forces cannot form a peaceful country within the territory of British India, so they consider the partition plan of India.

The role of Britain and India (Britain) in this separatist movement has also become very abnormal. At that time, the competent British and Indian authorities became powerless and packed their bags to flee, especially Lord mountbatten presided over the proposal and operation of this plan. Although mountbatten has been working in India for a long time and enjoys high prestige, he is a soldier after all, and his main job is the allied forces who are busy fighting in Southeast Asia. How can such a big thing be handed over to a soldier (he is not familiar with Jinnah, which reflects that he doesn't know much about the current situation in India)? To put it bluntly, there are many people in Britain who are more experienced and familiar with Indian affairs than mountbatten, and these officials from the core departments of British Indian affairs have all returned to Britain, otherwise they will not be able to enter the core decision-making level of the mountbatten Plan.

The British government's attitude towards the partition of India led to a long-term confrontation between India and Pakistan, which is still in a state of some tension. For example, the Kashmir issue has not been resolved, and even the so-called McMahon Line is a problem left over by Britain's improper operation.

But this kind of operation is improper, which objectively conforms to the elements of the so-called offshore balance strategy: 1. Divide and rule, India and Pakistan eventually split, and Pakistan was further divided into Dongba (Bangladesh) and Pakistan. 2. Creating conflicts, such as Kashmir, was the fuse of three wars between India and Pakistan, and even the 62-year self-defense counterattack triggered by the McMahon Line (too many) pushed neighboring countries into the whirlpool of territorial disputes and consumed each other's national strength. As a result, both India and Pakistan have consumed a lot of national power to produce nuclear weapons.

In fact, it is difficult to do such a thing as national separation. There are many factors to consider, and the resistance encountered is also great. However, it is hard to say whether Britain's performance in the partition of India was intentional or unintentional. Because even if India and Pakistan do not split, they still cannot effectively solve some problems. But objectively, it did form a situation in which various forces in the subcontinent fought but did not break. Of course, this partition of India has been criticized by many people in the west, because what is the role of Britain has been debated endlessly? However, this is more in line with the political aesthetic taste of westerners. If we look at the fact that there is no independent Scotland now, we will know that there are many people who support the partition of India.

Manual only. . . . Practice typing. . . . Definitely not copy and paste. . . . .