Page < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 >

Divide and Rule - Cost of Partition

Lord Canning (1812 - 1862) Governor General of India from 1856 - 1862 and the first Viceroy in India. In the middle of the 1857 uprising, he wrote to a British official: 

“As we must rule 150 millions of people by a handful (more or less small) of Englishmen, let us do it in the manner best calculated to leave them divided (as in religion and national feeling they already are) and to inspire them with the greatest possible awe of our power and with the least possible suspicion of our motives.”  

(source: The Muslims of British India - By P Hardy p. 72). Refer to chapters on Aryan Invasion Theory and First Indologist.


"The institution of separate electorates for the Muslims was the first expression of the pernicious two-nation theory, which ultimately resulted in the foundation of Pakistan. Published documents fully establish the fact that this was created by deliberate policy as an effective method to keep the Hindus and Muslims apart. Lady Minto, the wife of the Viceroy who was responsible for this piece of political Machiavellianism, noted with glee that her husband had by this act ensured for a long time the authority of the British in India. The system of separate electorate was a simple device. It provided that Muslims should be represented only by Muslims, that no Muslim could represent a Hindu constituency or vice versa. By this expedient the Muslims in India from Cape Comorin to Kashmir became a separate political entity, perpetually at odds with the Hindus and judging all issues from the point of view of a religious community. As the Muslim candidates to the legislatures had to depend on a religious franchise, their views and policies, came to be molded by considerations of religious fanaticism. India took over forty years to be rid of this vicious system and that, too, at the terrible cost of a partition."  

(source: Asia and Western Dominance - By K. M. Panikkar  p. 120).

Winston Churchill and Ravaging of India

Winston Churchill abhorred unity among Indians of different faiths – for it would be “fundamentally injurious to the British interests.”

Churchill continued: “I am not at all attracted by the prospect of one united India, which will show us the door.” 

Promoting harmony between Hindus and Muslims was “to my mind distressing and repugnant in the last degree.” Instead, Churchill hoped that the Muslims of the northwest would combine into a front to combat the “anti-British tendencies of the Congress. Strife between Hindus and Muslims would bolster the rationale that British rule in India was as necessary as it had always been.’

(source:  Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II - By Madhushree Mukherjee  p. 10).

Ratcheting up the Hindu-Muslim “riots” that destroyed Indian unity

Writing about this period, the American journalist William Shirer noted that it was difficult to find out how many of India’s communal riots “were incited by the British in their effort to keep both communities at each other’s throats so that they could not unite in their drive for self-rule.”

He quoted the British Chief of Police in Bombay saying “almost as a joke – that it was very easy to provoke a Hindu-Muslim riot. For a hundred dollars, he said, you could start something really savage. Pay some Muslims to throw the carcass of a cow into a Hindu temple, or some Hindus to toss a dead pig into a mosque, and you could have, he said, a bloody mess, in which a lot of people would be knifed, beaten and killed.”

Why Britain Failed to Subvert the Hindu Narrative – By Bhaskar Menon).




Page < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 >


h o m e

e u r o p e a n     i m p e r i a l i s m

c o n t e n t s

Copyright © 2006 - All Rights Reserved.

Guest Book

Updated - October 28, 2008