South Asia's shadows of British colonialism: the legacy of "divide and rule"

Historically, the contemporary South Asia region consisted of various ethnic and religious groups, now dominated by Hindus and Muslims. However, during the British colonial regime, as a strategy to strengthen state power, these social groups were pivoted against each other through the colonial administration’s method of control – divide and rule. Ethno-politically and religiously driven conflicts and violence occurred sporadically in the empire, still spilling across the borders of contemporary independent South Asian nations as such. In particular, the history of the British administrative legacy set the stage for the current context of the Jammu-Kashmir region. The Jammu-Kashmir disputed region is a remnant of the British colonial legacy that torments the modern South Asia region and heightens political tensions between Pakistan and India through regular violent border disputes. 

What exactly is this strategy of 'divide and rule' and how did it function? What are the implications of this form of control upon the South Asian region? And how does this colonial legacy persist in contemporary Indo-Pakistani relations?

These are a few questions this blog post seeks to explore.

(Left to Right): Jawaharlal Nehru, Louis Mountbatten, Cyril Radcliffe, Mohammed Ali Jinnah

Image Source: https://www.thestatesman.com/opinion/recalling-radcliffes-division-of-india-1502673337.html

The Colonial Legacy of ‘Divide and Rule’

British India officially became a colonial administration after the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny in Delhi, whereby the British East India Company-controlled territories were transferred to the British administration (Blakemore, 2022). The territory consisted of present-day Myanmar, Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan (Pillalamarri, 2017). Hindus and Muslims were the dominant religious groups of British India, with the former being the majority constituent (Blakemore, 2022). British colonial rule was defined by accentuating ethnic and religious differences among the colonial subjects – the practice of “divide and rule”, which reduced cohesiveness and collaboration and promoted segregation and social tensions (Blakemore, 2022). This strategy of control was an important civil weapon that created strife among the Hindus and Muslims in British India by consistently framing them against each other politically (Belmekki, 2014, pg. 118). To enforce ‘divide and rule’, the British often resorted to violent means of control such as “mass massacres, indiscriminate hangings, inhumane torture, and large-scale confiscation of properties” (Belmekki, 2014, pg. 116). It was further reinforced by the deprivation of political rights and prestige and by the development of identity-based communal politics that hindered the emergence of a coherent Indian nationalist identity (Hardiman, 1982, pg. 1492; Belmekki, 2014, pg. 114). Communal politics aggravated socio-economic issues between the communities, through which religious and ethnic groups moved to protect their interests and identities, perpetuating outbreaks of protests and violence against others in briefs of political dissatisfaction (Hardiman, 1982, pg. 1493).

The Radcliffe Boundaries and the Partition

The colonial legacy persisted further as it impacted the formation of political parties in British India through religious division in communal politics leading up to independence. The Muslim India League led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, was formed in the face of securing Muslim rights in India (Blakemore, 2022). Separately, the Indian National Congress party was established and led by Mohandas Gandhi, who fought for united secular Indian independence through passive civil disobedience (Blakemore, 2022). However, Jinnah and the Muslim League believed that a state under the Indian National Congress would only represent Hindu values which was the dominant religious group in India, thereby withdrawing from the cause of a unified nation (Blakemore, 2022; Pillalamarri, 2017). Jinnah sought to create a secular Indian state of Pakistan representing certain Western (i.e. Sindh) and Eastern (i.e. Bengal) states where the major Muslim populations were located. The two political parties demanded the creation of the relative nation-states – India and Pakistan – and coordinated the partition from the British Empire with Lord Mountbatten who designated English lawyer Cyril Radcliffe as a neutral party to determine the territorial boundaries of the new states (Ranjan, 2018, pg. 44). Radcliffe was unfamiliar with British India’s demographics or ethnopolitics, nor had ever visited the subcontinent before his appointment (Pillalamarri, 2017).

A Boundary Commission was then established by Lord Mountbatten to help conclude the borderlines of the new states (Ranjan, 2018, pg. 44). However, the proceedings lacked transparency and public participation (Lal, 2006, pg. 262). Moreover, a task that required two years of thorough outlining, was completed within a mere two months, underlining the sheer lack of attention to the issue (Lal, 2006, pg. 262). Additionally, the commission faced major difficulties in boundary demarcations of the Punjab and Bengal provinces, since they contained similar Hindu and Muslim populations (Ranjan, 2018, pg. 44). The respective territories were divided into two parts, containing similar ethnic but religiously distinguishable constituent groups, carving new identities into the communities living within these provinces (Ranjan, 2018, pg. 7). As a result, at the hour of partition, decades of divisive colonial rule and political blame evolved as tempt up anger into a bloody conflict across the Indian subcontinent, culminating in mass migration, riots, violence, rape, and mass murder (Blakemore, 2022). This was further exacerbated by the presence of communal politics. As Blakemore (2022) quotes “local elites… used the chaos of partition to settle old scores, assert claims over land, and secure their own political and economic power”. Furthermore, as Talbot (2011) separately mentions, “British leaders were content to focus on maintaining an appearance of order… rather than making real preparations to reduce conflict” (pg. 147). Thus, the partition served to satisfy the political demands of Jinnah and Gandhi’s parties, yet the borders lacked the means of security and stability for the new nation-states and their people.

Indo-Pakistani Politics: The Jammu-Kashmir Dispute

The Radcliffe boundaries directly invigorate the social tensions from the legacy of British rule, inhabiting the history of the Indo-Pakistani relations. After independence, Indo-Pakistani border disputes were driven by local ethno-religious identitarian politics, spiralling into treacherous conflicts as nationalist sentiment hardened over time in both nations (Lal, 2006, pg. 257). Roy (2014) finds that the Radcliffe provision of the Gurdaspur District in Punjab to India allowed India to intervene and claim Kashmir in the consequent 1947-48 Indo-Pakistani war (pg. 80; International Crisis Group, 2020; Pillalamarri, 2017). Kashmir was then granted the status of a special autonomous region of India via Article 370 (International Crisis Group, 2020). Notwithstanding, the status escalated a move towards a separate state of Kashmir or the joining of Pakistan, as the local population was Muslim-dominant and associated itself with the Pakistani nationality more than with India (International Crisis Group, 2020). Since then, the Kashmir region has been part of numerous additional Indo-Pakistani conflicts. The Kashmiris have grappled with ethnic dilution, human rights issues, and denial of civic participation, as tactics of the Indian government to promote a local Hindu identity (International Crisis Group, 2020). On the contrary, to support the separatist movement of the region, Pakistan supported rising militant and insurgent groups (Ranjan, 2018, pg. 22). Moreover, the emerging Islamic extremist groups of the 1980/90s in neighbouring Afghanistan helped spread extremist ideology across South Asia, merging with the radicalization of separatism in Kashmir, thus solidifying a centuries-old relationship of hatred among Hindus and Muslims (International Crisis Group, 2020). A strike of a pen on a world map nearly a century ago has hence defined the region with continuous violence and bloodshed, characterized by centuries of carefully organized hatred between the Hindus and the Muslims under British rule.

Conclusion

In summary, the legacy of the British ‘divide and rule’ administration bred hostility among the Empire’s social groups, through the oppressive means of control. This legacy has since been passed down into the international relations of the independent states of India and Pakistan that struggle for the control of disputed territories along their borders. Their struggle is but the representation of British colonial history, depicted by recurrent violent conflicts, particularly in the Jammu-Kashmir region. Further boldening nationalist sentiments of both sides thus trouble the peace of the modern South Asian landscape, as they nurture extremism and insurgencies in the region. The Jammu-Kashmir disputed region stands as a stark reminder of the British colonial legacy, continuing to distress the contemporary South Asian context and amplify political discord between Pakistan and India with frequent violent border skirmishes.

References

Belmekki, B. (2014). Muslim separatism in Post-Revolt India: A British game of divide et impera? Oriente Moderno, 94(1), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1163/22138617-12340041

Blakemore, E. (2022, August 12). Why the partition of India and Pakistan still casts a long shadow over the region. History. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/partition-of-india-and-pakistan-history-legacy

Hardiman, D. (1982). Divide and Rule in British India [Review of Prelude to Partition: The Indian Muslims and the Imperial System of Control, by D. Page]. Economic and Political Weekly, 17(37), 1492–1493. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4371344

Lal, C. K. (2006). The complexities of border conflicts in South Asia. South Asian Survey, 13(2), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/097152310601300206

Pillalamarri, A. (2017, August 19). 70 years of the Radcliffe Line: Understanding the story of Indian partition. The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2017/08/70-years-of-the-radcliffe-line-understanding-the-story-of-indian-partition/

Raising the stakes in Jammu and Kashmir. International Crisis Group. (2020, August 5). https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-asia/kashmir/310-raising-stakes-jammu-and-kashmir

Ranjan, A. (2018). India-bangladesh border disputes: History and post-LBA Dynamics. Springer.

Roy, K. (2014). Partition of British india: Causes and consequences revisited. India Review, 13(1), 78–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/14736489.2014.873681

Talbot, I. (2011). Borders and conflict in South Asia, the Radcliffe Boundary Commission and the partition of the Punjab. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 39(1), 146–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/03086534.2011.543806