British Policy of Divide and Conquer
Sam Sloan
answer to that question, you must be daft or queer or who knows what.
Regarding the Maharaja of Kashmir, the British had a divide and
conquer policy. They might put a Hindu in charge of a Muslim area,
while putting a Muslim in charge of a Hindu area. They would send a
man from East Bangal to rule over Punjab, while sending a man from
Peshawar to be the administrator of Dakka.
The British would never allow a man to govern his own people. Every
area under British rule was governed by an outsider from some place
else.
Even present day Pakistan continues this policy. The Deputy
Commissioner of Chitral is usually from Kohat, whereas they might send
somebody from Chitral to administer some other place.
I agree that India should have remained one country and not be divided
into two. However, the death of one million people and three wars was
not a proper price to pay to attempt to accomplish that goal.
It seems that most of the Indians in this group want to fight a fourth
war with Pakistan.
Sam Ismail Sloan
At 02:46 PM 3/29/99 PST, Indira Gill wrote:
>Hello Sam,
>About Kashmir, your logic is this: the Brits appointed the Maharaj of
>K, who sided with India during war. Right? Well, with your logic, it
>was also a Brit who drew the Indo-Pak border. Should we neglect it as
>well and let all of the subcontinent belong to Pakistan? That'd be a
>good idea, come to think of it. The capital would be in New Delhi
>(which is only 40 minutes flight from Lahore). Also, it wouldn't be a
>theocracy like Jinnah had planned. Finally, it would still be called
>India!!!! ;)
>
>If you don't mind me asking, why do you have so many wives? Have you
>converted to Islam? How do your non-Muslim wives feel about this?
>
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu
: If you want to know why I have four wives, if you do not know the
: answer to that question, you must be daft or queer or who knows what.
: Regarding the Maharaja of Kashmir, the British had a divide and
: conquer policy. They might put a Hindu in charge of a Muslim area,
: while putting a Muslim in charge of a Hindu area. They would send a
: man from East Bangal to rule over Punjab, while sending a man from
: Peshawar to be the administrator of Dakka.
: The British would never allow a man to govern his own people. Every
: area under British rule was governed by an outsider from some place
: else.
: Even present day Pakistan continues this policy. The Deputy
: Commissioner of Chitral is usually from Kohat, whereas they might send
: somebody from Chitral to administer some other place.
: I agree that India should have remained one country and not be divided
: into two. However, the death of one million people and three wars was
: not a proper price to pay to attempt to accomplish that goal.
: It seems that most of the Indians in this group want to fight a fourth
: war with Pakistan.
Why do you say that? Many want to improve trade commerce to improve both
economies and not waste money/energies over kashmir by listening to
hardliners on both sides, mostly, on the Pakistani side! The current bus
diplomacy and the subsequent efofrts point in that direction even thought
Jamaat-e-Islami guys washed minar-e-Pakistan with rose water after
Vajpayee allegedly(their beleif) desecrated it! ;-)
Many Indians, even on this group feel strongly about Kashmir issue but
are strong enough mentally ;-) to put it on the back burner and work to
improve both economies.
: Sam Ismail Sloan
: >
Rangaswamy Rajamanickam
Sam Sloan <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote:
>The British would never allow a man to govern his own people. Every
>area under British rule was governed by an outsider from some place
>else.
>
>
Just to burst your bubble, Travancore Samasthanam was ruled by a Maharaja who
was not an outsider.
>
>It seems that most of the Indians in this group want to fight a fourth
>war with Pakistan.
>
What sort of bullshit is this? Most Indians on this Newsgroup have
never advocated war with Pakistan and I have been around these groups
since they were created.
>Sam Ismail Sloan
>
Regards,
Rangaswamy
--
Rangaswamy Rajamanickam
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!rr57
Internet: rr...@prism.gatech.edu
Wilson Samraj
kill all Pakistanis. tHey are good for nothing except raping, murdering and
fighting with their own brethren. Bash them up into pieces.
Rangaswamy Rajamanickam <rr...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote in article
<7dqni4$s...@acmez.gatech.edu>...
Wilson Samraj
nothing except rape, murder and war. Kashmir is nothing but rocks and
peanuts. The people there are the least developed in India. They never went
school. They simply produced babies and slept. Any more trouble nuke
Pakistan and bash them up.
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu wrote in article <7dplsr$2ts$8...@news.asu.edu>...
Sam Sloan (sl...@ishipress.com) wrote:
: If you want to know why I have four wives, if you do not know the
: answer to that question, you must be daft or queer or who knows what.
: Regarding the Maharaja of Kashmir, the British had a divide and
: conquer policy. They might put a Hindu in charge of a Muslim area,
: while putting a Muslim in charge of a Hindu area. They would send a
: man from East Bangal to rule over Punjab, while sending a man from
: Peshawar to be the administrator of Dakka.
: The British would never allow a man to govern his own people. Every
: area under British rule was governed by an outsider from some place
: else.
: Even present day Pakistan continues this policy. The Deputy
: Commissioner of Chitral is usually from Kohat, whereas they might send
: somebody from Chitral to administer some other place.
: I agree that India should have remained one country and not be divided
: into two. However, the death of one million people and three wars was
: not a proper price to pay to attempt to accomplish that goal.
: It seems that most of the Indians in this group want to fight a fourth
: war with Pakistan.
Why do you say that? Many want to improve trade commerce to improve both