How did Britain ruin relations between the two neighboring countries forever?
Source: Tasnim Group of International News Agencies (Iran)
The conflict between India and Pakistan has long been known as one of the most complex and protracted conflicts in South Asia, with roots dating back to the British colonial rule, and the role of Britain as a former colonial power in creating and maintaining these tensions is undeniable.
Britain has played a major role in creating and maintaining these tensions as a former colonial power through its historical decisions, economic policies, and modern actions.
During the colonial era, Britain made decisions that paved the way for the protracted conflicts between India and Pakistan.
Division of the Subcontinent
The partition of India in 1947 into two independent countries, India and Pakistan, was one of the most important events of the 20th century, with profound consequences for the region and the world. This process, which was carried out under British supervision, led to the independence of these two countries and is the source of many of the controversies of today, especially over Kashmir.
Britain took control of the region in the mid-18th century when it was captured by the British East India Company. The peninsula, which included modern-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, was of great value to Britain because of its rich natural resources, abundant labour force, and strategic location.
However, after World War II (1939-1945), Britain was seriously weakened, its economy damaged, its army depleted, and domestic and international pressure to end colonialism increased. At the same time, independence movements were gaining momentum in India, led by figures such as Mahatma Gandhi and Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
In 1945, the British government, led by then Prime Minister Clement Attlee, decided to end colonialism in India. To manage this process, Lord Louis Mountbatten was appointed as the last Viceroy of India in February 1947. Mountbatten, who was a member of the British royal family and had served as a military commander during World War II, was tasked with achieving Indian independence by June 1948, but he concluded that the differences between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League were irreconcilable and that partition was the only possible solution.
Mountbatten proposed a plan that became known as the "Mountbatten Plan". According to this plan, the subcontinent was to be divided into two independent countries: a Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan. Pakistan was to be divided into two parts: West Pakistan (present-day Pakistan) and East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh). The plan was approved in June 1947, and the date for independence was set for 15 August 1947. The decision was taken in haste, and there was not enough time for careful planning.
One of the most delicate aspects of partition was the demarcation of the borders of the two countries. Britain chose Sir Cyril Radcliffe, a British lawyer with no experience in the subcontinent, to carry out this task. Radcliffe became the chairman of a commission known as the Radcliffe Commission. He arrived in India in the summer of 1947 and had only a few weeks to demarcate the borders between the two countries. Without accurate information and under severe time pressure, Radcliffe drew lines that later became known as the Radcliffe Line. These lines were drawn taking into account the religious majority regions, but they had many problems, such as:
- In Punjab, a city like Lahore, which had Hindu, Sikh, and Muslim populations, was handed over to Pakistan, leading to migration and violence.
- In Bengal, areas with complex religious compositions were not fully divided.
- In Kashmir, which was predominantly Muslim but administered by India, the situation was unclear and became the subject of a major dispute between India and Pakistan.
Radcliffe never returned to the subcontinent and later said he regretted the consequences of his actions. His decisions, implemented with the support of Mountbatten, led to the displacement of some 12 million people and the deaths of hundreds of thousands in ethnic violence.
In her book, The Mercy of Partition, Pakistani-born historian Ayesha Jalal writes of the violence that followed the botched partition by the British: “Men had made laws against killing and maiming to distinguish themselves from brute beasts, but none of these laws were observed during the brutal carnage that shook India to its core on the eve of independence.”
One of the major points of contention was the situation in Kashmir, a Muslim-majority region ruled by an Indian ruler. Britain failed to resolve the issue, and as a result, Kashmir became the subject of an ongoing border dispute that continues to this day.
Britain’s role in the partition of the peninsula goes beyond the decisions of Mountbatten and Radcliffe. The country left the subcontinent in a fragile state due to its colonial policies that weakened the local economy and exacerbated religious divisions. After independence, both countries faced serious economic, political, and social problems, making cooperation difficult. Kashmir, an open wound due to British mismanagement, remains a major source of tension between India and Pakistan.
This strategy, coupled with the hasty withdrawal of British troops in 1947, created a power vacuum that led to widespread violence. During the partition, hundreds of thousands of people were killed, and millions were displaced. These historical wounds are still present in the collective consciousness of India and Pakistan, fueling mistrust and hostility between the two countries.
Post-Colonial Era
After the end of British colonial rule in the Indian subcontinent and the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, Britain's role in the affairs of the two countries continued. Although Britain was no longer a direct colonial power, its policies in the post-colonial era, particularly during the Cold War (1940s–1990s), had a significant negative impact on Indo-Pakistani relations.
This impact was mainly generated through strategic support for Pakistan, diplomatic positions on Kashmir, and increased regional rivalries that fueled bilateral tensions.
The Indian subcontinent was important to both the Western and Eastern blocs during the Cold War due to its strategic location in South Asia, proximity to the Middle East, and its natural and human resources. Britain, as a key member of the Western bloc and a close ally of the United States, sought to maintain its influence in the region to prevent the spread of communism.
Newly independent India and Pakistan found themselves vulnerable in this global competition due to border disputes (especially over Kashmir) and economic weakness caused by colonialism. Britain took advantage of this situation and adopted policies that, instead of reducing tensions, often led to their escalation.
One of Britain's most important negative actions during the Cold War was its strategic and military support for Pakistan, which fueled an arms race with India. In the early 1950s, Britain, along with the United States, chose Pakistan as a key ally in South Asia. This decision was part of a strategy to contain communism, as Pakistan was considered an important base for monitoring Soviet activities due to its geographical proximity to Afghanistan and the Middle East.
In 1954, Pakistan joined the Baghdad Pact (later known as the Central Treaty Organization or CENTO), of which the United Kingdom and the United States were the original members. The pact aimed to create an anti-communist front in the Middle East and South Asia. As part of this pact, Britain supplied Pakistan with military equipment, including fighter aircraft and modern equipment, and organized training programs for the Pakistani army, which strengthened the country's military capabilities.
For example, in the 1950s and 1960s, Britain sold Pakistan fighter aircraft such as the Hunter and armored vehicles. This aid, although aimed at countering the Soviet threat, indirectly helped Pakistan feel stronger vis-à-vis India and encouraged it to engage in military conflicts such as the 1965 war over Kashmir.
This one-sided support for Pakistan pushed India closer to the Soviet Union. India, sensing that the Western bloc was backing its rival, signed military and economic agreements with the Soviet Union and received equipment, including MiG-21 fighters. The effect of this policy was to turn the subcontinent into an arena for Cold War proxy competition, heightening tensions between India and Pakistan. The 1965 war over border disputes in the Rann of Kutch and Kashmir was an example of this arms race, which was driven by British and US support for Pakistan.
Economic Consequences
British colonial policy in the Indian subcontinent (from the mid-18th century to 1947) was not limited to political and military matters, but also had profound and long-lasting consequences for the region's economy. Britain designed the subcontinent's economy as a source of raw materials and a consumer market for its industries, and these structures did not disappear entirely after India and Pakistan gained independence in 1947. This economic dependence and structural weaknesses fueled economic competition, resource disputes, and increased tensions between the two countries.
This construct was achieved through several key mechanisms:
- Extraction of raw materials and destruction of local industries
Before colonization, the subcontinent, especially India, was a center of industrial production, especially textiles. Indian textiles were popular on world markets, but Britain destroyed this industry to protect its own industry, especially the textile mills in Lancashire.
Britain bought raw cotton at a low price from Indian farmers, shipped it to England, and, after processing it into fabric, sold it back to India at a high profit.
To ensure the success of this cycle, heavy taxes were imposed on local producers, and protective tariffs were eliminated. As a result, Indian textile mills, which had produced high-quality fabrics for centuries, went bankrupt.
For example, in Bengal, which had been the centre of the textile industry, the number of weavers declined sharply in the early to mid-19th century, and the region was transformed from a producer to a dependent consumer.
- Developing Infrastructure for Colonial Exploitation
Britain developed infrastructure such as railways and ports, but this infrastructure was not designed to serve the local population. The railway network built in the mid-19th century was designed to quickly transport raw materials (such as cotton from Punjab or jute from Bengal) to ports, as well as to transport military forces.
The ports of Bombay and Karachi became export hubs for Britain, rather than infrastructure for domestic trade or Western economic development. This infrastructure did not contribute to the growth of local economies, and after independence, it left India and Pakistan with a transport system that was inadequate for their domestic needs.
- Monoculture of Agriculture
Britain restricted the subcontinent's agriculture to the production of crops essential to its industries, such as cotton, jute, tea, and indigo. These policies destroyed economic diversification and left farmers vulnerable to fluctuations in the world market.
For example, in Bengal, the forced cultivation of indigo instead of rice in the 19th century led to widespread famines that killed millions of people (such as the Bengal famine of 1770, which was partly the result of colonial policies).
This dependence on specific crops made the agricultural economy fragile and, after independence, reduced the two countries' ability to achieve food self-sufficiency.
These policies turned the subcontinent into a dependent colony, with its wealth systematically diverted to Britain. When India and Pakistan gained independence in 1947, they faced economic bankruptcy, a lack of industrial infrastructure, and a dependence on foreign trade.
- The Impact of Colonial Economics on India-Pakistan Relations
The economic structures created by Britain directly and indirectly fueled tensions and rivalries between India and Pakistan after independence. These effects can be seen in several areas:
- Competition for natural resources, especially water
The partition of the subcontinent by Britain resulted in an uneven distribution of natural resources between India and Pakistan. One of the most important of these was the water of the Indus River, which originated in Kashmir.
Britain did not pay sufficient attention to the importance of these resources when drawing the borders (through the Radcliffe Commission). India gained control of the headwaters of these rivers in Kashmir, while Pakistan depended on this water for its agriculture.
This inequality led to serious disagreements. For example, in the 1950s, India reduced the flow of water to Pakistan by closing irrigation canals, leading to an economic crisis in Pakistan.
Although the 1960 Indus Treaty, brokered by the World Bank, partially resolved the issue, the water issue remains a point of tension, especially because India can use it as leverage. The dispute is rooted in the British misdemarcation of borders.
- Economic Weakness and Arms Race
Weak economies left over from the colonial era forced India and Pakistan to devote their limited resources to military competition rather than economic development.
At independence, the subcontinent lacked a developed industrial infrastructure, as the British deliberately discouraged industrialization. This weakness made both countries dependent on foreign powers for basic needs, including food and military equipment.
This dependence fueled the arms race. For example, during the 1965 war over Kashmir and the Rann of Kutch, both countries spent their limited economic resources on arms purchases while their economies were still suffering from the effects of colonialism. This competition was rooted in the economic weakness that Britain had created.
Trade Disputes and Lack of Regional Cooperation
The dependent economic structure created by Britain turned India and Pakistan into trade competitors rather than partners.
During the colonial era, trade within the subcontinent was directed towards Britain, and internal trade between regions (such as Punjab and Bengal) was of secondary importance. After independence, this pattern led to competition between India and Pakistan for dominance in regional markets.
For example, instead of creating a common market in South Asia, Pakistan and India imposed high tariffs and trade barriers on each other. This competition prevented the formation of a strong economic bloc that could have contributed to the development of both countries.
The lack of economic cooperation, rooted in colonial traditions, fueled mistrust and political tensions.
Conclusion
Britain's negative role in the current tensions between India and Pakistan is multifaceted. The partition of the subcontinent and the misdelineation of boundaries, especially in Kashmir, formed the historical roots of these tensions. Pakistan's strategic support in the Cold War intensified the arms race, and colonial economic structures led to competition and economic weakness, making cooperation impossible.
