01-13-2007, 02:43 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Jan 12 2007, 01:30 PM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Jan 12 2007, 01:30 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->LSrini: See your point - it's a different debate. My remarks were in reference to that red ant's comments about benevolent Brits. No doubt they collaborated with Brits back in 42 to sabotage Quit India movement.
[right][snapback]63040[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see what u r saying. Brits did what they had to be in power. They split up the hindu-muslim united animosity (not unity!) towards the brits in 1857 by appeasing muslims. When commies realised that quit india movement was getting too strong, they co-operated with brits to break it up. brits had the WW2 to fight where they were cooperating with commie soviets anyway, so they had no quesyness accepting help in india.
But my point is that partition has been good for india. and we have jinnah to thank for that. and not the british, who did not care what happened to hindus and muslims in india.
[right][snapback]63040[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see what u r saying. Brits did what they had to be in power. They split up the hindu-muslim united animosity (not unity!) towards the brits in 1857 by appeasing muslims. When commies realised that quit india movement was getting too strong, they co-operated with brits to break it up. brits had the WW2 to fight where they were cooperating with commie soviets anyway, so they had no quesyness accepting help in india.
But my point is that partition has been good for india. and we have jinnah to thank for that. and not the british, who did not care what happened to hindus and muslims in india.