Of course the situation might’ve been different. You wouldn’t have dumb needless animosity on sectarian lines as they do today. Understand that by saying dumb shit like “The fighting would’ve happened anyway!” serves two purposes: a) to minimize the depravity of the British, the British Raj and colonialism in general and b) assumes that clashes on the basis of sectarianism is an inevitable pathway. Btw, partitioning is a tried-and-tested, colonial “divide and conquer” tactic.
Point is, a lot more lives could’ve been spared had it not been for colonialism that plagued the area, this is indisputable.
This is rather naive. Do you think the fighting wouldn’t have happened if they were kept as one big country?
This is rather a colonial narrative. Do you think the fighting would’ve lasted as long if the British never colonized that area?
If the British had never come, I expect the situation would be very different. But I thought we were talking about partition.
Of course the situation might’ve been different. You wouldn’t have dumb needless animosity on sectarian lines as they do today. Understand that by saying dumb shit like “The fighting would’ve happened anyway!” serves two purposes: a) to minimize the depravity of the British, the British Raj and colonialism in general and b) assumes that clashes on the basis of sectarianism is an inevitable pathway. Btw, partitioning is a tried-and-tested, colonial “divide and conquer” tactic.
Point is, a lot more lives could’ve been spared had it not been for colonialism that plagued the area, this is indisputable.
Of course it would have lasted long. It had lasted basically the entire existence of human populated India up until then.