The conflicts between India and Pakistan have long been known as one of the most complex and enduring conflicts in South Asia, with roots dating back to the British colonial era. And the role of Britain, as a former colonial power, in the formation and perpetuation of these tensions is undeniable. As a former colonial power, Britain has played an important role in the formation and perpetuation of these tensions through its historical decisions, economic policies, and contemporary actions. During its colonial era, Britain made decisions that paved the way for enduring conflicts between India and Pakistan.
Publish dateThursday 8 May 2025 - 10:46
Story Code : 315165
The Partition of the Subcontinent
According to Tasnim, the partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947 into two independent countries, India and Pakistan, was one of the most important events of the 20th century, leaving profound consequences for the region and the world. This process, which was overseen by Britain, not only led to the independence of both countries, but also laid the foundation for many of today's tensions, particularly over Kashmir.
Britain had been in control of the subcontinent since the mid-18th century, when the British East India Company took control of the region. The subcontinent, which included modern-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, was highly valued by Britain because of its rich natural resources, abundant labor, and strategic location.
But after World War II (1939-1945), Britain was severely weakened. Its economy was damaged, its military was exhausted, and domestic and international pressure to end colonialism was mounting. At the same time, independence movements in India, led by figures such as Mahatma Gandhi and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, were growing stronger.
In 1945, the British government, led by 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, a member of the British royal family who had served as a military commander in World War II, was tasked with achieving Indian independence by June 1948. However, he concluded that the differences between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League were intractable and that partition of the subcontinent was the only possible solution.
Mountbatten proposed a plan that became known as the "Mountbatten Plan". According to this plan, the subcontinent would be divided into two independent states: India, with a Hindu majority, and Pakistan, with a Muslim majority. Pakistan would consist of two parts: West Pakistan (present-day Pakistan) and East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh). The plan was approved in June 1947, and the date of independence was set for 15 August 1947. The decision was made in haste, with little time for careful planning.
One of the most sensitive parts of the partition was the demarcation of the borders between the two countries. The British chose Sir Cyril Radcliffe, a British lawyer with no experience in the subcontinent, to head 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 based on the religious majority of the areas, but they had many problems. For example:
- In Punjab, a city like Lahore, which had a Hindu, Sikh, and Muslim population, was given to Pakistan, causing migration and violence.
- In Bengal, areas with a complex religious composition were incompletely divided.
- In Kashmir, which had a Muslim majority but a Hindu ruler, the situation was unclear and became a major source of friction between India and Pakistan.
Radcliffe never returned to the subcontinent and later said he regretted the consequences of his actions. His decisions, supported by Mountbatten, led to the displacement of an estimated 12 million people and the deaths of hundreds of thousands in ethnic violence.
In The Pity of Partition, the Urdu-born historian Ayesha Jalal writes of the violence that resulted from this clumsy partition, which was carried out by the British: “Humans had made laws against murder and mayhem to distinguish themselves from brute beasts. But none of these laws were observed in the savage slaughter that shook India to its core on the eve of independence.”
One of the most important points of contention was the status of Kashmir, a Muslim-majority region ruled by a Hindu ruler. Britain failed to resolve the issue, and Kashmir became a permanent border dispute that continues to this day.
Britain’s role in the partition of the subcontinent is not limited to the decisions of Mountbatten or Radcliffe. Britain left the subcontinent in a fragile state with its colonial policies, which weakened the local economy and exacerbated religious differences. When independence was declared, the two countries faced major economic, political, and social problems that made cooperation more difficult. Kashmir, which became an open wound due to British missteps, is still a major source of tension between India and Pakistan. This strategy, combined with the hasty withdrawal of Britain 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 remain present in the collective unconscious of India and Pakistan, fueling distrust and hostility between the two countries.
Postcolonial 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 did not end. Although Britain was no longer a direct colonial power, its policies in the postcolonial era, especially during the Cold War (1940s–1990s), had significant negative effects on Indo-Pakistani relations.
These effects were mainly shaped through strategic support for Pakistan, diplomatic stances on Kashmir, and the intensification of 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 were vulnerable to this global competition due to border disputes (especially over Kashmir) and economic weakness stemming from colonialism. Britain took advantage of this situation and adopted policies that often exacerbated tensions rather than reducing them.
One of the most significant negative actions of Britain 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's geographical proximity to Afghanistan and the Middle East made it an important base for monitoring Soviet activities.
In 1954, Pakistan joined the Baghdad Pact (later known as the Central Treaty Organization, or CENTO), of which Britain and the United States were key members. The pact was designed to create an anti-communist front in the Middle East and South Asia. Through this treaty, Britain provided Pakistan with military equipment, including fighter jets and advanced equipment. It also organized training programs for the Pakistani military, which strengthened the country's military capabilities.
For example, Britain sold fighter jets such as the Hunter and armored vehicles to Pakistan in the 1950s and 1960s. Although this aid was intended to counter the Soviet threat, it indirectly made Pakistan feel more powerful against India and emboldened it to engage in military conflicts such as the 1965 war over Kashmir.
1965 Indo-Pakistani War over Kashmir
This unilateral support for Pakistan pushed India towards the Soviet Union. India, feeling that the Western bloc was supporting its rival, signed military and economic agreements with the Soviets and received weapons such as MiG-21 fighters. The result of this policy was to turn the subcontinent into a Cold War proxy competition that exacerbated tensions between India and Pakistan. The 1965 war, which was fought over border disputes in the Rann of Kutch and Kashmir, was an example of this arms race, which was rooted in British and American support for Pakistan.
Economic Impact
British colonial policies in the Indian subcontinent (from the mid-18th century to 1947) were not limited to political and military issues, but had profound and lasting effects on the economy of the region. Britain designed the subcontinent's economy to serve as a source of raw materials and a consumer market for its industries, and these structures did not completely disappear after the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947. This economic dependence and structural weaknesses fueled economic competition, resource disputes, and heightened tensions between the two countries.
This design was implemented through several key mechanisms:
Extraction of raw materials and destruction of local industries
The subcontinent, especially India, was a center of industrial production before colonialism, especially in textiles. Indian fabrics were famous in world markets. But Britain destroyed this industry to protect its own industries, especially the textile mills in Lancashire.
Britain bought raw cotton from Indian farmers at low prices, shipped it to England, and after being turned into cloth, 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 removed. The result was that Indian textile mills, which had been producing high-quality fabrics for centuries, went bankrupt.
For example, in Bengal, a textile center, the number of weavers declined sharply between the early and mid-19th century, and the region transformed from a producer to a dependent consumer.
Infrastructure Development for Colonial Exploitation
The British developed infrastructure such as railways and ports, but these were 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 and to move troops.
The ports of Bombay and Karachi became export centers for the British, not as infrastructure for domestic trade or the economic development of the subcontinent. This infrastructure did not help the local economy grow, and after independence, India and Pakistan were left with a transport system that was ill-suited to their domestic needs.
Mono-crop agriculture
The British restricted the subcontinent's agriculture to the production of crops that were essential to their industries, such as cotton, jute, tea, and indigo. This policy eliminated economic diversification and made farmers vulnerable to the fluctuations of the world market.
In Bengal, for example, the forced cultivation of indigo instead of rice in the 19th century led to widespread famines that killed millions (such as the Bengal Famine of 1770, which was partly a result of colonial policies).
This dependence on specific crops made the agricultural economy fragile and reduced the ability of the two countries to achieve food self-sufficiency after independence.
These policies transformed the subcontinent into a dependent colony, with its wealth systematically transferred to Britain. When India and Pakistan became independent in 1947, they were faced with bankrupt economies, without a strong industrial infrastructure, and dependent on foreign trade.
Colonial Economic Impacts on Indo-Pakistani Relations
The economic structures created by Britain after independence directly and indirectly fueled tensions and rivalries between India and Pakistan. These impacts can be examined in several areas.
Competition over natural resources, especially water
The British partition of the subcontinent distributed natural resources unequally between India and Pakistan. One of the most important of these resources was the water of the Indus River Basin, which originated in Kashmir.
The British did not take sufficient account of the importance of these resources when drawing the borders (by 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 disputes. For example, in the 1950s, India reduced the flow of water to Pakistan by closing irrigation canals, which led to an economic crisis in Pakistan.
Although the 1960 Indus Treaty, brokered by the World Bank, partially resolved the problem, the water issue remains a point of tension, especially since India can use it as leverage. The dispute has its roots in the British misdemarcation of the border.
Economic weakness and arms race
Weak economies left over from colonial times forced India and Pakistan to devote their limited resources to military competition rather than economic development.
The subcontinent lacked a strong industrial infrastructure at the time of independence, as Britain had deliberately hindered industrialization. This weakness made both countries dependent on foreign countries for basic needs, including food and military equipment.
This dependence fueled an arms race. For example, in the 1965 war over Kashmir and Rann of Kutch, both countries spent limited economic resources on arms purchases, while their economies were still suffering from the consequences of colonialism. This rivalry was rooted in the economic weakness that Britain had created.
Trade Disputes and Lack of Regional Cooperation
The dependent economic structure that Britain had created turned India and Pakistan into commercial competitors rather than partners.
During the colonial period, subcontinental trade was directed towards Britain, and internal trade between regions (such as Punjab and Bengal) was of little importance. After independence, this pattern led to competition between India and Pakistan for dominance of regional markets.
For example, instead of creating a common market in South Asia, India and Pakistan imposed high tariffs and trade barriers against each other. This competition prevented the formation of a strong economic bloc that could have helped both countries develop.
The lack of economic cooperation, rooted in colonial patterns, fueled distrust and political tensions.
Conclusion
The negative role of Britain in the current tensions between India and Pakistan is multifaceted. The division of the subcontinent and the incorrect demarcation of borders, especially in Kashmir, formed the historical roots of these tensions. Strategic support for Pakistan in the Cold War intensified the arms race, and colonial economic structures led to competition and economic weakness that made cooperation impossible.
According to Tasnim, the partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947 into two independent countries, India and Pakistan, was one of the most important events of the 20th century, leaving profound consequences for the region and the world. This process, which was overseen by Britain, not only led to the independence of both countries, but also laid the foundation for many of today's tensions, particularly over Kashmir.
Britain had been in control of the subcontinent since the mid-18th century, when the British East India Company took control of the region. The subcontinent, which included modern-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, was highly valued by Britain because of its rich natural resources, abundant labor, and strategic location.
But after World War II (1939-1945), Britain was severely weakened. Its economy was damaged, its military was exhausted, and domestic and international pressure to end colonialism was mounting. At the same time, independence movements in India, led by figures such as Mahatma Gandhi and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, were growing stronger.
In 1945, the British government, led by 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, a member of the British royal family who had served as a military commander in World War II, was tasked with achieving Indian independence by June 1948. However, he concluded that the differences between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League were intractable and that partition of the subcontinent was the only possible solution.
Mountbatten proposed a plan that became known as the "Mountbatten Plan". According to this plan, the subcontinent would be divided into two independent states: India, with a Hindu majority, and Pakistan, with a Muslim majority. Pakistan would consist of two parts: West Pakistan (present-day Pakistan) and East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh). The plan was approved in June 1947, and the date of independence was set for 15 August 1947. The decision was made in haste, with little time for careful planning.
One of the most sensitive parts of the partition was the demarcation of the borders between the two countries. The British chose Sir Cyril Radcliffe, a British lawyer with no experience in the subcontinent, to head 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 based on the religious majority of the areas, but they had many problems. For example:
- In Punjab, a city like Lahore, which had a Hindu, Sikh, and Muslim population, was given to Pakistan, causing migration and violence.
- In Bengal, areas with a complex religious composition were incompletely divided.
- In Kashmir, which had a Muslim majority but a Hindu ruler, the situation was unclear and became a major source of friction between India and Pakistan.
Radcliffe never returned to the subcontinent and later said he regretted the consequences of his actions. His decisions, supported by Mountbatten, led to the displacement of an estimated 12 million people and the deaths of hundreds of thousands in ethnic violence.
In The Pity of Partition, the Urdu-born historian Ayesha Jalal writes of the violence that resulted from this clumsy partition, which was carried out by the British: “Humans had made laws against murder and mayhem to distinguish themselves from brute beasts. But none of these laws were observed in the savage slaughter that shook India to its core on the eve of independence.”
One of the most important points of contention was the status of Kashmir, a Muslim-majority region ruled by a Hindu ruler. Britain failed to resolve the issue, and Kashmir became a permanent border dispute that continues to this day.
Britain’s role in the partition of the subcontinent is not limited to the decisions of Mountbatten or Radcliffe. Britain left the subcontinent in a fragile state with its colonial policies, which weakened the local economy and exacerbated religious differences. When independence was declared, the two countries faced major economic, political, and social problems that made cooperation more difficult. Kashmir, which became an open wound due to British missteps, is still a major source of tension between India and Pakistan. This strategy, combined with the hasty withdrawal of Britain 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 remain present in the collective unconscious of India and Pakistan, fueling distrust and hostility between the two countries.
Postcolonial 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 did not end. Although Britain was no longer a direct colonial power, its policies in the postcolonial era, especially during the Cold War (1940s–1990s), had significant negative effects on Indo-Pakistani relations.
These effects were mainly shaped through strategic support for Pakistan, diplomatic stances on Kashmir, and the intensification of 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 were vulnerable to this global competition due to border disputes (especially over Kashmir) and economic weakness stemming from colonialism. Britain took advantage of this situation and adopted policies that often exacerbated tensions rather than reducing them.
One of the most significant negative actions of Britain 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's geographical proximity to Afghanistan and the Middle East made it an important base for monitoring Soviet activities.
In 1954, Pakistan joined the Baghdad Pact (later known as the Central Treaty Organization, or CENTO), of which Britain and the United States were key members. The pact was designed to create an anti-communist front in the Middle East and South Asia. Through this treaty, Britain provided Pakistan with military equipment, including fighter jets and advanced equipment. It also organized training programs for the Pakistani military, which strengthened the country's military capabilities.
For example, Britain sold fighter jets such as the Hunter and armored vehicles to Pakistan in the 1950s and 1960s. Although this aid was intended to counter the Soviet threat, it indirectly made Pakistan feel more powerful against India and emboldened it to engage in military conflicts such as the 1965 war over Kashmir.
1965 Indo-Pakistani War over Kashmir
This unilateral support for Pakistan pushed India towards the Soviet Union. India, feeling that the Western bloc was supporting its rival, signed military and economic agreements with the Soviets and received weapons such as MiG-21 fighters. The result of this policy was to turn the subcontinent into a Cold War proxy competition that exacerbated tensions between India and Pakistan. The 1965 war, which was fought over border disputes in the Rann of Kutch and Kashmir, was an example of this arms race, which was rooted in British and American support for Pakistan.
Economic Impact
British colonial policies in the Indian subcontinent (from the mid-18th century to 1947) were not limited to political and military issues, but had profound and lasting effects on the economy of the region. Britain designed the subcontinent's economy to serve as a source of raw materials and a consumer market for its industries, and these structures did not completely disappear after the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947. This economic dependence and structural weaknesses fueled economic competition, resource disputes, and heightened tensions between the two countries.
This design was implemented through several key mechanisms:
Extraction of raw materials and destruction of local industries
The subcontinent, especially India, was a center of industrial production before colonialism, especially in textiles. Indian fabrics were famous in world markets. But Britain destroyed this industry to protect its own industries, especially the textile mills in Lancashire.
Britain bought raw cotton from Indian farmers at low prices, shipped it to England, and after being turned into cloth, 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 removed. The result was that Indian textile mills, which had been producing high-quality fabrics for centuries, went bankrupt.
For example, in Bengal, a textile center, the number of weavers declined sharply between the early and mid-19th century, and the region transformed from a producer to a dependent consumer.
Infrastructure Development for Colonial Exploitation
The British developed infrastructure such as railways and ports, but these were 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 and to move troops.
The ports of Bombay and Karachi became export centers for the British, not as infrastructure for domestic trade or the economic development of the subcontinent. This infrastructure did not help the local economy grow, and after independence, India and Pakistan were left with a transport system that was ill-suited to their domestic needs.
Mono-crop agriculture
The British restricted the subcontinent's agriculture to the production of crops that were essential to their industries, such as cotton, jute, tea, and indigo. This policy eliminated economic diversification and made farmers vulnerable to the fluctuations of the world market.
In Bengal, for example, the forced cultivation of indigo instead of rice in the 19th century led to widespread famines that killed millions (such as the Bengal Famine of 1770, which was partly a result of colonial policies).
This dependence on specific crops made the agricultural economy fragile and reduced the ability of the two countries to achieve food self-sufficiency after independence.
These policies transformed the subcontinent into a dependent colony, with its wealth systematically transferred to Britain. When India and Pakistan became independent in 1947, they were faced with bankrupt economies, without a strong industrial infrastructure, and dependent on foreign trade.
Colonial Economic Impacts on Indo-Pakistani Relations
The economic structures created by Britain after independence directly and indirectly fueled tensions and rivalries between India and Pakistan. These impacts can be examined in several areas.
Competition over natural resources, especially water
The British partition of the subcontinent distributed natural resources unequally between India and Pakistan. One of the most important of these resources was the water of the Indus River Basin, which originated in Kashmir.
The British did not take sufficient account of the importance of these resources when drawing the borders (by 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 disputes. For example, in the 1950s, India reduced the flow of water to Pakistan by closing irrigation canals, which led to an economic crisis in Pakistan.
Although the 1960 Indus Treaty, brokered by the World Bank, partially resolved the problem, the water issue remains a point of tension, especially since India can use it as leverage. The dispute has its roots in the British misdemarcation of the border.
Economic weakness and arms race
Weak economies left over from colonial times forced India and Pakistan to devote their limited resources to military competition rather than economic development.
The subcontinent lacked a strong industrial infrastructure at the time of independence, as Britain had deliberately hindered industrialization. This weakness made both countries dependent on foreign countries for basic needs, including food and military equipment.
This dependence fueled an arms race. For example, in the 1965 war over Kashmir and Rann of Kutch, both countries spent limited economic resources on arms purchases, while their economies were still suffering from the consequences of colonialism. This rivalry was rooted in the economic weakness that Britain had created.
Trade Disputes and Lack of Regional Cooperation
The dependent economic structure that Britain had created turned India and Pakistan into commercial competitors rather than partners.
During the colonial period, subcontinental trade was directed towards Britain, and internal trade between regions (such as Punjab and Bengal) was of little importance. After independence, this pattern led to competition between India and Pakistan for dominance of regional markets.
For example, instead of creating a common market in South Asia, India and Pakistan imposed high tariffs and trade barriers against each other. This competition prevented the formation of a strong economic bloc that could have helped both countries develop.
The lack of economic cooperation, rooted in colonial patterns, fueled distrust and political tensions.
Conclusion
The negative role of Britain in the current tensions between India and Pakistan is multifaceted. The division of the subcontinent and the incorrect demarcation of borders, especially in Kashmir, formed the historical roots of these tensions. Strategic support for Pakistan in the Cold War intensified the arms race, and colonial economic structures led to competition and economic weakness that made cooperation impossible.
avapress.com/vdcaimnem49n661.tgk4.html
Top hits
