Why do some people say India is an artificial country made by the Brits. Under what justification do they have that point?
>>16895253Made up by the Europeans as a geographic construct such as fellow arbitrary nations such as Libya and South Africa
>>16895259Libya was creater by the Ottomans though It was the shittier and poorer region located between (and usually controlled by) Tunis/Chartage and Egypt
>>16895259India is a unified Hindu state, it’s not arbitrary (the favoritie word of midwit historypseuds)
>>16895253"india" in terms of Indian culture, religion would obviously still exist without the British, but the fact that the country we know today as "india" as a unified political entity and national identity is solely due to Britain. without the British Empire, the Indian subcontinent would be divided into dozens of different nation-states.
>>16895590This. Funnily enough for all the seething over Partition it was the British that ended up slapping down the various attempts by princely states or other secessionist movements to further break up India
>>16895595the brits also prevented the pajeet-paki war of 1947/48 from spiraling into a way bigger balkanizing conflict than it was in our timeline because former British Raj officers were still serving on both sides of the conflict after partition and generally kept the combat down to a minimum.
>>16895605Another reason to hate the Brits. They should have just left it to be.
>>16895253They don't. It's like saying Germany is an artificial country because it was a patchwork of states until Bismarck put it together.Contrary to >>16895590 >>16895595 >>16895605 there was already a pretty strong pan-Indian sentiment prior to independence that allowed the Indian Republic to hold together.Britain's chief contribution was enabling the Muslim League at every turn which created the conditions for Partition. There was a risk of outright balkanisation, but it was Sardar Patel, not the British, who convinced the princely states to stay.
>>16895672But Germany is an artificial state
>>16895672>It's like saying Germany is an artificial country because it was a patchwork of states until Bismarck put it togetherthis is true THOUGH
>>16895672>there was already a pretty strong pan-Indian sentiment prior to independence that allowed the Indian Republic to hold togetheryou can argue that Indian unity was due to the British Empire being a bad influence and Indians developed psychological pan-Indian unity in resistance to Brit domination, or you can argue that Indian unity was due to the British being a good influence and teaching India modern united democratic statecraft. Either way, it still inevitably loops back around to British colonization being the one indispensable factor in Indians developing a unified national consciousness.
>>16895672>It's like saying Germany is an artificial country because it was a patchwork of states until Bismarck put it together.But Germans had an unified culture and spoke the same language, which is what drove them to seek unification. India however has multiple cultures and they speak bazillion languages, so much that they had to learn English to communicate with other Indians. And let's not even talk about the many religions that exists in this subcontinent. If it wasn't for the British, an unified India wouldn't exist today, the only thing that unified them was their hatred of "Britishers". The same goes for Pakistan, which is another artificial state with many different ethnolinguistical groups whose the only unifying factor was the fact they were all mudslimes.
all countries by the brits are artificial: usa, canada, australia and india
