Britain's artificial creations are failing

[Spice Runner]

Artificial states created by Britain in the mid 20th century are facing deep trouble with the global economy going south and rising inflation.

Bangladesh facing trouble
Bangladesh is starting to feel the rising fuel costs and inflation biting. Let's see how they adjust their policies.

Nepals economic crisis

Pakistan in the deepest crisis

Pakistan reserves being burned amid political instability

Pakistan's army the biggest cause of it's troubles refuses to give up it's special status and perks. As ordinary people starve and live with power cuts the Pakistani armed forces live in gated communities. Add to that demagogue Imran Khan who's three years compounded problems is winning elections and a failed Afghanistan next door. This is a recipe for mid to long term trouble.

Sri Lanka after default is run by the same corrupt crowd
President Rajapaksa remote control puppets seem to still in power

Countries going the Sri Lanka way

[Coop D'etat]

Bangladesh isn't a British creation, and has been doing much better than the rest of the Subcontinent in recent years. Its Pakistan and Sri Lanka that are in crisis mode.

Also, if the entire region is having struggles, it seems agenda motivated disingenuousness to blame the borders for the crisis rather than well, regional issues.

[Spice Runner]

Bangladesh was East Pakistan created by Britain.

India is doing considerably better than the above mentioned nations. So no the entire region is not in trouble.

Pakistan the creation of disgusting Britain machinations has had this a long time coming. Living on American and Arab and then Chinese largesse using it's importance in the war on terror. Now it seems they are way over their head in loans.

[Coop D'etat]

The fact that its no longer called East Pakistan is a pretty good hint that its not a British creation.

[Straha]

Don't forget India falling into the hands of increasingly violent religious nationalists with blood on their hands.

[Ralin]

The fact that its no longer called East Pakistan is a pretty good hint that its not a British creation.

And describing them as such seems pretty insulting to their respective peoples. Even before getting into the question of what constitutes a non 'artificial' state

[Coop D'etat]

All states are artificial, anyone telling you otherwise is selling you something. Often selling you their right to tell somebody else what to do.

[LadyTevar]

All states are artificial, anyone telling you otherwise is selling you something. Often selling you their right to tell somebody else what to do.

True.. But the British arrogance in dividing up large swaths of land with no thought as to the "lines" that had been drawn by those living there for hundreds of years (or generations), simply because it made British Rule easier?

That's why the Kurds don't have a homeland, but are spread out over 3 nations (most of which have tried or are trying to commit genocide on them).

That's why Israel as a nation has been an issue since WWII, when the nations of the world decided to hide their anti-Semitism by saying "here, have Jerusalem back". (which begat all the IvP problems, and all the Zionist cults that still think having Jews in the Holy Land will bring about the events in KJV Bible Revelations).

Not that Belgium, France, and other nations had cleaner hands in Africa. Why do we have a South Africa Apartheid again? Oh yeah, Dutch Boers and English settlers. (yes, DO, not Did, because the policy might be officially gone but the attitudes and problems remain, just as with the US and Slavery).

Lines on a map drawn by people who probably never even set foot in the "nations" they were creating have caused far more problems than it was worth.

And yes that goes back to a certain Pope who divided the New World between Spain and Portugal.

[Spice Runner]

Britain's illegal rascist settler occupation of Asia and Africa will be damned by history

It's to the merit of the people of Bangladesh that they reached their current state of prosperity. They sacrificed much to throw out Pakistan in 1971 despite the asshole Nixon backing Pakistani dictator Yahya Khan.

Bangladesh and Pakistani shitty borders contribute to their myriad of problems.

The Pashtun people of Afghanistan have a festering reason to hate Pakistan due to the Durand line ( border created by British fuckface Durand) which separates pashtun lands. Additionally in 1947 Pakistan on it's border with India recieved mostly desert and a few small cities in Punjab. India was given the industrialized areas of Punjab. British occupiers again with their border drawing

British rascist occupying fuckface Curzon the asshat divided Bengal in 1905 along religious lines. The then east Pakistan borders created in 1947 by retreating occupier Britain are the borders of current Bangladesh. Industrial areas went to India and East Pakistan at the time got farms and swamps mainly.

Pakistan screwed themselves by leaning on Western, Arab loans and aid too much despite their leg up in being a American "ally" (tool) during the cold War. The Americans have time and again used Pakistan like a condom but the Pakistani don't seem to realize it yet. The army and establishment like American dollars too much.

India will surge ahead. It's polarisation and its terrible religion based politics of the current times will pass. India is inherently stable and has a large industrial base and better economic policies and stable government (regardless of what you think of it's nasty politics and ruling government)

[Straha]

So, bunch of thoughts on your post.

First, and foremost, I think it's interesting that you're engaging in a very selective focus on South Central Asia, which is interesting to me because it accepts as 'natural' a whole bunch of other artificial creations by Britain that are very much not natural but are bounded by whiteness.

Australia, for instance, makes no sense based on internal boundaries. More prominently, Canada is a ludicrous idea in the abstract. It is absolutely artificially built on a legacy of settler-colonial genocide, and if youn look beyond that and the multitude of First Nations and their histories (which, not saying we should, but for sake of argument) even the white settlements don't really make sense conglomerated together. There are basically four distinct entities: the Maratime Provinces with an Atlantic and eastward focus built on fishery and small agriculture, the central provinces of Manitoba and Ontario which are built on connections with the United States and a greater focus on industry, in between the two groups there is Quebec which has a very distinct cultural history and background and proudly speaks and maintains a completely separate language, and finally the pacific provinces of Alberta and British Columbia which are much more focused on export economies and are, again, not like the central provinces and view the French with, shall we say, disdain.

Yet, not only is the completely artificial creation of Canada doing just fine, it also weathered some pretty rough disruptions over the last hundred or so years (including coming just 50k votes away from actually being sundered in two) and we'd accept that those were storms that could/would be weathered. Which begs the question why you don't look there (or New Zealand, or Australia, or Singapore, or the UAE, or South Africa, etc. etc. etc.) in the greater context of "British artificial creations" as a prediction and instead proclaim doom and gloom. I'll say, maybe it echoes the former British colonial mindset that insisted that white folks and whiteness could give a unifying civilization to lands, and that absent that center point local populaces would fall apart (as the Brits, indeed, insisted would happen in Pakistan, just like you're claiming here.) Maybe it's just hyperbole when you want to focus on South Central Asian issues. Seems interesting and worth unpacking.

I'll also add I think the way you focus on India surging ahead doesn't really answer the question of artificiality. There's no reason for India to be inherently stable, and it certainly doesn't have a history of stable government. (See, notably, the legacy of Indira Ghandi and the emergency, or the history of sectarian pogroms, with someone who was at the very least complicit in one of them serving as Prime Minister!) There are massive linguistic, cultural, and historical divides across India that render it nonsensical in a traditional concept of a nation state. And historical rulers that united India tended to only do so through Imperial force of arms that eliminated local resistance through pointed gun (see: the Mughal Empire and the British Raj.) India's current borders and structure only exist as a legacy of British colonialism and an insistence by British leaders and the Indian leadership who were closest to them during the era of decolonization for greater unity. In a very real sense when compared to its closest neighbors like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, India is the most artificial nation state. This would seem to indicate that it's not a question of British influence or artificiality but more a question of economic and political decision making causing apparent instability and disruption.

[Ralin]

India is inherently stable

Bitch what

[Spice Runner]

I concede the Artificiality part. Nations are created by people and this artificial and you make valid points

I can't speak much to Canada and Australia. I don't know much about their formation or history other than these large landmasses with few aboriginal population that were settled by Europeans by and large.

I think a more apt example would be Africa and the middle east where Britain and Europe dicked around with existing Empires and populations drawing artificial borders and creating a screwed up situation that is evident today


As to the subcontinent, preceding the British. The various empires have unified the subcontinent from time to time the latest being the Marathas preceded by the Mughals with peripheral nations like the Hyderabad, Afghans and small kingdoms.

Britain forcefully conquered all the kingdoms and created their own order between direct rule and indirect rule. Their whole construct of the Raj fell apart after they left in a haste in 1947.
The Indian statesman Vallabhai Patel along with Jawaharlal Nehru combined the various 500 or so "princely states"

Muhammad Jinah who was the founder of Pakistan died shortly after independence and unfortunately for Pakistan civilian rule gave way to military rule and interference in the 50s (with the kind hand of uncle Sam)

Indian government officials up to the prime minister were hob knobbing with the British government up until the time of India Ghandi. Nehru and his circle were quite close with Lord Mountbatten up untill the formers death. It was when Indira Gandhi took away the powers of the remaining princely states in the late 60s and early 70s that relations soured. The fact that Britain sent their fleet along with the US to intimidate India during the Bangladesh liberation war didn't help.

India is lucky with good governance and good geography with resources. Bangladesh has good governance but terrible geography (thanks to Britains border drawing). Pakistan has terrible geography (thanks to Britain's border drawing) and terrible government.

Yes government and leadership and economic decisions have created the stark difference between nations like Pakistan and Sri Lanka which are doing terrible versus India which is stable. India for it's many faults and divisions is still structurally stable.

Arbitrary borders drawn by Britain have held back Pakistan and Bangladesh. Can't apply that to Sri Lanka it being an island off course.

[Ralin]

India is lucky with good governance and good geography with resources. Bangladesh has good governance but terrible geography (thanks to Britains border drawing). Pakistan has terrible geography (thanks to Britain's border drawing) and terrible government.

What exactly do you think Pakistan and Bangladesh's borders should be? Because I'm going to go out on a limb and guess your version would not include any territory that currently belongs to India.

[Coop D'etat]

India is far, far far, from a model of good governance. If anything, its a known consistent underperformer in all sorts of developmental metrics. The tenure of your argument seems to be that New Delhi's rule has been such a smashing success that it should be extended all sorts of its neighbours who are hostile to that idea, and that's something most non-Hindustan nationalists would look side-eyed at.

[Tribble]

I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some of the lines drawn by colonial powers were explicitly done to cause a maximum amount of disruption and conflict in the area.

For example, the last thing colonial powers would want would be a peaceful and unified Middle East in control of the world’s largest oil reserves.

“Divide and Rule” is not exactly a new strategy.

[Spice Runner]

India is inherently stable

Bitch what

Inherently stable was the wrong word to use. Indian leaders have maintained strong democratic institutions has been competent in economic growth.

In doing so it has avoided the instability we see in other areas of European occupation and imperialism

[Spice Runner]

I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some of the lines drawn by colonial powers were explicitly done to cause a maximum amount of disruption and conflict in the area.

For example, the last thing colonial powers would want would be a peaceful and unified Middle East in control of the world’s largest oil reserves.

“Divide and Rule” is not exactly a new strategy.

Agreed. Iraq and Syria we're divided among Britain and France to maximize both their colonial ambitions mutually after the first world war.

Pakistan was used by Britain for bases close to the periphery of the Soviet Union during the chilling of relations after world war 2. The United States took over this function throughout the cold War and just now after the embarrassing retreat from Afghanistan in 2021, the USA has disengaged from the region.

The last year with the Russian war in Ukraine has really shaken up the post world war 2 order that the west and the world has taken for granted. A lot of things seem to be likely to change in unpredictable ways this decade and the next. Not the least with China challenging the western led order.

[Spice Runner]

India is lucky with good governance and good geography with resources. Bangladesh has good governance but terrible geography (thanks to Britains border drawing). Pakistan has terrible geography (thanks to Britain's border drawing) and terrible government.

What exactly do you think Pakistan and Bangladesh's borders should be? Because I'm going to go out on a limb and guess your version would not include any territory that currently belongs to India.

There is no perfect answer. The economic integration between India and Bangladesh that has been happening is a good example. Free access and investment between both is being implemented. Bangladesh manufactures and sells to India and vice versa India manufactures and sells goods as well as raw resources to Bangladesh. India has full access through a Bangladesh to access Assam through rail and road as does Bangladesh to India.

Between India and Pakistan that is not possible. The hostility is too great. I suspect India will never accept Pakistan or vice versa until a change in generations or another war.

[Spice Runner]

India is far, far far, from a model of good governance. If anything, its a known consistent underperformer in all sorts of developmental metrics. The tenure of your argument seems to be that New Delhi's rule has been such a smashing success that it should be extended all sorts of its neighbours who are hostile to that idea, and that's something most non-Hindustan nationalists would look side-eyed at.

Yes India is not a total success or the best role model for others. The Indian government use of capitalism and expansion of prosperity much through investments in infrastructure and industry (attracting foreign investment as well as encouraging business and start-up friendly policies) is a model that has helped India avoid the instability we are seeing in the other areas or South Asia the Middle East and Africa. Bangladesh is following this model along with India.

Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal not so much so. Vested interests in Pakistan keep their army at the center and prevent any true reforms. What the fuck Sri Lanka was doing is beyond me. They had a good thing going but fucked it up.

[Spice Runner]

I do apologize if I have been to opinionated in my posts. I try to bring a view (laced with opinions I'm sorry) from the subcontinent.

I have no hatred towards anyone. I love Europe, the Americas, Australia, Asia, Africa and the all the people who keep my faith in humanity.

I personally would like to see a united humanity living in an age of reason and science someday. But I fear war will come to Asia and South Asia in particular before we reach that.

[loomer]

India is inherently stable

Bitch what

Inherently stable was the wrong word to use. Indian leaders have maintained strong democratic institutions has been competent in economic growth.

In doing so it has avoided the instability we see in other areas of European occupation and imperialism

India is currently controlled by a proto-fascist government building steam towards an active genocide. I'm not sure you've thought through the degree to which it's kept strong democratic institutions.

[Spice Runner]

Bitch what

Inherently stable was the wrong word to use. Indian leaders have maintained strong democratic institutions has been competent in economic growth.

In doing so it has avoided the instability we see in other areas of European occupation and imperialism

India is currently controlled by a proto-fascist government building steam towards an active genocide. I'm not sure you've thought through the degree to which it's kept strong democratic institutions.

Please explain how the hell you come to claim of India moving towards an active genocide? Or are you just reading Pakistani propaganda?

[loomer]

Inherently stable was the wrong word to use. Indian leaders have maintained strong democratic institutions has been competent in economic growth.

In doing so it has avoided the instability we see in other areas of European occupation and imperialism

India is currently controlled by a proto-fascist government building steam towards an active genocide. I'm not sure you've thought through the degree to which it's kept strong democratic institutions.

Please explain how the hell you come to claim of India moving towards an active genocide? Or are you just reading Pakistani propaganda?

Well, there's that bit where they started up citizenship reform in a way that disproportionately targets Muslim communities in the middle of a surge in anti-Muslim violence and rhetoric...

But do tell me how that's just propaganda.

[Spice Runner]

India is currently controlled by a proto-fascist government building steam towards an active genocide. I'm not sure you've thought through the degree to which it's kept strong democratic institutions.

Please explain how the hell you come to claim of India moving towards an active genocide? Or are you just reading Pakistani propaganda?

Well, there's that bit where they started up citizenship reform in a way that disproportionately targets Muslim communities in the middle of a surge in anti-Muslim violence and rhetoric...

But do tell me how that's just propaganda.

The CAA law fast-tracks citizenship of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian immigrants from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh who arrived in India before 2015. The law has not yet been implemented yet though passed by parliament. Yes it does not include or Muslim immigration from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

Tell me again how this leads to India going for genocide?

You do know that are over 200 million voting Muslim citizens in India?

[loomer]

Please explain how the hell you come to claim of India moving towards an active genocide? Or are you just reading Pakistani propaganda?

Well, there's that bit where they started up citizenship reform in a way that disproportionately targets Muslim communities in the middle of a surge in anti-Muslim violence and rhetoric...

But do tell me how that's just propaganda.

The CAA law fast-tracks citizenship of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian immigrants from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh who arrived in India before 2015. The law has not yet been implemented yet though passed by parliament. Yes it does not include or Muslim immigration from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

Tell me again how this leads to India going for genocide?

You do know that are over 200 million voting Muslim citizens in India?

The CAA establishes religion as a basis for citizenship and excludes Muslims from that basis, paired with the (funny how you decided to only focus on the CAA here) the NPR and NRC, and comes on the back of a process that systematically and discriminatorily targeted Muslims as ineligible for citizenship. The CAA, together with the NPR and NRC, targets Muslims as ineligible for membership in the body politic specifically on the basis of religion in doing so, and that's come at the same time as - and I note that you decided to ignore it - a marked uptick in government-sanctioned anti-Muslim rhetoric and anti-Muslim violence. This all comes with a proto-fascist Hindutva party in power, with leaders who openly call for repressions towards and violence against the Muslim community.


Quite bluntly: Any time a state embarks on a campaign of prolonged calls for violence against, legal restrictions on, and the potential expulsion of millions on the basis of religion or race, it is a proto-genocidal logic. And it is precisely this campaign that the BJP has embarked on.

I suppose this is when you call this Pakistani propaganda and the protest movements Pakistani fronts, eh?

Oh, and yes, I am quite aware. I am also quite aware that that fact does not prevent the emergence of a proto-genocidal logic, nor its continued maintenance. Now how about you explain what's so splendidly democratic about the Modi government?