Why did the British allow the creation of India and Pakistan as two huge countries...

Why did the British allow the creation of India and Pakistan as two huge countries, while at the same time fucking up the Middle East into several states with nonsensical borders? Ethnically, linguistically and religiously speaking, India is more diverse than the Middle East, and no "Indian" identity existed before the independence. Same goes for Pakistan, the country is more artificial than Belgium, the name itself was invented in the 1930s.

Probably because of the nature in which India was given independence, Ghandi and other freedom fighters didn't strive for Panjabi independence, they strove for indian independence, considering the diversity of the subcontinent, proposed border's would be very difficult to create in order to appease everyone, India and Pakistan were created in order to try and prevent Muslims feeling like they were under a hindi boot, and at this point the British simply couldn't be arsed with the trouble creating proper borders would entail.

In hindsight we should have divided India/China into several nations when we had the chance.

India and China are too big and diverse to be one country.

Because the ME is of strategic importance.

>we should have
I think it turned out fine the way it was. In hindsight it's good nobody tried forcibly moving anybody anywhere or creating other meme tier states since that would have caused a lot more blood to flow.

I think nearly everybody recognized this desu.

Exactly my thoughts, they both are like the Western Europe in terms of diversity, cultural and historical significance and economic potential. Them being unified countries is too OP.
And India isn't? Besides, how turning ME into the shithole it is archives anything "strategic" for anybody?

>In hindsight we should have divided India/China into several nations when we had the chance.
>China
Chink successor states will just end up declaring a battle-royale to reunify the whole fucking thing.

Like every fucking time in their history.

>Besides, how turning ME into the shithole it is archives anything "strategic" for anybody?
This is one thing I never got from conspiracy theorists.

>THE WEST IS DESTABILIZING THE MIDDLE EAST TO ACQUIRE THEIR STRATEGIC RESOURCES!
>Endemic warfare makes it hard to do fucking anything.

>country is called India
>Majority of Indus river runs through the territory of your neighbour

What did Anglos mean by this?

Anglos think they can draw lines on maps and make them legitimate states. It’s what caused WW2.

> Anglos think they can draw lines on maps and make them legitimate states.
Yes.
> It’s what caused WW2.
No.

They just looked at the map, said hey these people have different religions so let’s separate them up.
And wala

> no "Indian" identity existed before the independence.
•India got independence in 1947
•British founded East India Company in 31 December,1600
Kys

>Why did the British allow the creation of India and Pakistan as two huge countries, while at the same time fucking up the Middle East into several states with nonsensical borders?

It was a cheap and easy way to hurt their former colonies post-independence.

And the territory has been called India since before Alexander, so what? I'm talking about national identity.

>India is world's oldest continuous civilization.
>Land beyond Indus river has always been known as India /Bharat.
>India is home of world's oldest religion,Hinduism.

This

Yes

India has seen the rise and fall of some of the world's oldest and longest not to mention,advamced empires eg. Gupta dynasty,Chola empire,Vijayanagara empire etc.
From the North to the South,all these empires gave rise to different cultures and ethnicities yet they were all connected by a common thread "Hinduism". Hinduism is the synthesis of all these different cultures and is still evolving in the 21st century.

Which is why by every meaure of the nation-state the Mughal Empire and Maratha Empire were separate.

That's a bit of a contentious, considering India pre and post-Islam, and pre and post-colonialism are wildly different places

[Citations needed]

>Bharat = India
No. No it does not. Not in 1800. It meant a geographic region, not the post-1947 creation of an anglo’s mind.

>India is world's oldest continuous civilization.
No, there was a long perod between Indus Valley civilization and Vedic civilization.
>Land beyond Indus river has always been known as India /Bharat.
So what?
>India is home of world's oldest religion,Hinduism.
Modern Hinduism has as little to do with Vedic religion as modern Judaism with Semitic paganism from 3000 BC.

But what are you trying to say tho? Mesopotamia has been continuously populated by highly civilized settled communities for thousands of years, that doesn't mean Iraqi national identity isn't a modern creation.

"Hinduism" is just a name of all the interconnected forms of religion on the subcontinent, it's not a national identity, no more than Christianity in all its forms can be the European national identity.

Indians are fucking delusional. Their whole fake identity is based on myths and exaggerations.

Their Prime Minister recently claimed “”””””India”””””” invented plastic surgery in the 600’s.

The problem with ME was that the populace had no real national identity in the western sense besides being muslims and belonging to an extended family / tribe. So the division was feudal in nature, each feudal warlord that had something he could offer the brits / french got to curve up a kingdom for himself. The arabs themselves are still not sure what the fuck they are, are they shia vs sunna or pan arabs or maybe they are these new nations that were created larping as pharaoh egypt or babylon and so on.

>implying they didn’t

...

But they did. Look up Sushruta.

Problem solved

I think he was talking about Tibet,East Turkestan,Manchuria,Inner Mongolia,Yunnan,Guangxi,Guangdong and Taiwan.

>Their whole fake identity is based on myths and exaggerations.
Which country's isnt?

See That happened in the Warlord Period. The only country that managed to stop becoming included was Mongolia due to Romanov/Soviet fuckery, but still most Mongs live in China.

they did though

was that seriously your best attempt at spelling voilà?

Because the way India was governed was different from how the Middle East was governed. The Raj was centralized while the Middle East was more decentralized. If India had gotten independence earlier, maybe they would have broken up like the Middle East, and had the Middle East stayed under British rule a while longer (and there wasn't any competing power like the French) maybe it'd gain independence more consolidated.

Pakistan broke away however because in that centralized government that had formed around British rule there was a large minority of Muslim political elites all gathered together. Once East and West Pakistan formed however their elites were separated, one side steadily dominating the other, and eventually causing a split.

Real answer, it wasn't up to them in either case.

In the Middle East, they had formed Kuwait a while ago, so it remained separate from Iraq, while France grabbed Syria/Lebanon.

In India/Pakistan, they owned the whole thing but were made to leave.

This happens plenty. In East Africa, the British promised to hand over NW Kenya to Somalia since it was populated by Somalis, but Kenya got independent and never handed it over.

Pakistan exists to be the "Muslim part of India". Had India fractured along ethnic/linquistic lines, the impetus to hold Pakistan together wouldn't have been there and it may have split too, although who knows.

I think that India had been a colony for so long that there was enough anti-British unity to hold together, and also the country is too big and diverse for any one group to totally dominate, so no one particular major group felt left out.