3 ms·

I think the argument is that for the previous 100 years, Imperial Britain had deliberately encouraged violent divisions between the Hindu and Muslim populations

I think the argument is that for the previous 100 years, Imperial Britain had deliberately encouraged violent divisions between the Hindu and Muslim populations as a means of exerting external control, again this is called a 'divide and conquer' policy. Your argument is sort of like saying, just because the British gave them the dynamite, they're not responsible for lighting the fuse.

nine_k 3y ago
Indeed, safe handling of dynamite involves not lighting the fuze deliberately. What happened after the abolition of British Raj was in part a consequence of it, but I would not deny agency of the participants of the warfare that ensued.