David Cameron, a man with at least as little principle and grasp of reality as Blair, has chosen to apologise for the Partition of India and its still unsettled consequences. There is really no reason for this, nor does it actually show any understanding of the issue. While the bungled partition of Bengal, one of Britain’s least successful policies on the subcontinent, did have some implications the British were not responsible for the degree to which things would spiral out of control. Indian Muslims, having tasted political power for the first time since the fall of the Mughal Empire, did not wish to cede power back to the long-dominant Hindus. Nor was it Britain’s fault that Kashmir was made part of India. One of the quirks of the Raj was the number of princely states which remained, some of them with rulers not of the same religious background as the majority of his subjects. It just happened to be that the ruler of Kashmir was a Hindu in a Muslim-majority area. That he chose to go with India rather than Pakistan is not the fault of the British. If anything, the goading of Nehru, a Kashmiri himself, had more to do with it. Nor could the largest share of the blame for the poorly-drawn partition of the Punjab be blamed solely on the British. Both Mountbatten and Nehru feared the same thing — a full-scale civil war breaking out, once long fomenting along religious lines, especially at the prodding of Jinnah who was determined to have his Pakistan. Cameron cannot accept the blame on behalf of the United Kingdom for something which was ultimately the fault of the Indians and the Pakistanis themselves, even if that is something that Pakistanis and Indians might want to hear.
Boadicea's Chariot 
Apologising for historical ‘failings’ seems to me to be self-serving and pointless. It was hardly news to the local people that the UK used to be in charge. How does he expect them to react to the apology? With gratitude,respect alacrity or what?
The two countries involved have had plenty of time to settle their differences, if that is what they really want. I suspect they don’t.
Janus: I am inclined to agree with you. While Pakistan does seem to be the bigger of the two aggressors, most of the tension now existing has resulted from post-1947 policies on both sides of the border. Even if Kashmir were to join Pakistan I doubt there would be peace.
A commendable summary, Christopher. Don’t downplay Gandhi’s part in the whole partition mess. No time to look it up, but did he not say something on the lines of he’d rather see India in flames than under the Raj?
Another headline that got my dander up was about Britain’s involvement in the Mau Mau
Uprisingterror. Kenya was a colony, for Dog’s sake and Britain was the freakin’ Government.Self-flagellation about things which were none of one’s doing is a waste of time… and serves no useful purpose.
Is he now going to offer compensation for all the ‘evils’ that have occurred because of partition?
I used to vote Conservative, but these self-serving attempts at being all things to all men disgust me. If he is sincere he is an idiot. More likely he is a blatant opportunist.
Is it just me or does the fact that this may blow up into a huge story make it a good day to bury bad news, such as the pickle the govt have got into with the NHS?
It fits, OMG, it fits. They took lessons from Mandleson and Campbell.
Thank you for your post, Christopher. Very informative.
In any event the partition was rushed because the US forced Britain to cede independence. The Yanks, Roosevelt in particular, hated the Raj and resented Britain for its international stature which stemmed from the Empire. This antipathy was nurtured by the US government so that even the most parochial of US citizens was anti British in the lead up to and during the War. Dissolution of the Empire was a condition of US Aid to Britain.
Britain ruled India, a population of 415 million with a few thousand civil servants and military officers. Had the Indians really objected to British authority, one would think that they could have united and overthrown the government. Their failure to do so seems to indicate that they believed that they were better off as they were.
This gives me even more reason to despise Cameron. I never liked the tosser.
Bravo: Gandhi often contradicted himself. He wanted peace, but only if it was the peace he wanted. He was a shameless self-promoter and knew exactly how to make himself look like a martyr. Perhaps it is possible to find out what he actually wanted, but that would require far more study than the man is actually worth. I prefer Nehru as he was at least more consistent in his views and aims. The Mau Mau Reign of Terror, though I do not know much about it (my apologies for that — could you please recommend a good book about that?) one thing I do know is that Obama lied through his teeth when he said that his grandfather was tortured by the British. He was a Luo who was dismissed for being an incompetent drunk. That makes it all sound less romantic.
Boadicea: I doubt he will actually offer compensation. That would require substance. As well as money the UK does not have and cannot raise as more deserving countries such as Greece and Ireland need a few shekels. 😉
Sipu: During the 1919 revolt shipments of arms from the USA destined for India were caught by the British. When Eleanor Roosevelt went to a post-independence India on a UN mission she was shocked, baffled, and horrified that the Indians were not generally bitter and did not generally hold any animosity toward the British. She was convinced that the British were only slightly preferable to Germany’s national socialist empire and used similar terminology to describe it. Never mind that the US only fully involved itself with WWII when the Japanese launched an attack on Pearl Harbour, an illegally occupied kingdom that the Americans wanted to “liberate” from its (exceedingly popular, to this day) monarchy or the fact that the Philippines, another great US battle, was taken in a fraudulent war against Spain. Things like this make me ashamed of holding US citizenship.
Christopher, no need to feel ashamed about things over which you had no possible influence – although, for example, I am outraged that slavery and the slave trade was once an integral part of the British economy, I feel no personal shame. I also recognise that I am outraged because I am a product of my times and that it is invidious to try to judge the actions of people in other times by modern standards. We should judge them by the standards of their own times, as far as we can gauge them.
The Hunt for Kemathi is an excellent book, Chris, also Something of Value.
Thanks Zen – apologies Christopher for neglecting to answer that bit.
Bravo: my disgust comes from the fact that Americans convince themselves that they were always staunchly anti-imperialist while leaving out their own history, something which they do to this day. I do not feel shame about being a German citizen, despite Germany’s bloody history. Germany has fully accounted for and acknowledged its history — the great, the evil, and the unmentionable. It is also disconcerting to constantly hear Americans bang on about how the USA was/is the shining city on the hill, the guarantor of freedom around the world, the hope for poor, huddled masses yearning for a new life. The USA, a country born in lies, forged in lies, continues to delude itself in lies.
Zen: thank you for the recommendation.
Gandhi actually encouraged Churchill to negotiate a peace treaty with Hitler saying, effectively, that he was not such a bad chap really. (His Finest Years, Max Hastings).
Christopher, disgust is one thing, shame another – see my remarks on the slave trade,
Sipu: Gandhi also remained an admirer of Mussolini. As much as he was against violence, at least openly, he had a queer tolerance for fanaticism. Gandhi was not a stupid man, nor was he an uneducated one. It is hard to believe that he did not realise how dangerous and violent Hitler really was.
Bravo: my views on the United States are somewhat different than my other views, based on a long antipathy toward the country which has been moderated by some good experiences.