Britain and India are both great powers, what was the purpose of Britain in dividing and ruling Indi

The question is simple, and you will find it if you take a closer look at the geographical history of England.

Britain is an island country, and if it wants to dominate the world or have a sense of existence in the world, Britain must go to the mainland to toss, so this is the continental balance of power policy, Britain does not want any continental country to be strong, as long as it is strong, Britain will go back to divide and conquer, and gradually disintegrate.

In the case of Brexit, for example, Brexit is about pursuing this strategy and achieving continental equilibrium.

The purpose of stirring up conflict between Hindus and Muslims was to prevent the emergence of a global power in the Indian Ocean, divide and rule, and put less pressure on Britain in the last days.

I don't want a unified big country, I hope that the smaller the better.

Britain and India used to be a relationship between colonizers and colonized, and after the independence of India and Pakistan, India became the Commonwealth.

Member. Since the early 17th century, Britain has carried out a series of colonization activities against India. By the late 19th century, the British directly ruled two-thirds of India's territory, the British king.

He also served as Emperor of India. British rule over India was basically formed, and this situation lasted until the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947.

World war ii. After the end, British power declined dramatically, and its colonial rule in India was no longer maintainable. In 1946 there was a Royal Indian Navy uprising.

In 1947, Britain proposed the Mountbatten Plan. Under the programme, the Dominions of Pakistan and India were established on 14 and 15 August 1947 respectively, ending British rule in India.

On 15 August of the same year, the Dominion of India was established. On January 26, 1950, the Republic was proclaimed and became a member of the British Commonwealth.

If you hurt someone, you can help them.

Partition of India and Pakistan.

I don't want a unified big country, I hope that the smaller the better.

Although C chose C, this is not an accurate answer, because when India and Pakistan were divided, it was already the time when the colonial system collapsed, and India and Pakistan became independent one after another.

In fact, the partition of India and Pakistan was the result of British colonial rule, during the colonial rule, in order to safeguard its own interests and prevent the Indians from being too united, the British deliberately stirred up the relationship between Hindus and Muslims, instead of resolving the differences, so that the hatred became bigger and bigger, and there were many religious conflicts, and the number of dead and wounded was large (so serious that Gandhi was injured and could not be stopped), and in the end, Britain had to agree to the partition of India and Pakistan.

The partition of India and Pakistan led to the conflict between India and Pakistan, but this was not the fundamental purpose of the British.

Profit for Britain and unity for India.

When a country suffers from Stockholm syndrome, how can it be rescued?

Britain turned India into a colony, what was the fate of the last emperor of India? Here's the truth.

Benefits: Promoting modernization.

Disadvantage: Sovereignty is lost, economic, political, cultural control is carried out by the British.

Britain turned India into a colony, what was the fate of the last emperor of India? Here's the truth.

It can be analyzed from the level of politics, economy, and ideology according to positive and negative influences

Politically: On the one hand, it disintegrated India, and the price of India's independence in 1947 was the partition of India and Pakistan, which directly led to the long-term confrontation and war after the separation of the two countries, which brought heavy pressure to India's economic development and made India diplomatically subject to Western intervention and influence; The second is to bring to India the so-called Western-style democratic institutions (parliamentary democracy), which makes India the largest democracy in the world (that is, of course, in terms of total population).

Economically: It destroyed India's traditional economy, plundered India's wealth (the jewel in the crown of the British Queen came from India), caused India's poverty and backwardness, but also brought some technology and infrastructure to India, making India unconsciously move towards modern times. India became one of the main riches of the British, providing a vast market and a source of raw materials for the development of the British capitalist economy.

Ideologically: India established a capitalist system after independence; Influenced by Britain's aggressive and expansionist ideology, India has also expanded externally, bullying neighboring countries in a vain attempt to establish an Indian Ocean system with India as the center.

Others, in terms of technology and culture, of course, will also have varying degrees of influence. On the whole, while invading and enslaving India, Britain unconsciously acted as a guide for India to move towards modern times.

As staunch Marxists, we need only recognize that the Indian nation is oppressed. Everything else is historically limited.

When a country suffers from Stockholm syndrome, how can it be rescued?