Divide and Misrule

One of the old school of the British colonial service, a man with the irresistible name of Sir Penderel Moon, wrote a book about the end of empire and titled it Divide and Quit. At whose expense was this extremely dry joke? Look around the global scene today, and you will find the landscape pitted with the shards of that very policy. In Israel/Palestine and in Kashmir, and in both to an astonishing extent, the contours of the fighting are what they were when the Union Jack was hauled down in 1947. In Northern Ireland, despite the lapse of a much longer period of time, the battle lines follow the original map of postcolonial amputation and the problem--how to confect a plausible swath of Ireland with the minimum number of Catholics and the maximum number of Protestants and yet call it British--is still with us. The British decision to carve off Kuwait from the soil of Iraq had obvious repercussions. So does the British separation of the Malvinas/Falklands archipelago from mainland Argentina. Neither NATO nor the European Union has been able to exert sufficient unifying power to undo the consequences of British divide-and-rule in Cyprus, which is another of those apparently peripheral problems that threaten to detonate or implode at any moment.

It was Sir Anthony Eden who proposed to President Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles the division of Vietnam into two states in 1954. Lord Carrington, the British foreign secretary, hoping thereby to preserve a white cantonment, floated the idea of partitioning South Africa just before Nelson Mandela was released from prison. It was he and his successor, Lord Owen, who proposed the calamitous partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the confirmation of ethnic cleansing. It goes on, in other words. And so far, almost every one of these partitions has led either to another partition or to another war or both. I spent some part of last fall on the frontiers of Afghanistan and Kashmir, and was amazed all over again by how much damage my forefathers did by their hasty and opportunistic retreat. One has to bear in mind that partition involves a series of subpartitions and minor mutilations. Thus, in order to create "two" states out of what had been British-ruled India, the last-ditch colonialists had also to partition the ancient states of Punjab and Sind in the west, and Bengal and Assam in the east. (This, incidentally, is why one should always say "Northern Ireland" rather than "Ulster." Ulster is a nine-county province of Ireland. Only six of these counties had a sufficient loyalist population to be hived off in 1921, so Ulster, as well as Ireland, had to be dismembered.)

Pakistan, in its turn, is the demonstration case of a failed partition. Between 1947 and 1971, its territory included the eastern part of Bengal, which was separated from the rest of the country by the distance of the whole subcontinent. This "East Wing-West Wing" state was doomed from its inception. The fact that the two wings had the Muslim religion in common was not enough to outweigh the fact of Bengali resentment at the repression of their language and culture. That is why "East Pakistan" is now Bangladesh, having undergone a terrifying genocidal war, prosecuted by its Islamic co-religionists.

Subscriber Login

User Name

Password

Subscribe Now!

The only way to read this article and the full contents of each week's issue of The Nation online is by subscribing to the magazine. Subscribe now and read this article -- and every article published since for the past five years -- right now.

There's no obligation -- try The Nation for four weeks free.

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 68 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.
• Reprint this article. Click here for rights and information.