1

Divide and Rule: Way of Politics in our Fissured Land

By Swasti Mishra
swastimishra@gmail.com

We Indians live in a myth, a myth that the British came to our land, divided it on
the basis of caste and religion, ruled it for more than two centuries and left, taking away
with them shadows of their imperial legacy. We also believe that on the eve of
Independence (15 August, 1947) we inherited a purified version of the politics, devoid of
all ills from the British Raj, and that the failures that we see today in Indian politics are
standalone, lacking any inspiration from the Raj.
We need to ask ourselves, “Today in the twenty-first century, are we really free of
imperial legacy? Is the current Indian politics more true and sympathetic to its own
people than the British Raj?”
The answer is, no. We live under disillusion, specifically created by the political
leaders of India and the world to mask their unjustified means of achieving their strategic
interests and to avoid any unified resistance massing against them.
After 63 years of India's independence, it is important to analyze the historical
aspects of divide-and-rule policy within the Indian subcontinent and how it has been
extended to India’s current politics and the geopolitics of South Asia.

Divide and Rule in Religion

“...there dwell in India seventy millions of Moslems... While the Hindu elaborates
his argument, the Moslem sharpens his sword. Between these two races and
creeds...there is no intermarriage…. If you took the antagonisms of France and
Germany, and the antagonisms of Catholics and Protestants, and compounded them and
multiplied them ten-fold, you would not equal the division which separates these two
races….” Winston Churchill (Prime Minister of UK, 1940-45, 1951-55), March 18, 1931,
London.

Exploitation and expansion of existing religious divides by the British to rule

India is well known. But what is not well known is that these divides were eventually
deepened by careless and unmindful decisions of the Indian National Congress, leader of
the Indian independence movement.
After the first united uprising of 1857 against the British, divide and rule became
the foundation of future governance, which avoided further unified resistance. Initially
the British policies were pro-Hindu, as most areas were under Muslim rule. The Indian
National Congress (INC) was created in 1885, which fielded pro-British, moderate Hindu
elites. But by late 19th century growing nationalist sentiments among the Hindus led the
British to switch their favoritism towards the Muslims. Muslim loyalty was rewarded by -
Bengal partition on communal lines (1905), creation of Muslim League representing
Muslim elite (1906), Morley-Minto Reform (1909) which provided separate electorate
for the Muslims and extra seats in Provisional Council compared to population.
Overriding concerns for communal unity and the desire to bolster the nationalist
movement, led the INC to sign ‘The Lucknow Pact’ in 1915 with the Muslim league. The
 2

pact was like a self-created fissure by Indians, as it for the first time gave acceptance to
communal representation and separate electorates. Similarly, INC support was extended
to the Khilafat Movement (1919-1924) which was launched to demand British protection
of the Ottoman Empire. This further alienated the Indian Muslims from the cause of
Indian nationalism. Events like this encouraged separatism that eventually divided India
into two states as India and Pakistan, on the basis of religion
After independence, India chose to remain secular, but as it turned out, dangerous
ways of playing communal politics were continued for generations by the INC, which
enjoyed the exclusive fortune of ruling India for a half century. Religion was heavily
engaged with the politics to gain votes in elections. “...the Congress party came to favor
the conservative sections of the Muslim community. Before elections, Congress bosses
asked heads of mosques to issue fatwas to their flock to vote for the party; after elections,
the party increased government grants to religious schools and colleges…” Ramchandra
Guha said in an article in the Wall Street Journal (December 6-7, 2008) written in the
wake of terrorist attacks in Mumbai. He added that Congress patronage was a “blow to
Muslim Liberalism” and that it “consolidated the claims to leadership of priests and
theologians.”
Such failures of the INC resulted in the rise of hard-line Hindu parties. Youth was
pushed into fundamentalist groups resulting in increased terror stories and the possible
peaceful coexistence of Indian Diasporas becoming jeopardized.
Similarly, after World War II, manipulative policies of division were continued in
the geopolitical arena of South Asia.
The century saw the British and the Russian Empires locked in ‘The Great Game’
over domination of central Asia. The buffer state of Afghanistan protected “The Jewel in
the Crown” - the India of British Raj - against the advance of the Russian Empire.
Discovery of oil in the Middle East increased India’s importance due to its proximity to
the Persian Gulf.
The independence of India posed challenges to the British sphere of influence,
strategic interests and buffer states in Asia. Sir Olaf Caroe, a British administrator in
India (1939-45) and strategic thinker wrote extensively on strategies to extend imperial
policies in Asia especially to protect access to huge oil and natural gas reserves in the
Middle East and Central Asia.
“For a variety reasons [Olaf Caroe] facilitated, then welcomed the partition of
India into successor states, India and Pakistan....His new approach substituted Pakistan
for Imperial India.” write Lloyd Rudolph and Susanne Rudolph, Emeritus Professor of
the University of Chicago's Department of Political Science in their article “US Foreign
Policy for South Asia” in the Economic and Political Weekly. They further say, “The
great game in Asia was redefined: The British game with Russia in (central, west and
south) Asia was now to be played with substitutes, America and Pakistan, as a weary and
weakened Britain benched itself and Nehru’s India fouled out.” They also support the fact
that weapon transfer to Pakistan by the US “had the effect of destabilizing the region.”
They mention that US’s “tilting towards Pakistan denied India the possibility of
becoming the regional hegemon.” Recent articles by Yochi J. Dreazen in the Wall Street
Journal reported weapon transfer in multibillion dollar deals by the US to India and
Pakistan. It is an evident calculation that animus between India and Pakistan could best
serve US’s interests.
 3

Also, a strong united India is not desired by western powers. Praker

Bandimutt supports this in his paper “India and Geopolitics - Part II” says, “...have India
weakened and possibly broken in long term the west has tacitly supported an aggressive
Kashmir policy of Pakistan. This make sure that the non-Muslim political center in the
Indian ocean/subcontinent is weak and does not get recognition.” He adds, “...this
reduces the number of players in Asia and they could manipulate smaller nations.”

Divide and Rule in Caste

"Birth is not the cause, my friend; it is virtues which are the cause of
auspiciousness. Even a chandala (lower caste) observing the vow is considered a
Brahman by the gods.” Lord Krishna, The Bhagawad Gita
.
The caste system is one of the most misunderstood aspects of Hinduism. It is
unquestionably condemned and we Indians are made to believe that its ills are its only
truth. Undoubtedly the last few centuries have seen some condemnable practices in this
system. But before we accept the propaganda around it, it is worth exploring the
historical developments that led to the present hype, especially in politics.
The caste system we know today is based on birth as against profession or duty,
which decided caste for thousands of years. The hierarchy of this system is - 1) Brahmin
(priest/intellectuals), 2) Kshatriya (warriors/rulers), 3) Vaishya (business class), 4)
Shudra (workers/laborers). Religious texts offer no evidence for birth based caste system.
Considerable numbers of Hindu texts were translated by the British, not just for
understanding of the culture they wanted to dominate but also to utilize the knowledge
for their future governance. It is alleged that Sir William Jones, an English orientalist and
judge in Calcutta (now Kolkata), who first translated Manusmriti (law book of Hindus) in
1794, agreed that "it is accommodated to the improvements of a commercial age".
The disfigured caste system of last few centuries provided the British an
opportunity to divide the Hindus, which was the most populous section of the society.
This offered advantages:
The upper caste was the most educated class comprising intellectuals and
thinkers. They held important positions such as advisors to the princely states. Also,
intellectual classes are a recognized threat to imperialism. Thus, the British feared the
potential of the upper caste to lead a national movement. Sensing this, INC was created in
1885, under the auspices of A.O. Humes, a British civil servant, to give a handful of
educated, high caste Hindus, a platform to vent their political agenda. It also helped the
British to keep a watch on ideological undercurrents developing among these
intellectuals.
The lower caste, the largest segment of the Hindu population, was mostly
poor laborers who directly faced the consequences of the capitalistic greed of the British
Raj. By the end of the 19th century, there were more than a dozen rebellions of the lower
caste groups against the British. Britain realized that the best strategy would be to gain
the loyalty of this group, pretending to be its savior and rallying it against the atrocious
rule of the upper caste. As evident from Churchill’s speech in 1931, "To abandon India to
the rule of the Brahmins would be an act of cruel and wicked negligence. It would shame
 4

for ever those who bore its guilt." An environment of rage and envy was created against
the Brahmins.
Another advantage that cannot be overlooked was that the cause of Christian
Missionaries was better served when the lower caste population (with highest rate of
conversions) was persuaded to doubt their “distorted and atrocious” religion.
The emergence of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, one of the first highly educated lower
caste personality in politics, further helped politicization of caste. By 1919, Ambedkar
started to demand a separate electorate for depressed castes. The British agreed to his
demands after the Round Table Conference in London in 1931. Gandhi, leader of the
national movement, strictly opposed separate electorates. In 1932 he began a fast-unto-
death against it. Eventually a settlement was reached, which is known as the “Poona
Pact”, whereby Ambedkar settled for reserved seats in legislature instead.
The “Poona Pact” acted like big bang of future reservation policies. Thereafter,
reservations were used by politicians like untamed horses to win election races.
Introduced for first 10 years after independence, reservations were extended and
expanded endlessly. Caste, votes and reservations were interlinked deeply. In fact caste
weighed on even the basic functions of governance. Infosys co-founder Nandan
Nilenkani writes in his book “Imagining India”, “This means that the day-to-day security
of a particular caste of voters and their access to identity certificates and ration cards for
subsidized food and essential commodities depend on their chosen party winning at the
polls.”
After 70 years reservations had failed to produce social justice. Professor
Emeritus at Jawaharlal Nehru University and Indian historian, Bipan Chandra says in his
book, “India after Independence”, “...the politics of reservation for backward caste has
more to do with sharing the loaves and fishes of the office and the power than with a
struggle for social justice.” Most of the reserved seats in higher education institutes go
vacant because of lack of primary education, merit based promotions in government jobs
and entrance in higher education institutes is denied, well to do among the backward
caste reap the benefit of reservation instead of poor class.
Nevertheless, conditions of lower caste people have improved considerably,
owing not to reservations but, as Bipan Chandra puts it, "The more invisible process of
social and economic change, of industrialization, of agriculture growth leading to growth
of rural employment, of urbanization, have all helped."
Now the question arises, how could the population of a country with some of the
best learned professionals and scholars, allow themselves to be manipulated? For most
part it was, and is, our ignorance, lack of knowledge as well as lack of interest in
historical study and social science, politicization of curriculum textbooks, absence of
middle, upper and educated classes from voting.
Ultimately the onus lies with we, the youth of our nation, to decide, whether we
want to challenge the artificially expanded divides in our society and regions or succumb
to them and become muted spectators of India’s breakdown.