How British Plots and Global Politics Created Pakistan, Split India

Poonam Sharma
In the complex passageways of South Asian history, the creation of Pakistan in 1947 is usually represented as an impromptu movement based on religious identity. But scratch the surface and you discover a different tale — one of long-term colonial strategy, outside manipulations, and deliberate constitutional engineering. The seeds of this partition were not planted in Karachi or Delhi but in London’s clubs, courts, and classrooms.

The Real Genesis: 1935 or 1947?
Contrary to common perception, the concept of a Muslim separate state did not start in 1947 or even with the 1940 Lahore Resolution of the Muslim League. It goes back to the Government of India Act, 1935 — a British colonial master plan that legislated division on a quasijuridical basis through tactical provincial reorganization. But ideological genesis goes way back. In 1919, after World War I, Britain began restructuring its colonies to retain indirect control. They established councils and legal constructs, like the Round Table Conferences, where Indian representation was skewed and manipulated.

It was during this period that a geographical and ideological construct — later named Pakistan — was being quietly drawn up in elite British circles. The term itself, in contradiction to the public perception, was not coined by Indians or Muslims but was originally developed in the West. It was a construct not only of geography but of influence — to design a geopolitical wedge in South Asia that would prevent the region from ever emerging as an unbroken power axis.

The Legal and Judicial Disconnect
India’s colonial legal system was never intended to dispense justice in the sense of Dharma. Traditional Indian jurisprudence was based on Dharma — a synthesis of truth, ethics, and order in the universe — whereas British law was based on bland statutes and confrontational trials. Contextual truth or spiritual morality was not possible. Justice became the outcome of written laws and colonial expediency, rather than cultural or civilizational values.

Even now, there are residues of that British framework. Our judiciary tends to define “justice” not as equity but as juridical propriety in terms of British common law. That disjunction is not coincidental — it was designed to stop India from reinstating its Dharmic systems and philosophies of administration.

Pakistan: A Tool for Global Strategic Control
Pakistan’s establishment wasn’t merely for Indian Muslims. It was about developing a permanent fault line in the Indian subcontinent. The British strategy was straightforward: split India so that there could never be an indigenous government governing Asia geopolitically in the future. The newly formed Pakistan would be used as a checkpost — subsequently to be linked with Western and Islamic powers — keeping India under constant strategic constraint.

Most Indian Muslims at the time were not even supportive of this partitioning. They had a sense of betrayal at the leadership that bargained away from the people, in colonial metropolises such as London. The Pakistani identity was not shaped in Lahore or Rawalpindi — it was crafted in drawing rooms of British intellectuals, then rammed down the throat of the subcontinent.

600 Princely States and a Controlled Exit
Another less talked-about fact is British management of more than 600 princely states. As they departed, they left deliberately in disarray. These states were instructed to opt between India and Pakistan — a recipe for breakup. Smooth transition was not the object but maximum fragmentation, to make future administration complicated and weak. Hyderabad, Junagadh, and Kashmir were flashpoints not by accident but by design.

The British never forgave India’s intellectual and spiritual hegemony — its Vedas, its civilizational continuity, and its economic power. In 1717, India controlled 27% of world trade. When the British departed, it was less than 2%. That wasn’t development — it was institutionalised plunder. Today, the U.S. has 22% of world GDP — a share once held by India in its greatest prosperity.

Why the West Still Fears a United India
India is not respected for its economy or military. India is respected due to its civilizational potential. The apprehension stems from what India signifies — Sanatan Dharma, pluralistic knowledge, and a spiritual universe that comes before any Abrahamic world. Hence, any Indian revival is greeted with disbelief by world powers. From commerce policies to technological alignments, there’s always a ripple of opposition when India proclaims self-reliance.

From the world of technology to defense exports, India is now reshaping world markets in its image. This encompasses Rupee-denominated trade agreements and insisting on local production. The West, a long-time supplier, now discovers India as a rival. This is not economic rivalry alone — it is symbolic of a wider rebalancing of civilizational narratives.

Internal Weaknesses and Political Exploitation
But India’s march is not trouble-free. Divisions within, political opportunism, and remaining colonial institutions continue to paralyze decision-making. At times, courts serve not as strongholds of Dharma but as chambers of colonial constructs. Lawyers plead that laws meant to repress, not liberate. Even dissent — the sine qua non of democracy — is subverted through colonial-era sedition laws and bureaucratic stasis.

Congress, specifically, is usually blamed by its critics for consorting with such residual legacies — advancing concepts which maintain colonial bifurcations and worldwide dependencies. Whether it is the issue of secularism, education, or international policy, the charge is that Congress politics has regularly obstructed India’s resurgence as a civilization for immediate political benefits.

Toward a Civilizational Reawakening
The notion of Pakistan was never merely about Muslims. It was about fracturing India. A civilizational India that had dominated in trade, philosophy, and science was reduced to its knees by engineered fragmentation and systemic oppression.

But today, there is a quiet awakening. From economic strategies that circumvent the dollar to young people reconnecting to their past, India is slowly taking back its place — not as an imitation of the West but as a leader of the Global South and a voice of Dharma.

The test now is not from outside — it is within. Will India decide to repair the fractures, re-write its juridical and educational systems, and finally eliminate the colonial scaffolding? Or remain a democratic country operating within non-democratic, foreign-designed institutions?

History has provided India with another opportunity. It should not let it slip.