It was the muslim league that insisted on partition in the first place because they didn’t want to live under an India dominated by Hindus. Now, over 60 years later neither side wishes to reunify and the same borders are still in place. Partition didn’t magically solve problems but it gave each side their own independent nation, and I think its fair to call it a qualified success.
Poor wording. I didn’t mean they left the borders of Iraq, I meant they had set up their own autonomous region within Iraq not long after the end of the First Gulf War. Once we invaded in 2003, we didn’t need to go into that area to do much of anything-- they just kept doing what they had been doing, only more so.
Yes that is what the leadership claimed. Many others (including ordinary Muslims) rather have an opinion that some leadership were self-aggrandizing… where the rela problem is they did not wan to play any second fiddle.
I would hate to see failure.
However things end up, can we (the US) just stay out of the fray for once?
The power vacuum left in the wake of Saddam’s toppling has led us to an Iraq that is now clearly partitioning into 3 sections.
America should never have invaded Iraq under the deceitful pretense of nuclear imminence, but the country is already doing what should have been done after Saddam was deposed.
Split it into three, and let these people have their autonomy. It’s happening whether we want it to or not.
Err, sorry what? Nukes were going to be in the region, Partition or no Partition or British remaining in charge. The regional dynamics would have demanded them. United India would have faced the Chinese nuclear threat that the Republic of India did and also the Soviet threat that the Pakistani Federation did.
Both countries had nukes for decades and a nice gentlemanly agreement not to bring that out; until Vajpaiyee and his ilk took over in 1998.
[QUOTE=Ramira]
Yes that is what the leadership claimed. Many others (including ordinary Muslims) rather have an opinion that some leadership were self-aggrandizing… where the rela problem is they did not wan to play any second fiddle
[/QUOTE]
The Sub-Continent is not your forte. In 1945-46 elections, (General and Provincial) the Muslim League went in with an election manifesto of Independence based upon Partition. They won pretty much the entire muslim vote and formed governments in muslim majority provinces. They had a mandate to negotiate Partition and they did. Even then, they were still willing to accept autonomy short of independence and they did in spring of 1946. It was the supposedly “Nationa” Congress which rejected that and made Partition inevitable.
I think that Partition was a success. We would have suffered 45 years of Congress mandated socialism if we had remained part of India, We would have been a periphery and despised part of India… and prime place for Modi and RSS attacks, today.
As it is, you cannot really compare the Indian Partition with the Iraq case, since the Partition was on Geographic, Pakistan is basically the Indus and its surrounding regions and a functioning state was always in place.
Since the last one, you mean. Which is like that line about things always being in the last spot where you search for them.
It’s not that simple, because the populations are scattered. There are Sunnis in the Shi’ite and Kurdish areas, and Shi’ites in the Sunni areas, etc. That could introduce new conflicts, such as groups that didn’t get lumped in with their preferred area fighting over it. Look at the partition of India between Muslim and Hindu areas for an example - they’ve had several wars and still have territory in dispute.
Then there’s the fact that there’s a huge population of Kurds inside NATO member Turkey, and they might want to join the new Kurdistan too. Turkey would not like that at all.
Sorry if this answer repeats what has already been covered in this thread.
I agree, now that I have gone back and read his reply #5 to this thread.
Thank you for the correction.
I had heard of the Ghassanids but did not know they were Arab. The Lakhmids I had not heard of.
I should have done a fact check on myself before posting a fact check result on another writer.
Thank you for the information.
This is going way back, but wasn’t Iraq a unified country centered in the area that is now Iraq during Babylonian times? This obviously would not impact the current situation, but in the ancient past it was unified for a short time.
It might not have been considered because unfortunately partitions don’t always work well (see Ireland, Palestine, and India for examples) and because drawing the borders of these new countries might have been extremely hard and troublesome for the United States. Also, partitioning Iraq might have raised some questions in regards to international law; after all, who exactly gave the United States the authority to partition Iraq?
Partition was a gift to Indian Muslims, not a blow against them. Nehru and Gandhi were overwhelmingly opposed to partition (though for different reasons). Partition was really not that bad an idea. Where it lacked was in the execution; the British should have partitioned the country before leaving, rather than afterwards. As a result, there was no outside force to prevent the massive ethnic cleansing, and the nascent governments of India and Pakistan were either unable or uninterested in preventing it.
Most of my stepfather’s family and part of my own were “cleansed,” so I hardly say this lightly.
I completely agree with everything that you wrote here. 
Also, though, Kashmir should have probably been partitioned based on religious lines (Muslim = Pakistan, Hindu or Buddhist = India) rather than given to India and then partitioned in its current way as a result of Indo-Pakistani warfare.
Only relatively small areas were partitioned by fiat in the manner you appear to suggest. Jammu and Kashmir, likely the other princely states, was allowed to choose its own fate. The Maharaja was waffling so the government-in-waiting in Pakistan incited a revolt which pushed Kashmir firmly into Indian “protection.”
That was a mistake on Britain’s part, though. 
Indeed, Britain should have overruled the Maharja of Kashmir and divided Kashmir based on its own whims. After all, it’s not like the Maharja of Kashmir could have stopped the British from determining Kashmir’s fate by themselves.
Also, in regards to Nehru, didn’t Nehru eventually accept partition for pragmatic purposes (as in, to be able to have the Indian National Congress rule over most of India without any problems than to have the Indian National Congress rule over all of India and be frequently stymied by Muslim nationalists)?
As someone who was actually there at the time, it was considered. It was considered A LOT. The problem is that, as others have already pointed out, the idea of dividing up territory and oil rights was rather problematic and would have resulted in much resentment and civil war no matter how you sliced it up.
Regardless, it is not correct to say that the idea was never considered. It was considered and rejected.
That assumes Iraq was always bordered as it has been the last 100 years. It’s current border was drawn by the League of Nations.
And there’s more than the internal states in play. Iran wants it’s finger in the pie and Turkey isn’t going to like an independent kurdish State. They would fear a united Kurdistan.
We have no business splitting Iraq, only it’s people can do that and it should be done by referendum. Same with Syria. Trust me, no matter what happens there will be Syria, not some Alawite, Sunni, Shite or Kurdish state.