Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rlgvax!raghu
From: raghu@rlgvax.UUCP (Raghu Raghunathan)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: 3rd world savages
Message-ID: <245@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 17-Nov-84 16:53:43 EST
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.245
Posted: Sat Nov 17 16:53:43 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Nov-84 22:39:37 EST
References: <566@asgb.UUCP> <234@rlgvax.UUCP> <12@mit-athena.ARPA> <240@rlgvax.UUCP> <mit-herm.2231> <120@decvax.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 24

> On the contrary, the British kept the "natives" at each others throats.
> 
> The strategy of "divided they fall" was a major vehicle for Britain retaining
> control over India.

	The major policy of the British Rule in India was "Divide and Rule",
	a dictum well known to any student of Indian (or British?) history.
	They tried hard to foster suspicion and distrust among Indians in
	different parts of the country and thus keep them separate. There
	are many instances where the British would befriend a small Indian
	kingdom and encourage it to attack its neighbouring kingdom. A bitter
	war would follow. And at the end of it, when both the kingdoms were
	exhausted and spent, the British would move in and take them both
	over. (A policy not unlike the one the CIA and the KGB are following
	now with small third world nations)

	The British were probably afraid (and rightly so) that if Indians were
	allowed to join forces against them, they wouldn't have a ghost of
	a chance.

	Whether this is envisioned as "keeping natives at each others throats"
	or "keeping natives away from each others throats" is a moot point.
	
								- raghu