Did you watch the episode about the Indian elections by Hasan Minaj on Netflix’s Patriot Act last week? What did you think?

I’m not going to lie, I cringed when Hasan first announced he was going to do this episode. He’s born in the US, and while he’s a cultured Desi, I always worry that someone who hasn’t grown up with all of the nuances will oversimplify what is happening in India, which is why I’m so happy to say that this episode was clearly well researched. I was waiting for him to give a one-sided tunnel vision viewpoint, but I’m pleased to say, he never did! He unpacked the issues surrounding the elections and described both Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi with an impartial sense of humor while providing a global context, which I can only imagine is extremely difficult to do given the time constraint. Hasan hit the nail on the head though when he said “Na dude, the British won.” My only critique of the episode is that I wish he unpacked that brilliant statement a little more.

That little dose of brilliance is why I’m writing this post today. The origins of so many of the world’s problems today can be traced back to colonization. Whether we’re talking about the creation of Israel after colonization of Palestine or dividing territory to create India and Pakistan, we begin to see the ramifications of colonization quite clearly. India gained it’s independence from the British in 1947, but we’ve carried that Master mentality originally imposed upon us well into the new century. The British stole India’s wealth certainly, but it also took something that still harms us to this day, our civility. Identity politics was essentially a mandate throughout the British Raj. They were known for socially engineering division within a country and fostering religious warfare within the society to retain power, so it should come as no surprise that the British favored the Partition. Divide and conquer is how they accrued all of their power.

The British envisioned Pakistan as a strategic vantage point against the Russians. It is easier to dominate over divided factions than a united adversary. All leaders involved during the Independence and the bloody Partition that followed handled the whole situation terribly. The incoming prime minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, was not the strong leader that India needed to bridge the divisions. The first governor-general of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, didn’t want the Muslims of India to be a minority, so he curried favor with the British and pushed for the partition to create a homeland for Muslims. Interestingly, he actually wanted a secular nation initially. The worst of all, however, was Lord Mountbatten, a naval officer rightly nicknamed the “master of disaster.” He was told by the British prime minister, Clement Attlee, in March 1947 to negotiate an exit deal with Indian leaders by October; if he could not, Britain would leave India with no deal by June 1948. Brexit has been creating problems long before it was a trending hashtag.

I’m assuming you know the background regarding the disputed territory of Kashmir, because I want to ask you to imagine if history had played out a little differently. What if Sardar Patel, the first Home Minister, was able to ensure Pakistan remained a part of the Republic like he did with Hyderabad. Hyderabad wanted to establish itself as an independent Islamic nation like Pakistan, but Sardar Patel stood his ground and persuaded them to join the Republic after an armed confrontation. The party that wanted to establish a Muslim Nation State is still a part of the makeup of the Indian democratic system today.

Imagine if the colossal rift between Jinnah and Gandhi never occurred, and instead they were able to negotiate a solution that was inclusive. Imagine if we had a leader that was able to transcend identity politics. This would spare the billions of rupees that both countries spend on guarding borders on one of the most hostile terrains. When I was growing up as a Hindu girl in India, I hated Pakistan and firmly believed Kashmir belonged to India. Honestly, it wasn’t until we moved to the U.S. and I developed meaningful relationships with my Pakistani friends that I was able to think critically about why I held those views. How could I hate an entire country without personally knowing anyone from there? My Pakistani American friends had a very similar upbringing to mine, I understood Urdu for the most part since it’s so similar to Hindi, they cooked with the same spices, and I felt naturally inclined to call the parents of those friends “Uncle” and “Auntie.”

In Ahmedabad, it seemed like everyone we knew had a story about someone they knew who had been wronged by a Muslim person. I know many stories about incidents that led to the reinforcement of stereotypes and painting of communities with a broad brush. I was surrounded by adults who did not see any nuance regarding Kashmir, so I didn’t see any grey area either. If you ask my mom today, she’ll tell you that she feels a sense of kinship running into a Pakistani person in the U.S. because the identities (religion) that prevented her from reaching out before, take a back seat to the challenges we collectively face in the U.S.

There are nearly insurmountable obstacles that stand in the way and I know the idea of reunification seems far-fetched, but perhaps we can develop another type agreement for peace instead. I am talking about the reunification of our minds more so than actual border lines. Until we see that our divisions were engineered and that our similarities far outweigh our differences, we’ll continue to dehumanize one another and waste resources on fueling the flame of hatred that was fanned by the British. This fire continues to be maintained by our corrupt governments to consolidate their own power, and until we find a real resolution to overcome our instincts to retreat into our own corner, we’ll continue to fulfill the objectives of the colonizers. Division is what they sought, so let’s stop giving it to them and chart our own path to peace.