Kurdistan and Khalistan?

[ronki23]

Why were these two countries not established?

Kurdistan

Kurds are a sizeable minority in Iran,Iraq, Syria and Turkey and have their own language and culture

Post WWII Britain had control of Iraq so there was plenty of time to give them independence before they suffered under Saddam

Khalistan

Before the British there used to be a Sikh Empire in India

Sikhs say Mahatma Gandhi promised them an independent country just like the Muslims were given Pakistan but Nehru backtracked on the agreement

The argument is that Sikhs were a minority in Punjab. But if there were more Muslims than Hindus in Punjab doesn't that mean Hindus were too a minority? The populations would be exchanged whether it be 2 countries or 3 anyway

Khalistan would be landlocked. But Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Rhodesia and Nepal are lanlocked too.

 

[Augustus]

Kurdistan

Kurds are a sizeable minority in Iran,Iraq, Syria and Turkey and have their own language and culture

Post WWII Britain had control of Iraq so there was plenty of time to give them independence before they suffered under Saddam

It was already independent by WWII and had been self-governing since just after WW1

In the 1920s Britain was administering parts of the former Ottoman Empire, and wanted to quickly get some of them off their hands as they were too expensive to run but also keep them as friendly to British interests as possible.

A British civil servant (and Arabist), Gertrude Bell, Iraq created with a specific purpose in mind which was to prevent it turning into a Shia theocracy.

A Sunni Hashemite monarchy was put in charge, and having the northern oilfields in a Kurdish part of Iraq rather than part of an independent Kurdish state gave Britain the best chance to maintain its control over them.

 

[ronki23]

It was already independent by WWII and had been self-governing since just after WW1

In the 1920s Britain was administering parts of the former Ottoman Empire, and wanted to quickly get some of them off their hands as they were too expensive to run but also keep them as friendly to British interests as possible.

A British civil servant (and Arabist), Gertrude Bell, Iraq created with a specific purpose in mind which was to prevent it turning into a Shia theocracy.

A Sunni Hashemite monarchy was put in charge, and having the northern oilfields in a Kurdish part of Iraq rather than part of an independent Kurdish state gave Britain the best chance to maintain its control over them.

Why would they prefer having a Sunni monarchy to a Shia one? The Shah of Iran was a Shia.

And what about Kurds in Syria, Turkey and Iran? Could they not have an independent state?

 

[Augustus]

Why would they prefer having a Sunni monarchy to a Shia one?

To prevent it from turning into a Shia theocracy. Gertrude Bell was very hostile to such a form of government.

And what about Kurds in Syria, Turkey and Iran? Could they not have an independent state?

It wasn't in the interests of those who had the power to make such a thing happen.

 

[ronki23]

To prevent it from turning into a Shia theocracy. Gertrude Bell was very hostile to such a form of government.



It wasn't in the interests of those who had the power to make such a thing happen.

Why would it matter whether it be a Shia monarchy or Shia theocracy? If it was the latter maybe Iraq and Iran would have better relations after the Iranian revolution as Khomeini and the Iraqi theocracy would get along? What about a Shia monarchy?