Former British rulers used them for economic exploitation and maintaining their dominance for as long as possible. Now Indian politicians are using it in the same way to their own advantage. The current tendency to continue to attach importance to diversity, especially of caste, community, region, the language of most political parties and wise politicians for electoral purposes, is at its peak. Instead of the feeling of brotherhood among Indians, the “feeling of `others` or `us` and `them` became more important. The preponderance of Brahmins everywhere, including the freedom movement, alarmed British leaders. As recently as 1940, no one in a position of responsibility in Britain had any serious intention of abandoning the Empire or leaving the jewel in Her Majesty`s crown to a crowd of nationalist Indians dressed in household chores. But the devastation of World War II meant that only half of the pain could survive: bled white, bombed and beaten for six years, could divide Britain, but it could no longer govern. It was all part of the divide-and-rule policy that systematically fostered political divisions between Hindus and Muslims, defined as the monolithic communities they had never been before the British. During the revolt of 1857, the British had been horrified to see Hindus and Muslims fighting side by side and under each other`s command against the foreign oppressor. They swore that it would not happen again. “Divide et impera was an ancient Roman maxim, and it will be ours,” Lord Elphinstone wrote. A systematic policy of promoting a separate consciousness between the two communities was launched with the open support of Britain.
When Indians reluctantly gained limited voting rights, the British created separate community constituencies so that Muslim voters could vote for Muslim candidates for Muslim seats. The seeds of division were sown to prevent a united nationalist movement that could overthrow the British. The creation and maintenance of Hindu-Muslim antagonism was the most important achievement of British imperial policy: the colonial project of “divide and rule” fuelled religious antagonisms to facilitate the continuation of imperial rule, reaching its tragic peak in 1947. British leaders were clear and firm about their goals and objectives. British leaders inflamed the differences that already existed in society because of the different backgrounds of their population. They established their empire in India by pitting one role against the other. The entire article is highly biased and is written by a person with a clear bias against backward castes and Muslims; but for British rule, millions of people in India will continue to be slaves to the Brahmins and their undemocratic caste system, as the British civilized caste-oriented Indians The principle of “divide to act” is cited as common in politics by Traiano Boccalini in La bilancia politica.  Period 1756 to 1858 – With the beginning of British rule over India, the ancient relationship between conqueror and conquest that had prevailed in India since the 10th century came to an end. It was the time of conquest, annexation and consolidation for the British. Initially, the East India Company of Great Britain conquered and established the British Empire in India by taking advantage of the diversity of Indians.
The government has adopted “laissez-faire” as a principle of governance. As a result, she did not devote herself to any social welfare or social service activities. The only purpose was to govern the country for its own benefit. No other successful uprising took place, as the unity that once existed had collapsed under increasing politicization. Religious tensions already existed before the arrival of the British, but the introduction of divide et impera was accompanied by a significant increase: in Uttar Pradesh alone, 91 religious unrest took place between 1923 and 1927. Other world affairs meant that British control of India would not last much longer – but the divisions they had sown would and would. Caesar used the technique in his conquest of Gaul and exacerbated divisions between the Gallic tribes by disclosing the fact that some rulers accepted help to cooperate with him. Distrust prevented alliances that could have been strong enough in manpower and training to defeat the Roman army – and Gaul fell. Divide et impera – divide and rule – has been written in the history books as an icon of military and political strategy. Simply put, it refers to the attempt to break a great united opposition, making the fragments too weak to overwhelm their collective enemy. It led men from Julius Caesar to Napoleon to succeed in conquering nations and controlling populations.
The British also tried to transform the Bhagavad Gita, a little-known script followed by only a few Brahmins, into the canonical Hindu equivalent of the Bible. As most Hindus did not identify with the rules and beliefs set out in the Gita, the impression arose that Hinduism was a fallen religion that needed to be restored to an earlier greatness. The fault for this degeneration was the Muslims, who were modeled by the British as tyrannical invaders. Viceroy Lord Curzon made it clear in 1901: “As long as we rule India, we are the greatest power in the world. If we lose it, we will fall directly to a third-order power. Early on, the British realized that as long as they skillfully exploited the religious, linguistic, and historical divisions that characterized Indian society, they were relatively safe. Parties and rulers can be used by states to weaken enemy military alliances. This usually happens when propaganda is spread within enemy states to raise doubts about the alliance. Once the alliance weakens or dissolves, a vacuum will allow the state to achieve military dominance. Some analysts claim that the US is practicing a strategy in the 21st century Middle East through its alleged escalation of the Sunni-Shia conflict.
British journalist Nafeez Ahmed cited a 2008 RAND Corporation study for the US armed forces that recommended “divide and rule” as a possible strategy against the Muslim world in the “long war.”  British historian Christopher Davidson argues that the current crisis in Yemen is “fueled” by the U.S. government and could be part of a broader covert strategy to “advance the fragmentation of Iran`s allies and allow Israel to be surrounded by weak states.”  [Failure of the review] The maxim divide et impera has been attributed to Philip II of Macedon. [Citation needed] It was used by the Roman ruler Julius Caesar and the French Emperor Napoleon (with the maxim divide ut regnes). [Citation needed] After winning the loyalty of Muslims in the second half of the nineteenth century, the British turned to elevating non-Brahmin castes and securing their trust. The 2. In September 1897, George Francis Hamilton, then Secretary of State for India, wrote to Viceroy Curzon: “I think the real danger to our domination in India, not now, but in 50 years, is the gradual adoption and expansion of Western ideas of agitation and organization. If we could divide educated Hindus into two sections that have very different views, through such a split, we would have to strengthen our position against the subtle and continuous attack that the spread of education must make on our system of government. “The rulers managed to separate the educated Hindus from these two sections – the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins – who had very different views.