Divide and rule

The divide and conquer strategy was used by foreign countries in parts of Africa during the colonial and post-colonial period.

• Germany and Belgium ruled Rwanda and Burundi in a colonial capacity. Germany used the strategy of divide and conquer by ruling through the already dominant Tutsi minority. When Belgium took over colonial rule in 1916, the Tutsi and Hutu group divide was further strengthened by turning it into a racial instead of occupational divide. Belgium defined "Tutsi" as anyone with more than ten cows or a long nose, while "Hutu" meant someone with fewer than ten cows and a broad nose. The socioeconomic divide between Tutsis and Hutus continued after independence and was a major factor in the Rwandan genocide.
• During British rule of Nigeria from 1900 to 1960, different regions were frequently reclassified for administrative purposes. The conflict between the Igbo and Hausa made it easier for the British to consolidate their power in the region.[12]

• While the Mongols imported Central Asian Muslims to serve as administrators in China, the Mongols also sent Han Chinese and Khitans from China to serve as administrators over the Muslim population in Bukhara in Central Asia, using foreigners to curtail the power of the local peoples of both lands.[13]

See also: Partition of Bengal (1905)

The strategy of "Divide and Rule" was employed by most imperial powers in Indian subcontinent. The British and French backed various Indian states in conflicts between each other, both as a means of undermining each other's influence and consolidating their authority.

Further, it is argued that the British used the strategy to destroy the harmony between various religions and use it for their benefits;[14] a Times Literary Supplement review suggests that although this was broadly the case a more nuanced approach might be closer to the facts.[15] In the same vein, Kashmiri Indian politician Markandey Katju wrote in The Nation:[16]

It was Emperor Akbar who laid the foundation on which the Indian nation is still standing, his policy being continued by Jawaharlal Nehru and his colleagues who gave India a secular constitution. Up to 1857, there were no communal problems in India; all communal riots and animosity began after 1857. No doubt even before 1857, there were differences between Hindus and Muslims, the Hindus going to temples and the Muslims going to mosques, but there was no animosity. In fact, the Hindus and Muslims used to help each other; Hindus used to participate in Eid celebrations, and Muslims in Holi and Diwali. The Muslim rulers like the Mughals, Nawab of Awadh and Murshidabad, Tipu Sultan, etc were totally secular; they organised Ramlilas, participated in Holi, Diwali, etc. Ghalib’s affectionate letters to his Hindu friends like Munshi Shiv Naraln Aram, Har Gopal Tofta, etc attest to the affection between Hindus and Muslims at that time. In 1857, the ‘Great Mutiny’ broke out in which the Hindus and Muslims jointly fought against the British. This shocked the British government so much that after suppressing the Mutiny, they decided to start the policy of divide and rule (see online “History in the Service of Imperialism” by B.N. Pande). All communal riots began after 1857, artificially engineered by the British authorities. The British collector would secretly call the Hindu Pandit, pay him money, and tell him to speak against Muslims, and similarly he would secretly call the Maulvi, pay him money, and tell him to speak against Hindus. This communal poison was injected into our body politic year after year and decade after decade.[16]

• The Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916, which carved up the Middle East between French and British areas of influence, exemplified a "divide and rule" approach which eventually resulted in multiple polities and frustrated Hashemite plans for a unified Arab state.
• Some analysts assert that the US is practicing the strategy in the 21st-century Middle East through escalation of the Sunni–Shia conflict. Nafeez Ahmed cites a 2008 RAND Corporation study for the American military which recommended "divide and rule" as a possible strategy against the Muslim world in "the Long War".[17] Dr. Christopher Davidson argues that the current crisis in Yemen is being "egged on" by the US, and could be part of a wider covert strategy to "spur fragmentation in Iran allies and allow Israel to be surrounded by weak states”.[18]

• Herodotus (History, 5.3) said that the Thracians would be the strongest nation in the world if they were united.
• Tacitus (Germania, 33) says "Long, I pray, may foreign nations persist in hating one another .... and fortune can bestow on us no better gift than discord among our foes."
• Romans entered Macedonia from the south and defeated King Perseus of Macedon in the Battle of Pydna in 168 BC. Macedonia was then divided into four republics that were heavily restricted from relations with one another and other Hellenic states. A ruthless purge occurred, with allegedly anti-Roman citizens being denounced by their compatriots and deported in large numbers.
• During the Gallic Wars, Julius Caesar was able to use a divide and rule strategy to easily defeat the militarily strong Gauls. By the time the Gauls united under Vercingetorix, it was already too late for them.[19][20]
• In Revolutions of 1848, established government forces use this tactics to counter rebels.[21][22]
• The Salami strategy of Hungarian Communist leader, Mátyás Rákosi.
• Alliances with various parties played a role in the Nazi Machtergreifung and Gleichschaltung, the seizure and consolidation of total power by the National Socialist German Workers Party. The Enabling Act, which gave the government the right of lawmaking, was supported by the Nazis' coalition partner, the German National People's Party, as well as by the Centre Party. Several months later, all political parties in Germany were banned except for the NSDAP.
• The British Empire urged the Britons in British Cyprus to stir up the Turkish minority in order to neutralize agitation from the Greeks[23][24] The British colonial policy of “divide and rule” intentionally cultivated animosity between the Greek majority and the Turkish minority (18% of the population) in the island that remains divided till today.[25] A similar theme played out in Sri Lanka, where the British placed Sri Lankan Tamils (a local minority) in positions of power over the majority Sinhalese. This contributed to ethnic tension and ultimately violence, most notably in Black July.

• Chiapas conflict

In recent years it has been mentioned several times that the strategy of American president Donald Trump uses this old maxim. "In the first two years of his mandate he has seldomly emphasized the unifying, but almost always the divisive.", as Gianluca Wallisch of the Austrian newspaper "Der Standard" writes.[26] In the German newspaper "Die Zeit" Daniel-C. Schmidt wrote a commentary on Trump's scolding of the Media, entiteling it "Teile aus und herrsche", a wordplay on the German translation of the term "divide and rule", "teile und herrsche".[27] In the US-American news outlet Forbes, Harry G. Broadman describes how "[a]s in his campaign, the President has been successfully—at least to date—pursuing a divide and conquer strategy domestically and internationally to try to achieve his goals. The result is an absence of a robust set of checks and balances to ensure that the best economic interests of the U.S. and the world will be served."[28]