Tradition attributes the origin of the motto toPhilip II of Macedon:Ancient Greek:διαίρει καὶ βασίλευεdiaírei kài basíleue, meaning "divide and rule"
The termdivide and conquer inpolitics refers to an entity gaining and maintaining political power by using divisive measures.[1] This includes the exploitation of existing divisions within a political group by its political opponents, and also the deliberate creation or strengthening of such divisions.[2][3]
The concept primarily refers to the practice of creating divisions between opponents to prevent them from uniting against a common foe, allowing the one who divides to gain or maintain political control.[2][4][5][6] As amaxim, it is commonly recommended to political rulers.[7] A secondary usage of the idea refers to the practice of "dividing one's own forces or personnel so as to deal with different tasks simultaneously."[4] The exact wording of the idiom in English is varied,[8] includingdivide and rule (mainly inBritish English but rarely used),[9]divide and conquer (inAmerican, the most common variation),[10]divide and govern, anddivide so that you may rule.[11]
The phrase "divide and conquer" (from theLatindivide et imperacode: lat promoted to code: la) first appeared in English around 1600.[2]
Edward Coke denounces it in Chapter I of the Fourth Part of theInstitutes of the Lawes of England, reporting that when it was demanded by theLords andCommons what might be a principal motive for them to have good success inParliament, it was answered: "Eritis insuperabiles, si fueritis inseparabiles. Explosum est illud diverbium: Divide, & impera, cum radix & vertex imperii in obedientium consensu rata sunt.code: lat promoted to code: la" ("You would be invincible if you were inseparable. This proverb, Divide and rule, has been rejected, since the root and the summit of authority are confirmed by the consent of the subjects.")[12][13]
In a minor variation,Sir Francis Bacon wrote the phrase assepara et imperacode: lat promoted to code: la in a letter toJames I of 15 February 1615.James Madison made this recommendation in a letter toThomas Jefferson of 24 October 1787,[14] which summarized the thesis ofFederalist No. 10:[15] "Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny, is under certain (some) qualifications, the only policy, by which a republic can be administered on just principles."[16][17]
Divide et imperacode: lat promoted to code: la is the third of three political maxims inImmanuel Kant'sPerpetual Peace (1795),Appendix I, the others beingFac et excusacode: lat promoted to code: la ("Act now, and make excuses later") andSi fecisti, negacode: lat promoted to code: la ("If you commit a crime, deny it"):[18] Kant refers to these tactics when describing the traits of “despotic moralists."[19]
In politics, the concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures, and especially prevents smaller power groups from linking up, causing rivalries and fomenting discord among the people to prevent arebellion against the elites or the people implementing the strategy. The goal is either to pit the lower classes against themselves to prevent arevolution, or to provide a desired solution to the growing discord that strengthens the power of the elites.[20]
The principle "divide et imperacode: lat promoted to code: la" is cited as a common in politics byTraiano Boccalini inLa bilancia politica.[21]
Ipse Diviciacum Haeduum magnopere cohortatus docet necesse esse manus hostium distineri, ne cum tanta multitudine uno tempore confligendum sit.[23]
Translated into English, this reads:
He made a powerful and a personal appeal to Diviciacus the Aeduan, showing him how important an advantage it was for the Roman state, and for the welfare of both parties, to keep the contingents of the enemy apart, so as to avoid the necessity of fighting at one time against so large a host.[24]
The Gauls were a people who shared a language and culture but were politically independent from one another, being separated into a number of tribes. Their interests frequently being at odds, and with existing populations being disrupted by large-scale migrations of other peoples being commonplace, warfare between the tribes was endemic; mostly simmering at a low level in the form of constant raids, but occasionally erupting in paroxysms of violence which saw entire cities laid waste and their populations dispersed or enslaved. For this reason the tribes frequently had bitter hatred for the others.[25][26][27]
These weaknesses — the lack of centralized political authority and the resultant animosity between the tribes — were relentlessly and systematically exploited by Caesar during his conquest of Gaul.[28] Caesar used a system of incentives and punishments to ally with some tribes and intimidate others, ensuring that he was only ever fighting one opponent at a time.[29] He carefully presented himself as a defender of Gallic interests, and his military actions as aimed only at hostile tribes who threatened the peace and stability of Gaul.[30] Neighboring tribes often agreed with his assessment, viewing those he assailed as deadly foes who had all too often plagued them, rather than as fierce potential allies in the wars to come. Many even supplied Roman forces with grain or auxiliary troops, or even offered the use of their towns as permanent bases for legionaries.[31][32]
Eventually, though, there could be no mistaking Caesar’s true motive: not pacification, but conquest.[33] The Gauls realized that they were on the verge of becoming a conquered people without ever having fought a war in their defense.[34]
In response they electedVercingetorix of the Arverni to lead the unified Gallic resistance with the goal of expelling the Romans from Gaul.[35] Although Vercingetorix was a leader of an exceptionally high caliber, banding together the disparate tribes as had never been done, and enforcing discipline and order on a people who never known either; and despite his innovative strategy of continual retreat before the superior legions, burning or destroying all food that they left behind them denying Caesar the set-piece battle he desired, Vercingetorix eventually erred. Harried by the Romans, he and his forces sheltered in the walled city ofAlesia. Caesar entrapped them within a double ring of defensive fortifications: one to keep Vercingetorix and his army confined, the other as protection against the relief army that was sure to come, and the Romans waited.[36][37]
In the subsequentBattle of Alesia, Caesar's legions won such a crushing victory that Gallic resistance to Roman rule was no longer possible.[38] Vercingetorix rode into the Roman camp alone and silently fell at the feet of Caesar, laying down his arms in token of submission in what Plutarch described as “the most famous surrender in antiquity.”[39] The rest of the tribes followed, and they were integrated as the province of Roman Gaul. The region was eventually organized into the Tres Galliae (Gallia Belgica,Gallia Lugdunensis, andGallia Aquitania) alongside the olderGallia Narbonensis.[40][41]
While theMongols importedCentral Asian Muslims to serve as administrators inChina, 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.[42]
Some Indian historians, such as politicianShashi Tharoor, assert that theBritish Raj frequently used this tactic to consolidate their rule and prevent the emergence of theIndian independence movement, citingLord Elphinstone who said that "Divide et impera was the old Roman maxim, and it should be ours."[43] ATimes Literary Supplement review by British historian Jon Wilson suggests that although this was broadly the case a more nuanced approach might be closer to the facts.[44] On the other hand, Proponents ofHindutva, the ideology of the current and recent Indian governments over the years, stress strongly Hindu-Muslim conflict going back centuries before the arrival of the British.
Up to1857, 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 inEid celebrations, and Muslims inHoli andDiwali. The Muslim rulers like theMughals,Nawab of Awadh andMurshidabad,Tipu Sultan, etc. were totally secular; they organisedRamlilas, 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 HinduPandit, pay him money, and tell him to speak against Muslims, and similarly he would secretly call theMaulvi, 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.[45]
HistorianJohn Keay takes a contrary position regarding British policy, writing:
Stock accusations of a wider Machiavellian intent to 'divide and rule' and to 'stir up Hindu-Muslim animosity' assume some premonition of a later partition. They make little sense in the contemporary context. 'Divide and rule' as a governing precept supposes the pre-existence of an integrated entity. In an India politically united only by British rule – and not yet even by the opposition which it generated – such a thing did not exist. Division was a fact of life. AsMaulana Muhammad Ali would later put it, 'we divide and you rule'. Without recognising, exploring and accommodating such division, British dominion in India would have been impossible to establish, let alone sustain. Provoking sectarian conflict, on the other hand, was rarely in British interest.[46]
General S.K. Sinha, former Vice-Chief of Army Staff, writes that contrary to what the notion of divide and rule would predict, theBritish Indian Army was effectively integrated:
The undivided army was a unique institution set up by the British in India... [A]ll combat units, exceptGorkhas andGarhwalis, had a mixed combination of Muslims and non-Muslims. They fought wars together and lived as friendly comrades in peace, owing loyalty to their regiments. Political developments with the emergency of the Congress and the Muslim League did not affect them. The Indian Army was totally apolitical till June 3rd 1947... In fact, during the Partition holocaust and till that date, both Muslim and non-Muslim soldiers remained totally impartial in dealing with communal violence. After June 3, 1947 things started changing.[47]
TheKabyle myth is a colonial trope that was propagated by French colonists inFrench Algeria based on a supposed binary between theArab andKabyle peoples, consisting of a set of stereotypes of supposed differences between them.[48][49][50]
The myth emerged in the 19th century withFrench colonialism in Algeria, positing that the Kabyle people were more predisposed than Arabs to assimilate into "French civilization".[49][51]
Athenian historianThucydides in his bookHistory of the Peloponnesian War claimed thatAlcibiades recommended toPersian statesman Tissaphernes, to weaken both Athens and Sparta for his own Persian's benefit. Alcibiades, suggested to Tissaphernes that 'The cheapest plan was to let the Hellenes wear each other out, at a small share of the expense and without risk to himself.[53]
Tacitus in Germania. chapter 33 writes "May the tribes, I pray, ever retain if not love for us, at least hatred for each other; for while the destinies of empire hurry us on, fortune can give no greater boon than discord among our foes."[54][55]
InRevolutions of 1848, the governments which were being revolted against used this tactic to counter the rebels.[56][57]
The colonial authorities inBritish Cyprus often stirred up theTurkish minority in order to neutralize agitation from theGreek majority.[58][59] This policy intentionally cultivated further animosity between the already divided Greek majority and the Turkish minority (which consists of 18% of the population) in the island that remainsdivided to this day after an invasion byTurkey to establish the state ofNorth Cyprus (which is onlydiplomatically recognized by Turkey).[60]
ProfessorAvner Cohen, a former Israeli religious affairs official, publicly acknowledged that Hamas was "Israel's creation."[65] Similar statements have been made byYasser Arafat.[66]
Assertions of Israeli support for Hamas date back to the late 1970s and early 1980s, a period marked by significant political upheaval in the Middle East. Former Israeli officials have openly acknowledged Israel's role in providing funding and assistance to Hamas as a means of undermining secular Palestinian factions such as thePalestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Brigadier GeneralYitzhak Segev, who served as the Israeli military governor in Gaza during the early 1980s, admitted to providing financial assistance to theMuslim Brotherhood, the precursor of Hamas, on the instruction of the Israeli authorities. The aim of the support was to weaken leftist and secular Palestinian organizations.[67]
Israel contributed to the construction of parts of Islamist politicianAhmed Yassin's network of mosques, clubs, and schools in Gaza, as well as the expansion of these institutions.[67]
Shlomo Brom, retired general and former deputy to Israel's national security adviser, believes that an empowered Hamas helps Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu avoid negotiatings over a Palestinian state, suggesting that there is no viable partner for peace talks.[68]Bezalel Smotrich, a far-right lawmaker and finance minister under Netanyahu Government, called the Palestinian Authority a "burden" and Hamas an "asset".[69]
Some consider that contemporaryRussian affairs also have characteristics of a "divide and rule" strategy. Applied domestically to secureVladimir Putin's power in Russia,[70] it is used abroad inRussian disinformation campaigns to achieve "regime security, predominance in Russia’s near abroad, and world-power status for Russia".[71]
^Wilson, Jon, 2016,India Conquered: Britain's Raj and the chaos of empire, cited in a review of Tharoor's work by Elizabeth Buettner in "Debt of Honour: why the European impact on India must be fully acknowledged",Times Literary Supplement, 11 August 2017, pages 13-14.
^The Partition of Soldiers, General S.K. Sinha,The Asian Age, 2015,[1]
^Tilmatine, Mohand (1 January 2016). "French and Spanish colonial policy in North Africa: revisiting the Kabyle and Berber myth".International Journal of the Sociology of Language.2016 (239).doi:10.1515/ijsl-2016-0006.ISSN0165-2516.
^abBurke, Edmund (December 2007). "France and the Classical Sociology of Islam, 1798–1962".The Journal of North African Studies.12 (4):551–561.doi:10.1080/13629380701633414.ISSN1362-9387.
^Cheterian, Vicken (2016). "Denial of violence. Ottoman past, Turkish present, and collective violence against the Armenians 1789–2009, Fatma Müge Göçek, New York, Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 656, US$78.00 (hardback), HC 978-0199334209".Nationalities Papers.44 (4):652–654.doi:10.1080/00905992.2016.1158006.S2CID156252380.Yet, irony of history, instead of chasing the Armenians from the eastern provinces to make a new home for the Balkan Muslim refugees, they practically eliminated Armenians and consolidated an ethnic Kurdish presence in eastern Anatolia. Having lost the capacity to practice imperial policies of "divide and rule", today Turkey finds itself face-to-face with Kurdish nationalism.
^Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 8.46.2
^Reddaway, Peter (2018).Russia's domestic security wars: Putin's use of divide and rule against his hardline allies. Palgrave Pivot.ISBN978-3319773919.
