Funnily enough the whole Jews Arabs thing only really kicked off after the British mandate in Palestine, when foreign Jews moved in and started agitating for their own state. Most of the native Jewish population had no issues with the Palestinians as ethnically they were identical and didn’t really get on one another’s nerves. Hindus/Pakis is also pretty much a British thing, funnily enough, it’s almost like the British two state solution plans were terribly thought out and executed concepts.
I'm going to tl;dr on the Jews/Arabs which is the Jews were treated very much like the Jews treat Arabs now. Remember the Ottomans were in charge until about 25 years before and the Ottomans were adamant about two things: Firstly that the state must follow the instructions of Mohammed and protect the capital-J Jews and secondly that capital-J Jews (like any other ethnic minority) have no real power - jewish individuals were sometimes elevated to lofty positions but none of that was allowed to manifest as additional self-determination for Jews as a whole.
Even if you forget the influx of Jews from Europe, the Jews were going to be subject to some pogroms once a leader realized he could pull a Hitler and blame the minority for everything, he just needed a way to get around the prohibition on Jewish persecution by framing them as being in revolt against their rightful Muslim rulers.
Hindus & Pakis are very much not a British thing, that was existing long before. Where Britain did meddle there was by dividing the country during independence.
Muslims and Hindus still routinely beat up and/or kill each other in the places where one or the other is a minority.
The only real bit of skullduggery the British got up to was on the subject of Kashmir.
tl;dr previously All the area that is India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh was part of the "British Raj" - all the local leaders reported to British colonial authority. When giving independence - and one of the issues that had been dragging out the process/an excuse for dragging out the process - was there was a lot of muslims who had no interest in being dominated by Hindus. There was already a lot of ethnic violence that the British would brutally put down and punish both sides. So there was the idea of a "Muslim" and "Hindu" partition, and the British allowed all the local domains to choose which they wanted. They also left the mechanism for decision to the people - lots of people viewed the local royals as divinely granted the right to rule them and democracy was an anathema, so if the people didn't want to vote the Royals were allowed to make the choice. But there was a very heavy slant to democracy when possible.
Kashmir was a Hindu royalty governing a Muslim minority, but it was allowed to go to "Royal Choice" under dubious circumstances. The Brits allowed this to happen because Kashmir is the headwaters of the Indus river, and who ever controls that has the option of damming the river and starving India. If it hadn't gone over to India, within two decades India was going to have to go to war over it.
south asian muslims (in and around the area of what we now call pakistan) had been waging large scale wars of conquest and subjugation against the hindu states of india for centuries before the britbongs even set foot in the region
arabs were 'fine' with jews when those jews (like other non muslim minorities) lived as subjugated second class citizens under the boot of islamic domination, which again was going on for a very long time (like over a thousand years) before the anglos started taking over
Pretty much this.
The reason for all this "ethnic strife" is that these populations are being oppressed and ground underheel anymore. Or in the case of India, ethnic flare ups aren't getting a response from a 3rd party who views both as subhuman and doesn't care who started it.
