By Rishiraj Das and Dhiren Sharma
Editor’s note: This is an opinion piece and views expressed in this article are not necessarily reflective of The Beehive or The Beehive’s associated writers.
We have recently just had the independence celebrations of two nations: Pakistan and India. However, with every annual celebration, horrific memories resurface. The circumstances in which these two nations were born was one of the most bloody and tragic events in modern history. The rushed slap-stick partition of British India brought the death of 1 to 2 million people and displaced over 7 times more. The lives of 15 million people were forever scarred in what was the greatest migration in human history.
What Happened in Partition?
Following the end of World War 2, Britain was bankrupt and it was no longer in a position to keep India as part of the Empire. However, the British withdrawal from the Indian subcontinent was to result in the formation of a new country, Pakistan, separated from independent India based on the Two Nation Theory; the theory that Muslims and Hindus were two separate peoples who were wholly incompatible. The idea had gained traction in the 1940s when the Muslim League, under Muhammad Ali Jinnah, outlined its goal to achieve a new Muslim homeland. He feared that Muslims in an independent India would be discriminated against.
On August 14th, 1947, the huge country was ripped into two, with communal violence and mass migration ensuing. The line drawn by Cyril Radcliffe ran through Punjab in the west and Bengal in the east, both of which had Muslim majority populations but very large Hindu and Sikh minorities. They were 56% and 57% Muslim respectively. No division is perfect, and the line raised religious tensions and tore whole communities apart. Suddenly people who found themselves on the wrong side of the border faced the prospect of violence and possibly death or the daunting and incredibly difficult challenge of migrating to the other country. In the process, people lost everything, from the land their family had lived on for centuries to their material possessions. In Punjab, there were numerous instances of trains carrying hundreds of people to the other side of the border and getting completely massacred, killing all on board. People from both religious groups would roam around Bengali villages slaughtering anyone from the other they found.
What were the Consequences?
This terrible partition has haunted Indian-Pakistani relations in the following 70 years having had 4 wars between them. Just two months after the two nations were formed, the controversial issue of Kashmir brought the neighbours to war, increasing distrust and hostility between them existing right up to the present and the foreseeable future. Before the British left India, there were two forms of government: the areas under direct British administration, and the semi-independent Princely States. The Princely States had to decide whether to join India or Pakistan. Most of the states were integrated in a logical manner decided by their geographical location and demographics. However the 80,900 square mile state of Jammu and Kashmir was a state with a Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, but with a majority Muslim population. It neighboured both India and Pakistan but wished to remain independent. Kashmir’s refusal to join either state prompted Pakistani backed Pashtun tribesmen to invade. Under threat, the Maharajah requested military help from India which was only granted under the condition that the Maharajah sign the Instrument of Accession which meant that Kashmir would join India. The Indian Army entered and occupied part of Kashmir. The two-year war ended after lengthy negotiations resulting in a ceasefire which divided the state across a Line of Control which remains today. However tensions remained and three wars have since followed, in 1965, 1971 and 1999.
Another violent repercussion of the partition was the pursuit of Khalistan. The partition of India fuelled religious identity, which led to a surge of Sikh nationalism. They too, like the Muslims, wanted their own homeland, the whole of Punjab, that they wanted to name Khalistan, meaning ‘the Land of the Pure’. However, some people on both sides used violence to try and achieve/stop this.
Was Partition Necessary?
These terrible events all could and should have been entirely avoided. Partition was the division of people on religious lines but is religion a basis for nationhood? These were people who were ethnically, linguistically and culturally the same, and had lived together side-by-side in harmony for hundreds of years. The line drawn that split the two countries was incredibly rushed – just two weeks of thought was given to it. It divided people who had so much in common but just one difference – religion, which inherently is just a choice. A nation should be composed of people with linguistic, ethnic and cultural similarities, not exclusively religious. In fact, there wasn’t even unanimous support for a separate Islamic nation-state among Muslims, with most Indian Muslims choosing to remain in India. Islam has been in India from its conception, the first mosque in India, contrary to popular belief, being built in 629 AD in Kerala. India would not be what it is today without Islam. This is evidenced by the huge popularity of Muslim actors in Indian Cinema such as the Khans. Furthermore, India’s most popular president to date is Abdul Kalam, whose death last year brought grief to the entire population, no matter their religion. When one thinks of India, the Taj Mahal comes to mind. This a symbol of the love a man had for his wife and was built by the Mughal Emperor, Shah Jahan. The design of the building is clearly Islamic with the curved dome and spires, and its many crescent and star decorations.These examples show how crucial and integral Islam has been in the history, culture and development of India.
To conclude, Partition was a catastrophic event that not only caused millions of deaths and lasting tensions between two neighbours for 70 years with no foreseeable end but also separated people and destroyed lives, all for no reason. People fled their homes to escape violence when previously they had lived happily and in peace with their neighbours. The partition brought out the hatred in ordinary civilians, which caused these people to be violent towards other ordinary civilians. This all simply came about as a result of the unofficial British policy of divide and conquer, as well as the political ambitions of both Nehru and Jinnah. In fact, many of South Asia’s problems today, are a result of partition. The frequent threats of war from neighbours who have so much in common, threaten the geopolitical stability of the region. The people of Kashmir live in a limbo, in constant fear, deprived of opportunities from both countries as a result of this conflict. Imagine the success of a united India, where resources instead of being used in conflict, could be used for the development and betterment of life for its citizens.
An excellent article. Thorough research and very well written.
LikeLike
Thank you
LikeLike
Much appreciated!
LikeLike
Although I agree that the violent consequences in the aftermath of partition were horrific, I disagree that this justifies believing that India’s partition should not have happened. The British government did not handle the transition of power correctly, bringing forward partition by a year. If handled correctly by the British government and Viceroy Mountbatten, partition may have been peaceful.
LikeLike
I think you may have misunderstood our point. It wasn’t that because there was so much suffering it shouldn’t have happened, it was that it shouldn’t have happened at all. What we’re saying is that even if Partition had been managed more effectively, it still should not have happened.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The restrictions on Muslims, the fear of Muslims, the harassment faced by Muslims, the erosion of Muslim identity in India today and the rise of Hindu Nationalism has nothing to do with the foresight of those who wanted to create Pakistan??
The attrocities committed today in India by Hindus show why Pakistan was rightly separate and Muslims leaders were vindicated.
The only way to prevent any Hindu Nationalism was for a separate country for Muslims. The problem is that external forces have constantly been in play to try and make Pakistan fail. However, again and again, it overcame dark forces.
The British and Nehru were contriving plans to ensure that India would be more successful in independence. The facts don’t lie, India received most of the resources, bank reserves, military units and equipment,all at higher proportion to Pakistan. There was an unequal split and it was not done in an equitable manner.
Not content with this, India continued its interference in Pakistan which led to the splitting from Pakistan and creation of Bangladesh.
Hindu nationalists are not content with this situation and still work towards the elimination of Muslims from Indian life and particularly in official capacity, eg. replacing Urdu signs in Uttar Pradesh to Hindi language. The erosion of culture and history from areas within India isles by Hindu Nationalism.
To conclude, clearly creation of Pakistan was right and today it is being proven by the actions of Hindu nationalists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi thank you for your input. I would like to engage in some rebuttal. “The restrictions on Muslins” what restrictions are you referring to? Muslims have always and still are a large and integral part of Indian society. As mentioned in the article, India’s most loved President was Abdul Kalam and its most popular actors are Muslims In regards to “harrassment faced by Muslims” there is harassment of all people in all countries. You may argue that this is much larger in India but that is simply because it is a larger country. No other country apart from China comes anywhere near India in population so naturally there will be more harassment. If harrassment was so bad, why aren’t we seeing a mass exodus of Indian Muslims to Pakistan? Any harrassment of Muslims in India is nothing compared to that if Hindus in Pakistan. In 1951 Hindus were 12 percent if the population. Now they make up less than 1.6 percent. That is a drop just under 11 percent. In India however, the percentage has grown from 9 percent in 1951 to 14 percent. As demonstrated by the statistics, Hindus in Pakistan have faced far worse discrimination than Muslims in India. “The erosion of Muslim identity” was bound to happen simply because India, unlike Pakistan, is a secular country as such religion is not a factor in national identity. The rise of Hindu nationalism again is a matter of population. As India’s population grows so too will the number of people who support this view. Besides many secular countries may have religious parties. For example the Christian Democrats in Germany led by Angela Merkel. Futhermore India can claim far greater religious diversity of people in office than Pakistan having had a Sikh PM and a Muslim President, something Pakistan cannot claim.
Atrocities have been committed by both sides. However this is a result of partition, not a reason for it. Partition came about because of British divide and conquer attitudes as well as the political ambitions of both Jinnah and Nehru. “The Hindus don’t know how to govern themselves” is a horrific statement. For the last 70 years India had maintained it’s democracy unlike Pakistan which has more than military coup, despite being a far vaster and diverse (thereforemore difficult to run) nation. Furthermore while the Mughal Empire might be considered India’s Golden Age, clearly it was not great enough to counter British influence.
Hindu nationalism would have been curbed had partition not happened. It was the ensuing violence that exacerbated religious tensions when previously the people lived in harmony celebrating each other’s festivals.
While India did receive more of the resources, that was simply because it was larger. It would not have been fair simply to divide them in half when India was so much bigger. Anyway in per capita terms, Pakistan received much more. For example in military terms, Pakistan I believed 30 percent of the British Indian military which is a figure far greater than both what it needs and should get according to proportion if population or area.
The 1971 war and India’s interference came about as a result of genocide of Bengalis by the Pakistani Army. And anyway this is besides the point as this is one of the ‘violent repercussions’ of partition that I believe should not have happened.
I would also like to note that Urdu, at least still is an official language India, unlike Hindi which is not even an official language of Pakistan.
Moreover you provide no evidence or statistics to back up your claims.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A very nicely worded rebuttal to a desperate pseudo intellectual rant – well done
LikeLike
Thank You Jay 😊
LikeLike
You talk of Indian atrocities on Muslims and elimination of Muslims from Indian life!! Must say you are not quite well informed. In India the Muslim population has only grown and not sure if you have heard of APJ Abdul Kalam, Zakir Hussain..
What you have stated is only your perception, which is far from the truth and facts.
And read about Pakistan history and you would know why it in the state that it is now. It not because of external parties, but the power struggles within the country that led to the present state of affairs.
You talk of removing Urdu signs in UP, do you know that Hindi signs were removed from bangalore as well? It’s got nothing to do with the Hindu fundamentalism, but it more to do with convenience of the local population (and of course some bit could be attributed to the politics of the region).
LikeLiked by 3 people
I would also like to note that if ‘Hindus don’t know how to govern’ then why is it we have a higher Human Development Index and Ease of Businesses Index as well as an economy 30 times the Pakistani one?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t believe you are completely well informed mr Iqbal. There are currently 172 million Muslims living in India, which is a very large number. And these Muslims are integral to the nation of India, and are treated as fairly and equally as anyone else. After all why shouldn’t they be; India is a secular nation (unlike Pakistan).
There are many exapmles of successful Indian Muslims, and we have listed some in our article. The one that proves my point the most is India’s most loved president : Abdul Kalam. His death last year brought grief to the entire nation, and yes, he was Muslim. So I strongly disagree with your ccomment; there are restrictions on Muslims. Secondly, Hindu nationalism was just as prevalent as Islamic nationalism and Sikh nationalism at that time, with all sides taking part in violence. Obviously you will agree with me when I say that this is incredibly tragic but I do not think that Hindu nnationalists can be blamed Finally you mentioned the attrocities being committed by Hindus today I would like to inform you that these people who commit these acts have no link to Hinduism whatsoever, just like people in Isis cannot call themselves Muslims. You cannot blame a religion for the awful acts committed by a few crazy lunatics, using religion as an excuse to commit such tragic acts. I thank you for taking time to read our article.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’d also like to point out that you narrow minded view that only Muslims and Pakistanis were right and everyone else was in the wrong is wholly both inaccurate and actually rather rude. I find your comments on most articles to be rather misinformed and one sided, slightly hypocritical for someone that criticised me for not offering both sides of an argument. Please do your research before you attempt to take down a well written and extremely well researched article,
Kind regards
Adi
LikeLiked by 2 people
Look the point is that you are wrong that partition should never have happened. Pakistan did not stand a chance against the India after independence but it has proved time and time again that it can exert progress dispite having a neighbour who is waiting for any sign of weakness.
Hindu Nationalism:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/06/28/as-indias-muslims-are-killed-modi-keeps-silent/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-39769172
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/86-killed-in-cow-related-violence-since-2010-are-muslims-97-attacks-after-modi-govt-came-to-power/story-w9CYOksvgk9joGSSaXgpLO.html
The difficulties faced in Pakistan are not religious,they are social, economic and political. Everyone is facing difficulties but majority agree with partition. There was a huge build up of Indian army along the border when India first tested it’s nuclear power. Pakistan was under extreme pressure but only tested nuclear power when Indian troops were on the border ready to attack. Pakistan wanted the international community to take action against India but it was not forthcoming. This is what external forces are.
Pakistan was allocated resources but never received them!
The Muslim population of India is greater than the population of Pakistan as a whole. So it would be absurd to think there would be an exodus of 150 million people from India. This does not mean that the Muslims are not treated better in India.
Anyway, I don’t think you will agree. So just let it rest.
LikeLike
I would like note, that we did not deny the existence of Hindu nationalism and also that you provide no evidence (statistics) for why Pakistan is better off independent.
LikeLike
You still provide no evidence as to how Pakistan would have been better off without Partition. Moreover, I never said Pakitsan’s problems today are religious.Also it is entirely natural for Pakistanis to agree with PArtition because that was the basis of the Pakistani Nation and therefore the national identity of its citizens.
You speak of Indian hostility, yet forget that the 3 out of 4 wars with Pakistan came as a result of Pakistani intrusion, not Indian aggression.
“Pakistan was allocated resources but never received them!” where is the evidence!?
“It would be absurd to think there would be an exodus of 150 million people from India” Fair enough, however, there would still be tens of thousands migrating at least if the situations is as bad as you have described, yet this is not the case. “This does not mean that the Muslims are not treated better in India” perhaps the reason they aren’t leaving is that they are happy and content in India. You find it impossible to believe that Muslims may be happy in India leading great and fruitful lives.
Thank you for your input
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great article guys, but I think that partition wasn’t completely unnecessary, just badly executed. We’ve seen all the turmoil in Kashmir, couldn’t you argue that this would happen on a much larger scale if India were one unified state? I think that religious divide would increase, and that Hindus and Muslims would want there own state, which could’ve meant that there could have been a civil war. Again this is all hypothetical, but I see it as a real possibility if the subcontinent did not partition.
LikeLiked by 1 person
While you could argue that, remember Islam has been in India since 629 AD. Muslims and non-Muslims have lived in harmony in India for centuries. The only reason this changed was because of British Instigations and policy of Divide and Conquer, as well as the political ambitions of both Nehru and Jinnah. As the leaders of their respective parties, they would most likely have been voted in as PM if partition happened.
LikeLike
Good point. Do you think the rise of Islamic extremism has any correlation to the partition? I wanted to make a counter argument to your point, which was that relations between Muslims and hindus would become hostile with the rise of extremism, but there might not have been as much extremism if it were not for the partition.
LikeLike
I’m not quite sure, though I think Islamic extremism is largely unrelated to Partition. It gained traction in the 1980s in Afghanistan following the Soviet Invasion, which was never part of British India.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The difference between Jinnah and Nehru was Nehru wanted power. Jinnah did not have any ambition to be prime minister of Pakistan, and did not become prime minister.
Nehru was against any Muslim leader of a united India. It was Nehru’s stance towards minorities in India that swayed Jinnah away from the idea of united India towards a separate homeland for Muslims and the campaign for Pakistan.
LikeLike
I’m not sure if you noticed but I did mention Nehru’s political ambitions as a reason for partition. The only reason Jinnah didn’t become PM was because he died not because he didn’t want to be!
LikeLiked by 2 people
A very well researched and written article ! I congratulate both of you for having completed it !
What touched my heart was the line “just two weeks of thought ” ! Years togethee the two communities have survived in harmony and then a third party decides to divide the communities to fuel the interests of certain individuals ; well that is something hard to justify for me as an individual !
As far as the Indian Muslim and Indian Hindu communities are concerned , one may very well see a Hindu rightfully asking a Biriyani treat on the holy occassion of Eid while the Muslim friend self inviting himself to the Hindu Friend’s home for a crazy session of crackers on Diwali . Well if that is possible after the partition, having had so many wars , I would not mind believing that it would very well be possible without the partition . Isn’t that what we all want at the end of the day ? Peace , Harmony and Botherhood with our neighbours!
As far as the SignBoards are concerned well , if one pays a visit to the Northeastern India , he may find ONLY English Signboards and also discover that a large section of the NorthEast Indian population lacks the command over the Hindi Language .
These are only views that others may not agree upon. However , the Partition is done and one may only bear the consequences – good or bad !
It was however a nice experience to revisit the Indian History through this article !
LikeLiked by 3 people
Try asking the Gujrati Muslim Indians about their daily life in fear being attacked by mobs of fanatics accusing them of having beef meat!
LikeLike
From the UK Government website: “Homosexuality and co-habitation by an unmarried couple is illegal.”
Representing a violation of basic human rights. Don’t try and lecture others on something like meat consumption when your country doesn’t even have any rights for LGBT+ people. Such is the problem with a conservative and religious nation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_India India doesn’t permit LGBT relationships either
LikeLike
Well one thing to note, is that the British introduced the illegality of homosexuality in India, previously it wasn’t there. So again it’s the fault of the British
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s acts of religious discrimination in both countries, the only reason there are more cases in India, is simply because there are more Muslims in India than Hindus in Pakistan proportionally.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The fact is Jinnah did not have ambition to become prime minister. He died a year later, if he wanted power, then he could easily have got it.
As for insults from a comment above about getting bored, the same person needs to learn that life experience is required to understand how you respond. There is a lot to learn and learning to respect people wouldn’t go amiss!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just because Jinnah didn’t become PM doesn’t mean he didnt want to. He had the role of Governor-General which gave him the authority to pick the PM, if anything that’s a role higher than that of PM!
Moreover you cannot tell people to respect you when you cannot do the same ‘ The Hindus don’t know how to to govern themselves’. That comment is blatant religious intolerance and I found it deeply insulting. Furthermore, it was made with no evidence. For all your answers I have asked for evidence, of which you have provided none. I at least have provided statistics.
LikeLike
Contrary to popular belief, India was not a peaceful country pre-partition. There have been many accounts of religious violence (not just between Hindus and Muslims, but also involving Sikhs, Christians, and atheists. It’s wrong to say that religious violence emerged due to partition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India
LikeLike
Owais there’s always been religious violence in all countries. What we’re saying is this violence skyrocketed after partition.
LikeLike
I acknowledge your point that the violence escalated after the vision of a seperate Pakistan was thought of. But the violence before partition surely warrants the creation of a new country? Are you suggesting that Ireland should be reunited as well? Ireland was also seperated because of religious tensions, the violence also increased after Irish partition. Pakistan was created because of the worry Muslims would be treated as a lesser people. It was the foresight of Jinnah which predicted this.
LikeLike
Moreover it was Jinnah’s will for partition that worsened religious tensions, so no its not his vision to predict it because he caused it!
LikeLike
No, Jinnah saw how India would be under Nehru. Nehru and Mountbatten planned for India to be better off
LikeLike
Another thing we’re forgetting here is religion is a choice. The Muslims of India were in no way different to Hindus (or Sikhs) except in religion. Is a factor based on choice a valid reason to divide people who are Sam in every other way?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It was already dividing them. Read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India
LikeLike
That’s because campaigning for religious division incites religious tension. Its common sense. Of course there’s going to be violence before partition.
LikeLike
But this violence dates back to centuries before partition
LikeLike
And like I said in a country as large and as diverse in India, there’s always going to be religious intolerance. Like racism, it can never truly be eliminated.
LikeLike
Wow!!!! its amazing
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you
LikeLike