There are a lot of myths concerning the traditional understanding of the political conundrum surrounding the partition of India. Indeed, the Indian nationalist feature of the historical and geographical orthodoxy has been content to project partition as the tragic finale of the struggle of heroes in India. One can easily find an array of arguments to defend the perceptions for the partition of India.. According to Asim Roy, the division was based on Hindu and Muslim majorities and since the two groups could not come to feature in one place, there was no option but to separate the country into two nations.
The British had for a long time been ruling over the entire Indian subcontinent. The British were never welcomed at by the citizens of the subcontinent and were thought of as foreigners who had invaded them. Finally, after the World War 2, the British belatedly realised that it was now time to step out of India as they were not able to control it efficiently. This was mainly as a result of the British being in deep wartime debt, and they could now simply not afford to hold on the sub-continent considering the movements of independence being at an all-time high in the 1940’s. To end the British dominance in India Lord Mountbatten, who was the last viceroy in the sub-continent was instructed by the British authorities to negotiate an exit deal with India as soon as possible and if they did not reach to an outcome, the British would simply leave the sub-continent without any deal.
The idea of Pakistan was first thought of by Muhammad Iqbal. Iqbal is claimed to be the first person who dreamt of Pakistan and is considered as a hero by the Pakistanis. Iqbal is also the national poet of Pakistan. Iqbal’s Allahabad Address which was delivered during the 25th annual session of the All-India Muslim league in 1930 holds significant value in the history of the sub-continent. The address configurated a vision of an independent state for Muslim-majority provinces in the north-western region of the country, thus laying the primary foundation of a separate state for the Muslims. Iqbal further argued in his address that unlike Christianity, Islam comes with legal concepts which had a civil significance that came in with potential religious ideas and expectations. He thought that construction of new policies on national lines would lead to displacement of the Islamic principles of solidarity.
Today, many people argue that partition could have been avoided if the matter was taken care of more expertly. The process and fight for the partition was started by the Muslim leaders of the time long before the partition actually occurred. Congress, the party representing the Hindu’s of the sub-continent won the British-supervised elections in 1946 with majority and refused to share power with Muhammad Ali Jinnah, reasoning that they do not need the support of the Muslims to win majority votes in elections. This approach of the Hindu’s fired up Muslim fears that the secular nationalism of Gandhi and Nehru was a cover for Hindu dominance and power. The Muslims now believed that the only way they could achieve utmost independence is to fight for a separate state. Jinnah saw the congress party as a representative of only a certain group of Hindu’s and demanded a separate state for the more than 100 million Muslims in the sub-continent.
Initially, the front-men of the congress regarded the idea of Pakistan as nothing but a joke. To increase the value of his demand, Jinnah ordered the Muslims of the British-ruled India to go on mass strikes across the country to fight for their independence. These strikes resulted in many deaths across the country. The strikes were undisciplined and brutal and further led to many retaliatory killings by the Hindu’s especially in the states of Punjab and Bengal. Gandhi, now had completely failed on his non-violence approach and as a result many of the congress superiors expressed openly of a civil war. All this is evidence of the fact that partition could not have been avoided considering the differences between the leaders of the two groups at the time.
Under such circumstances, Lord Mountbatten was sent by the British in the Feb of 1947 with a clear composition of transferring the power to the Indians within a few months. Starting with dealing with senior congress leaders such as Nehru, Mountbatten suggested them the idea to part ways with the Muslims which they eventually agreed to including Gandhi, who initially had a clear resistance to the idea of partition and believed to deal with things without parting ways but was left with no other solution considering the current situation. If the leaders of the congress had not agreed to the British proposal and opted for negotiating with the Muslims, the situation today might have been different.
The British played a major role in further making the partition ineluctable as they wanted to abandon India as soon as possible and thought of partition as the only way to expedite the process. The British believed that dividing the country along religious lines was the quickest way to exit India. If the congress leaders were not too eager to enjoy power, and had remained inflexible on the idea of partition, it could have been avoided but would have resulted in even more killings and violence in the region. In June, 1947, Lord Mountbatten, unanticipatedly announced that they would be leaving the country in two months.
Looking back into history, many people argue that partition could have been avoided. Prior to the arrival of The British, the Hindus and Muslims of the sub-continent lived together with respect and love for each other. The British soon after the 1857 rebellions which are also recalled as India’s first war of independence, realized that the only way to rule the country is through the divide and rule policy. The divide and rule policy was to spark so much hatred between the Muslims and Hindus that they only focus on the fighting with each other and forget the real problem which was how rapidly the British were draining the Indian economy. The British thought of the Muslims as the primary reason of the 1857 rebellion, and started treating the Muslims as second-class citizens and giving the Hindu’s preference over the Muslims and also preferred the Hindus over the Muslims for any government jobs. This resulted in the Muslim’s thinking that the concerns of the Muslims and Hindus cannot be the same and parting ways is the only solution to peace and stability in the region. This hate could have been stopped if the educated and powerful Hindus and Muslims of the time had united against the British and made the Muslims of the sub-continent realize that their main obstacle were the Britishers, and not the Hindus.
Another way in which the partition procedure could have been handled more professionally, or completely avoided was if the strikes ordered by Muhammad Ali Jinnah were handled decently. Jinnah first demanded for a separate state for the Muslims in 1940, in Lahore resolution, which Gandhi, the leading figure and representative of the Hindu’s never agreed upon. Jinnah argued that if the Muslims do not demand for a separate state, they would always be a minority in a Hindu-dominated country and treated upon unsatisfactorily. After winning all the Muslim constituencies in the 1946 elections, the demand for Pakistan achieved utmost strength. Soon after, Jinnah ordered for Direct Action Day, which resulted in mass strikes ending in the deaths of many Hindus in Muslim majority states and Muslims in Hindu majority areas. These strikes could have been avoided if Gandhi had precisely made Jinnah believe on his non-violence approach and had given the Muslim League some sort of authority or come up with a solution to which both the Congress and Muslim league unanimously agreed upon. The Congress should have acknowledged the fact that the Muslims were a large percentage of the population of India, and listening to their demands is fundamental for a united sub-continent.
Asim Roy in his high politics of partition discusses the developments coming from the politics of partition. Asim Roy puts his emphasis focused on understanding the reasons behind the partition of the sub-continent. Asim Roy’s high politics of partition was solving the conflict of British-India becoming independent from the British while also creating a partition between Hindu and Muslim majority areas. The reason it is regarded as high politics is because it talks about the political drama and the discussion that took place between powerful leaders of the Congress, Muslim League, and the British government. Asim Roy argues that Jinnah never intended to separate the sub-continent and only used partition as a bargaining factor to help the Muslims achieve power and authority in the region. According to Asim Roy it was the congress and not the Muslim league which chose to part India. After this, it is noticeable that all Jinnah wanted was to unite India on the basis of equality but resulted in partition due to mis-communication and unclarity of the board. If the British, or the Congress wanted to prevent partition they could have agreed on Jinnah’s demand for equality in the region.
To conclude, it is noticeable that partition of the sub-continent was not due to religious differences but the British policies implemented in India, and the political differences between the Hindu and Muslim leaders. Partition would have been avoided if the message of peace was the main aim for the British. As compared to what the people needed, the British came in for their own selfish demand of wanting to be dominant and in control of the colony rather than to help out.