Partition of India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Colonial India
Portuguese India	1510–1961
Dutch India	1605–1825
Danish India	1696–1869
French India	1759–1954
British Empire in India
East India Company	1612–1757
Company rule in India	1757–1857
British Raj	1858–1947
British rule in Burma	1826–1948
British India	1612–1947
Princely states	1765–1947
Partition of India	1947
This box: view • talk • edit

The Partition of India was the partition of the British Indian Empire which led to the creation, on August 14, 1947 and August 15, 1947, respectively, of the sovereign states of the Dominion of Pakistan (later Islamic Republic of Pakistan and People's Republic of Bangladesh) and the Union of India (later Republic of India). "Partition" here refers not only to the division of the Bengal province of British India into East Pakistan and West Bengal (India), and the similar partition of the Punjab province into Punjab (West Pakistan) and Punjab (India), but also to the respective divisions of other assets, including the British Indian Army, the Indian Civil Service and other administrative services, the railways, and the central treasury.

The secession of Bangladesh from Pakistan in 1971 is not covered by the term Partition of India, nor is the earlier separation of Burma from the administration of British India, or the even earlier separation of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). Ceylon, part of the Madras Presidency of British India from 1795 until 1798, became a separate Crown Colony in 1798. Burma, gradually annexed by the British during 1826–86 and governed as a part of the British Indian administration until 1937, was directly administered thereafter. ^[1] Burma was granted independence on January 4, 1948 and Ceylon on February 4, 1948. (See History of Sri Lanka and History of Burma) The Kingdom of Sikkim was established as a princely state after the Anglo-Sikkimese Treaty of 1861, however, the issue of sovereignty was left undefined.^[2] In 1947, Sikkim became an independent kingdom under the suzerainty of India and remained so until 1975 when it was absorbed into India as the 22nd state.

The remaining countries of present-day South Asia are Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives. The first two, Nepal and Bhutan, having signed treaties with the British designating them as independent states, were never a part of British India, and therefore their borders were not affected by the partition.^[3] The Maldives, which became a protectorate of the British crown in 1887 and gained its independence in 1965, was also unaffected by the partition.

Partition was accompanied by one of the largest and most rapid population transfers in history, with 17.9 million people leaving their homes. Of these, only 14.5 million arrived, suggesting that 3.4 million went "missing".^[4]

Contents 1 Pakistan and India 2 Background 2.1 Late 19th and early 20th century 2.2 1920–1932 2.3 1932–1942 2.4 1942–1946 3 The Partition: 1947 3.1 Mountbatten Plan 3.2 Geography of the partition: the Radcliffe Line 3.3 Independence and population exchanges 3.4 Punjab 3.5 Bengal 3.6 Sindh 4 Perspectives 5 Delhi Punjabi refugees 6 The Partition Factor In The Status Of Indian Muslims [21] [22] 7 Refugees settled in India 8 Refugees settled in Pakistan 9 Artistic depictions of the Partition 10 See also 11 References 12 Further reading 12.1 Popularizations 12.2 Memoir 12.3 Academic monographs 12.4 Articles 13 External links 13.1 Bibliographies 13.2 Other links

Pakistan and India

Two self governing countries legally came into existence at the stroke of midnight on 15 August 1947. The ceremonies for the transfer of power were held a day earlier in Karachi, at the time the capital of the new state of Pakistan, so that the last British Viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, could attend both the ceremony in Karachi as well as the ceremony in Delhi. However another reason for this arrangement was to avoid the appearance that Pakistan was seceding from a sovereign India. Therefore Pakistan celebrates Independence Day on August 14, while India celebrates it on August 15.

Another reason for Pakistan celebrating independence on August 14 is the adoption of new standard time in Pakistan after partition.^{[citation needed]} The new standard time of Pakistan is behind Indian standard time by 30 minutes, so technically on the stroke of midnight falling between August 14 and 15, when Pakistan was "created" and "got independence", it was still 11:30 PM of 14 August in the Pakistan (West Pakistan to be specific).

Background

Late 19th and early 20th century

1909 Prevailing Religions, Map of British Indian Empire, 1909, showing the prevailing majority religions of the population for different districts.

1909 Percentage of Muslims, Map of British Indian Empire, 1909, showing percentage of Muslims in different districts.

1909 Percentage of Hindus, Map of British Indian Empire, 1909, showing percentage of Hindus in different districts.

1909 Percentage of Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jains. Map of British Indian Empire, 1909, showing percentages in different districts.

1909 Prevailing Languages (Northern Region), Map of British Indian Empire, 1909, showing the prevailing (Aryan) languages of the population for different districts.

1901 Population Density, Map of British Indian Empire, 1909, showing the population density in 1901.

1920–1932

The All India Muslim League (AIML) was formed in Dhaka in 1906 by Muslims who were suspicious of the Hindu-majority Indian National Congress. They complained that they were not given same rights as a Muslim member compared to Hindu members. A number of different scenarios were proposed at various times. Among the first to make the demand for a separate state was the writer/philosopher Allama Iqbal, who, in his presidential address to the 1930 convention of the Muslim League said that he felt a separate nation for Muslims was essential in an otherwise Hindu-dominated subcontinent. The Sindh Assembly passed a resolution making it a demand in 1935. Iqbal, Jouhar and others then worked hard to draft Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who had till then worked for Hindu-Muslim unity, to lead the movement for this new nation. By 1930, Jinnah had begun to despair of the fate of minority communities in a united India and had begun to argue that mainstream parties such as the Congress, of which he was once a member, were insensitive to Muslim interests. The 1932 communal award which seemed to threaten the position of Muslims in Hindu-majority provinces catalysed the resurgence of the Muslim League, with Jinnah as its leader. However, the League did not do well in the 1937 provincial elections, demonstrating the hold of the conservative and local forces at the time.

1932–1942

In 1940, Jinnah made a statement at the Lahore conference, which seemed to be calling for a separate Muslim 'nation'. However, the document was ambiguous and opaque, and did not evoke a Muslim nation in a territorial sense. This idea, though, was taken up by Muslims and particularly Hindus in the next seven years, and given a more territorial element. All Muslim political parties including the Khaksar Tehrik of Allama Mashriqi (Mashriqi was arrested on March 19, 1940) opposed the partition of India^[5]

Hindu organisations such as the Hindu Mahasabha, though against the division of the country, were also insisting on the same chasm between Hindus and Muslims. In 1937 at the 19th session of the Hindu Mahasabha held at Ahmedabad, Veer Savarkar in his presidential address asserted:^[6]

“

India cannot be assumed today to be Unitarian and homogeneous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main — the Hindus and the Muslims.

”

Most of the Congress leaders were secularists and resolutely opposed the division of India on the lines of religion. Mohandas Gandhi and Allama Mashriqi believed that Hindus and Muslims could and should live in amity. Gandhi opposed the partition, saying,

“

My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God.

”

For years, Gandhi and his adherents struggled to keep Muslims in the Congress Party (a major exit of many Muslim activists began in the 1930s), in the process enraging both Hindu Nationalists and Indian Muslim Nationalists. (Gandhi was assassinated soon after Partition by Hindu Nationalist Nathuram Godse, who believed that Gandhi was appeasing Muslims at the cost of Hindus.) Politicians and community leaders on both sides whipped up mutual suspicion and fear, culminating in dreadful events such as the riots during the Muslim League's Direct Action Day of August 1946 in Calcutta, in which more than 5,000 people were killed and many more injured. As public order broke down all across northern India and Bengal, the pressure increased to seek a political partition of territories as a way to avoid a full-scale civil war.

1942–1946

Until 1946, the definition of Pakistan as demanded by the League was so flexible that it could have been interpreted as a sovereign nation Pakistan, or as a member of a confederated India.

Some historians believe Jinnah intended to use the threat of partition as a bargaining chip in order to gain more independence for the Muslim dominated provinces in the west from the Hindu dominated center.^[7]

Other historians claim that Jinnah's real vision was for a Pakistan that extended into Hindu-majority areas of India, by demanding the inclusion of the East of Punjab and West of Bengal, including Assam, an all Hindu-majority country. Jinnah also fought hard for the annexation of Kashmir, a Muslim majority state with Hindu ruler; and the accession of Hyderabad and Junagadh, Hindu-majority states with Muslim rulers.^{[citation needed]}

The British colonial administration did not directly rule all of "India". There were several different political arrangements in existence: Provinces were ruled directly and the Princely States with varying legal arrangements, like paramountcy.

The British Colonial Administration consisted of Secretary of State for India, the India Office, the Governor-General of India, and the Indian Civil Service.

The Indian Political Parties were (alphabetically) All India Muslim League, Communist Party of India, Hindu Mahasabha, Indian National CongressKhaksar Tehrik, and the Unionist Muslim League (mainly in the Punjab).

The Partition: 1947

Mountbatten Plan

The actual division between the two new dominions was done according to what has come to be known as the 3rd June Plan or Mountbatten Plan.

The border between India and Pakistan was determined by a British Government-commissioned report usually referred to as the Radcliffe Line after the London lawyer, Sir Cyril Radcliffe, who wrote it. Pakistan came into being with two non-contiguous enclaves, East Pakistan (today Bangladesh) and West Pakistan, separated geographically by India. India was formed out of the majority Hindu regions of the colony, and Pakistan from the majority Muslim areas.

On July 18, 1947, the British Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act that finalized the partition arrangement. The Government of India Act 1935 was adapted to provide a legal framework for the two new dominions. Following partition, Pakistan was added as a new member of the United Nations. The union formed from the combination of the Hindu states assumed the name India which automatically granted it the seat of British India (a UN member since 1945) as a successor state.^[8]

The 625 Princely States were given a choice of which country to join.

Geography of the partition: the Radcliffe Line

The Punjab — the region of the five rivers east of Indus: Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej — consists of interfluvial doabs, or tracts of land lying between two confluent rivers. These are the Sind-Sagar doab (between Indus and Jhelum), the Jech doab (Jhelum/Chenab), the Rechna doab (Chenab/Ravi), the Bari doab (Ravi/Beas), and the Bist doab (Beas/Sutlej) (see map). In early 1947, in the months leading up to the deliberations of the Punjab Boundary Commission, the main disputed areas appeared to be in the Bari and Bist doabs, although some areas in the Rechna doab were claimed by the Congress and Sikhs. In the Bari doab, the districts of Gurdaspur, Amritsar, Lahore, and Montgomery were all disputed.^[9] All districts (other than Amritsar, which was 46.5% Muslim) had Muslim majorities; albeit, in Gurdaspur, the Muslim majority, at 51.1%, was slender. At a smaller area-scale, only three tehsils (sub-units of a district) in the Bari doab had non-Muslim majorities. These were: Pathankot (in the extreme north of Gurdaspur, which was not in dispute), and Amritsar and Tarn Taran in Amritsar district. In addition, there were four Muslim-majority tehsils east of Beas-Sutlej (with two where Muslims outnumbered Hindus and Sikhs together).^[9]

Before the Boundary Commission began formal hearings, governments were set up for the East and the West Punjab regions. Their territories were provisionally divided by "notional division" based on simple district majorities. In both the Punjab and Bengal, the Boundary Commission consisted of two Muslim and two non-Muslim judges with Sir Cyril Radcliffe as a common chairman.^[9] The mission of the Punjab commission was worded generally as: "To demarcate the boundaries of the two parts of the Punjab, on the basis of ascertaining the contiguous majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims. In doing so, it will take into account other factors." Each side (the Muslims and the Congress/Sikhs) presented its claim through counsel with no liberty to bargain. The judges too had no mandate to compromise and on all major issues they "divided two and two, leaving Sir Cyril Radcliffe the invidious task of making the actual decisions."^[9]

Independence and population exchanges

Massive population exchanges occurred between the two newly-formed states in the months immediately following Partition. Once the lines were established, about 14.5 million people crossed the borders to what they hoped was the relative safety of religious majority. Based on 1951 Census of displaced persons, 7,226,000 Muslims went to Pakistan from India while 7,249,000 Hindus and Sikhs moved to India from Pakistan immediately after partition. About 11.2 million or 78% of the population transfer took place in the west, with Punjab accounting for most of it; 5.3 million Muslims moved from India to West Punjab in Pakistan, 3.4 million Hindus and Sikhs moved from Pakistan to East Punjab in India; elsewhere in the west 1.2 million moved in each direction to and from Sind.^{[citation needed]}

The newly formed governments were completely unequipped to deal with migrations of such staggering magnitude, and massive violence and slaughter occurred on both sides of the border. Estimates of the number of deaths range around roughly 500,000, with low estimates at 200,000 and high estimates at 1,000,000.^[10]

Punjab

Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. (June 2008)

The Indian state of Punjab was created in 1947, when the Partition of India split the former Raj province of Punjab between India and Pakistan. The mostly Muslim western part of the province became Pakistan's Punjab Province; the mostly Sikh and Hindu eastern part became India's Punjab state. Many Hindus and Sikhs lived in the west, and many Muslims lived in the east, and so the partition saw many people displaced and much intercommunal violence. Lahore and Amritsar were at the center of the problem, the British were not sure where to place them - make them part of India or Pakistan. The British did make a decision to hand both cities to India, but due to lack of control and regulation for the border Amritsar became part of India whilst Lahore became part of Pakistan.

Bengal

The province of Bengal was divided into the two separate entities of West Bengal belonging to India, and East Bengal belonging to Pakistan. East Bengal was renamed East Pakistan in 1955, and later became the independent nation of Bangladesh after the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971.

Sindh

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. (November 2007)

Hindu Sindhis were expected to stay in Sindh following Partition, as there were good relations between Hindu and Muslim Sindhis. At the time of Partition there were 1,400,000 Hindu Sindhis, though most were concentrated in the cities such as Hyderabad, Karachi, Shikarpur, and Sukkur. However, due to an uncertain future in a Muslim country, a sense of better opportunities in India, and most of all a sudden influx of Muslim refugees from Gujarat, UP, Bihar, Rajputana (Rajasthan) and other parts of India, many Sindhi Hindus decided to leave for India. Problems were further aggravated when incidents of violence instigated by Indian Muslim refugees broke out in Karachi and Hyderabad. As per the census of India 1951, nearly 776,000 Sindhi Hindus had poured into India.^[11] Unlike the Punjabi Hindus and Sikhs, Sindhi Hindus did not have to witness any massive scale rioting; however, their entire province had gone to Pakistan thus they felt like a homeless community. Despite this migration, a significant Sindhi Hindu population still resides in Pakistan's Sindh province where they number at around 2.28 million as per Pakistan's 1998 census while the Sindhi Hindus in India as per 2001 census of India were at 2.57 million.^{[citation needed]}

Perspectives

The Partition was a highly controversial arrangement, and remains a cause of much tension on the subcontinent today. British Viceroy Louis Mountbatten has not only been accused of rushing the process through, but also is alleged to have influenced the Radcliffe Line in India's favour since everyone agreed India would be a more desirable country for most.^{[12] [13]} However, the commission took so long to decide on a final boundary that the two nations were granted their independence even before there was a defined boundary between them. Even then, the members were so distraught at their handiwork (and its results) that they refused compensation for their time on the commission.^{[citation needed]}

Some critics allege that British haste led to the cruelties of the Partition.^[14] Because independence was declared prior to the actual Partition, it was up to the new governments of India and Pakistan to keep public order. No large population movements were contemplated; the plan called for safeguards for minorities on both sides of the new state line. It was an impossible task, at which both states failed. There was a complete breakdown of law and order; many died in riots, massacre, or just from the hardships of their flight to safety. What ensued was one of the largest population movements in recorded history. According to Richard Symonds^[15]

“

at the lowest estimate, half a million people perished and twelve million became homeless

”

However, some argue that the British were forced to expedite the Partition by events on the ground.^[16] Law and order had broken down many times before Partition, with much bloodshed on both sides. A massive civil war was looming by the time Mountbatten became Viceroy. After World War II, Britain had limited resources, ^[17] perhaps insufficient to the task of keeping order. Another view point is that while Mountbatten may have been too hasty he had no real options left and achieved the best he could under difficult circumstances.^[18] Historian Lawrence James concurs that in 1947 Mountbatten was left with no option but to cut and run. The alternative seemed to be involvement in a potentially bloody civil war from which it would be difficult to get out.^[19]

Conservative elements in England consider the partition of India to be the moment that the British Empire ceased to be a world power, following Curzon's dictum that "While we hold on to India, we are a first-rate power. If we lose India, we will decline to a third-rate power." The 'flick' of the pen with which Clement Atlee signed the independence treaty is, where remembered, considered sadly; not for the loss of India, but for the loss of what holding India meant.

Delhi Punjabi refugees

An estimated 25 million people - Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs -(1947-present) crossed the newly carved borders to reach their new homelands. These estimates are based on comparisons of decadal censuses from 1941 and 1951 with adjustments for normal population growth in the areas of migration. In northern India - undivided Punjab and North Western Frontier Province (NWFP) - nearly 12 million were forced to move from as early as March 1947 following the Rawalpindi violence. Delhi received the highest number of refugees for a single city - the population of Delhi grew rapidly in 1947 from under 1 million (917.939) to a little less than 2 million (1.744.072) between the period 1941-1951.(Census of India, 1941 and 1951). The refugees were housed in various historical and military locations such as the Old Fort Purana Qila), Red Fort (Red Fort), and military barracks in Kingsway (around the present Delhi university). The latter became the site of one of the largest refugee camps in northern India with more than 35,000 refugees at any given time besides Kurukshetra camp near Panipat. The camp sites were later converted into permanent housing through extensive building projects undertaken by the Government of India from 1948 onwards. A number of housing colonies in Delhi came up around this period like Lajpat Nagar, Rajinder Nagar, Nizamuddin, Punjabi Bagh, Rehgar Pura, Jungpura and Kingsway. A number of schemes such as provision of education, employment opportunities, easy loans to start businesses etc. were provided for the refugees at all-India level. The Delhi refugees, however, were able to make use of these facilities much better than their counterparts elsewhere.^[20]

The Partition Factor In The Status Of Indian Muslims ^{[21] [22]}

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. (December 2008) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

India and Pakistan are conventionally looked upon as sovereign nation states with a border dispute. This description ignores the significant fact that no border ever existed where one does now between India and Pakistan, and that all Pakistanis were once Indians, within living memory. Ignoring, or forgetting these facts leads to a skewed viewpoint that precludes understanding of the special incestuous relationship that India and Pakistan have. India's relationship with Pakistan, and Pakistan's accusations about the Indian treatment of its Muslims have played a role in the moulding of Hindu attitudes in India towards Muslims in general and Pakistan in particular.

A brief review of how Pakistan suddenly appeared on the map in 1947 is necessary. The areas that are now called "Pakistan" and "Bangladesh" were parts of India. They were not even independent provinces - but they were areas that had a majority population of Muslims. Other areas of India too had Muslims, but the Muslims in other areas were in a minority compared to non-Muslims, primarily Hindus who were in a majority.

Until the British, who ruled over India, conducted the first ever census of India in 1872, the idea that there were 'Muslim majority areas" and "Hindu majority areas" in India did not even exist for Indians. The British are to be given credit for figuring out this statistic in their reductionist urge to classify everything as part of the scientific revolution that was sweeping across Europe and Britain. Just over three 3 decades later the eastern state of Bengal had been partitioned into a Muslim majority Eastern and a Hindu majority Western half - an act that was politically unpopular, and was annulled in a few years. But this did set the precedent for the subsequent partitioning of India on religion based lines, given that India could now be reliably classified by the decennial census into areas that were "Muslim majority" or 'Hindu majority". By 1885, when The Indian National Congress party, the party that oversaw India's independence 62 years later was formed, there were already rumblings of discontent among the elite Muslims of India who perceived that their status was gradually being eroded with respect to Hindus. The Indian National Congress party was formed as a party to include all Indians with no bias towards any specific religious group. However, sections of the malcontent Muslim elite refused to accept the Congress as an inclusive party, accusing it of being a cover for Hindu dominance. A rival Muslim-only party called the Muslim League was formed in 1906. While that party sought separate representation for Muslims, and represented Muslim grievances and exclusivism, its mandate did not extend to demanding a separate country. However the demand for an India free from the British was growing and it was becoming apparent that independence for India would become inevitable.

In the ensuing years the differences between the secular Congress Party and the Muslim-only Muslim league could not be patched up. The Muslim League led by Jinnah demanded a minimum one third representation of Muslims in the central government as well as separate electorates for Muslims in a set of demands that were unacceptable to the Congress party. Shortly thereafter the concept of a separate state for Muslims was conceived by Mohammad Iqbal based on the idea that Muslims and Hindus formed "two separate nations" that were incompatible. The name, "Pakistan" was proposed for such a Muslim only state in 1930. But even in 1946, the formation of a separate country called "Pakistan" was not assured^{[citation needed]}.

The British plan for the independence of India came to be known as the "Cripps Cabinet Mission Plan"(of 1946) and involved one of two alternative plans - called the "May 16th plan" and the "June 16th plan"^{[citation needed]}. The May 16th plan envisaged the division of a united India into Muslim majority and Hindu majority provinces. The June 16th plan envisaged the division of India into a Muslim majority nation state called Pakistan leaving a Hindu majority India. The Congress party rejected the partition plan (of June 16th) outright and was unwilling to accept the May 16 plan except for its idea of forming a constitution for India. The Muslim League, furious at the Congress Party's outright rejection of the June 16th plan for the formation of an independent Pakistan attempted to demonstrate Muslim militant power by initiating what was called the "Direct Action Day" (August 16th 1946) in which thousands of Hindus and Sikhs were massacred in Calcutta (Kolkata). The violence later spread to other parts of India.

This "Direct Action Day" led to two consequences, only one of which is acknowledged. It is acknowledged that the Direct Action Day instigated by the Muslim League set the stage for the partition of India. What is not acknowledged and does not get a mention in the incompletely written history of India is the fact that this "Direct Action Day" was to be remembered by the Hindus of India, rightly or wrongly, as an indicator that Muslims were prone to violence and either needed to be treated with special care, or were to be expected to react with violence. Less than a year after "Direct Action Day" India became independent and Pakistan was created. The massacres that followed partition not only increased Hindu suspicions that violence was to be expected as a norm from Muslims, but it equally had the effect of making the Indian Muslims who went to Pakistan become fearful and distrustful of what they felt was "Hindu India".

Since independence India's relationship with Pakistan has developed more in terms of "Who is correct?" rather than the relationship that is developed between two sovereign states such as India and Brazil for example. The Pakistan experiment was based on the idea that Muslims can never ever live with Hindus in India, and that any Muslims who remained behind would be subjugated and enslaved. Once Pakistan was formed, every action from Pakistan towards India was geared towards proving that India was subjugating and enslaving Muslims. The accession of a "Hindu king" - Hari Singh of Kashmir to India was held up as proof of why Muslims needed a separate state, or needed to be rescued from Hindus.

But while Pakistan's reactions to India are well documented^{[citation needed]}, little is said about India's handling of Muslims, Pakistan and the idea of the "two nation theory". The formation of Pakistan required India to prove to itself, to the world at large and to the Muslims remaining in India that India stood for equality, and that Muslims would not be subjugated, and that all of Pakistan's accusations were false - and that Pakistan itself was therefore irrelevant. At the same time, many Hindus were both concerned and suspicious of Muslims. The violence of Direct Action Day and the Partition were fresh in their memories. Traumatized and bereaved families were still trying to come to terms with loss. Indian policy allowed Muslims remaining in independent India to migrate to Pakistan if they wished. This created a climate of suspicion in which it was not known if a given Muslim in India might suddenly change his mind and migrate to Pakistan. On the other hand, it was not possible for India to stop Muslims who wanted to migrate from doing so. This dilemma almost certainly served to paint a negative picture of those Muslims who chose to remain in India as potential traitors and sources of violent conflict. This resulted in an invisible bias against Muslims who were perceived as covert supporters of Pakistan and as a people who were prone to violent disruption. This invisible bias has played a role in the post independence history of India.

Given this atmosphere of suspicion, proving that Muslims would not be subjugated in India and speaking "equality" in the same breath was difficult. India had to have a one-man-one-vote system, but Indian Muslims had to be given anything else they wanted to show that their ability to lead Muslim lives would not in any way be hampered by their remaining in India. The constitution and legislation in India therefore favored allowing Muslims to be wholly Islamic and placed no demands on them to join the rest of the population in any way.

The consequences of such a policy need to be understood. The Indian state did not build Islamic or Hindu or Christian schools. The Indian state built only secular schools offering a modern education. Non Muslims of India who wanted an education had no choice other than to join these secular schools, and they did so in vast numbers. Muslims on the other hand were never actively encouraged to join secular schools. There were never any official restrictions on them if they wanted to join secular schools, but there was no pressure on them to do so. They were officially allowed to opt out of secular education if Muslims felt that is what they wanted. In addition, the invisible bias against Muslims probably did serve to discourage some Muslims from continuing a secular education. All that was required of Muslims was to live in India as they liked. They did not specifically have to change their attitudes or lifestyle in keeping with the demands of a modernizing world and a developing country. There was an unspoken, but privately expressed fear among non-Muslim Indians that "Muslims may revolt and become violent" if they were compelled to submit to the secular education that was required in the creation of vast numbers of engineers and others needed for building a modern India.

Thus two separate types of bias have helped to create the situation that we see in modern India. One was the invisible bias among non Muslims that was suspicious of Muslims. The second was the active encouragement by the Indian state to allow Muslims to live wholly Islamic lives with few restrictions. This was done to "prove" that a wholly Islamic lifestyle was wholly compatible with the secular Indian state. For the Indian state, a Muslim living a wholly Islamic life in India served as a "poster boy" of Islam in India. India could then hold up its Muslim poster boys and tell the world in general, and Pakistan in particular: 'Look how secular we are. Look at this devout Muslim. He is an Indian living an unrestricted Islamic life in India".

In 1947 the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent were given two choices. Sixty years after independence it is possible to pass some comments on what has happened to the Muslims of the subcontinent and compare the results of the two choices:

• Live in Pakistan where "pure" (Paki) Islam would rule, undiluted by interference from Hindus. Muslims would be free to rule themselves as they wished. In theory the state would be democratic, but not secular.
• Live in India. Here Muslims would be free to elect their leaders and free to lead their lives as Muslims. Muslims could live by the Quran if they wished but the state would officially be secular and democratic.

As an Islamic state, Pakistan has moved down the rankings of human development and towards Islamic radicalism. It has also already broken up into two countries - Pakistan and Bangladesh. The Indian Muslims who became Pakistanis are now divided among two countries, and inside Pakistan they are at war with each other as well as being at war with Afghanistan, the West and India. The Muslims of India have been given every opportunity to live their lives as Muslims, and this has led to the following effects

• Non Muslim Indians have accused each other of being extra soft and accommodating towards Muslims. It has been said that India has followed a policy of Muslim appeasement in which no demands are placed on Muslims for nation building while every policy is aimed at satisfying any requirement that is deemed as necessary for being properly Islamic. A Muslim only has to demand something as being an Islamic necessity for Muslims, and the Indian state will promptly grant it as a secular state ever eager to prove its Muslim-friendly credentials.
• Huge numbers of Indian Muslims have not been forced in any way to see the harsh realities of the world in which it is essential to acquire a secular education and join the mainstream of the world economy. In fact the opposite has occurred in India. Indian Muslims have, in effect, been told: "OK you are Muslims - so you must be Muslim and lead your Muslim life. No need for college/school - after all Quran is enough for you". Muslims in India have faced the double effects of backward thinking among their elders as well as a pseudo-secular insistence on keeping them as visibly devout Muslims to prove the point that undiluted and unrestricted Islam is alive and well in India - much more so than in Pakistan.

So while some Muslims have done well in India - they have remained backward in thought and action and education. This, it would seem, goes some way towards explaining the differences between Muslim and non Muslim development statistics in India as highlighted in the Sachar committee report^[23]. These differences are now leading to a "second wave" of Muslim grievances in which some Muslims feel they are being discriminated against. In contrast it appears that the government and the majority non Muslims of India are unable to see beyond the statistics as to why Muslims should be finding new grievances when the laws are notionally neutral to all but are perceived in practice as being especially "Muslim friendly". Muslims grievances are thus seen as unreasonable demands being made by a minority who have received every concession in the name of Islam and who are prone to get violent at the slightest provocation.

The root of this mess it would seem lies at least partly sin attitudes created among the majority non Muslims of India by the violent history of partition, the perceived ambiguous nationality of Muslims, and the fear that Muslims may resort to violence. There has been a tendency for the Indian state to instantly give in to demands by fundamentalist Muslims for any Islamic cause, but in doing that Indian Muslims are being "excused" and allowed to exclude themselves from education and jobs so long as they go on living as peaceful and devout "poster-boy" Indian Muslims. A lot of young Indian Muslims seek education and jobs like everyone else and not the compulsion to remain as devout "poster-boy" Muslims which has been encouraged by an Indian state that dutifully bends to every fundamentalist Islamic demand. Sadly, lack of understanding of these complex dynamics is causing some Muslims to resort to violence. This violence is being viewed by the non Muslim majority as "further proof" that Muslims are violent "by nature". While violence must not be tolerated, it is important for both the Muslims and non Muslims of India to understand the history and events that have led to each group suspecting the other of being biased, scheming and less than human. The Indian state and polity need to recognize that their action in feeding Islamic fundamentalism by acceding to fundamentalist demands like mindless banning of books and authors, and forcing certain judgements, needs to be replaced by understanding how their deeds often support medieval fundamentalism rather than encouraging progressive Muslim thought.

Refugees settled in India

Many Sikhs and Hindu Punjabis settled in the Indian parts of Punjab and Delhi. Hindus migrating from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) settled across Eastern India and Northeastern India, many ending up in close-by states like West Bengal, Assam, and Tripura. Some migrants were sent to the Andaman islands.

Hindu Sindhis found themselves without a homeland. The responsibility of rehabilitating them was borne by their government. Refugee camps were set up for Hindu Sindhis. However, non-Sindhi Hindus received little help from the Government of India, and many never received compensation of any sort from the Indian Government.

Many refugees overcame the trauma of poverty, though the loss of a homeland has had a deeper and lasting effect on their Sindhi culture.

In late 2004, the Sindhi diaspora vociferously opposed a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court of India which asked the government of India to delete the word "Sindh" from the Indian National Anthem (written by Rabindranath Tagore prior to the partition) on the grounds that it infringed upon the sovereignty of Pakistan.

Refugees settled in Pakistan

Refugees or Muhajirs in Pakistan came from various parts of India. There was a large influx of Punjabi Muslims from East Punjab fleeing the riots. Despite severe physical and economic hardships, East Punjabi refugees to Pakistan did not face problems of cultural and linguistic assimilation after partition. However, there were many Muslim refugees who migrated to Pakistan from other Indian states. These refugees came from many different ethnic groups and regions in India, including Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh (then known as "United Provinces of Agra and Awadh", or UP), Madhya Pradesh (then Central Province or "CP"), Gujarat, Bihar, what was then the princely state of Hyderabad and so on. The descendants of these non-Punjabi refugees in Pakistan often refer to themselves as Muhajir whereas the assimilated Punjabi refugees no longer make that political distinction. Large numbers of non-Punjabi refugees settled in Sindh, particularly in the cities of Karachi and Hyderabad. They are united by their refugee status and their native Urdu language and are a strong political force in Sindh.

Artistic depictions of the Partition

Main article: Artistic depictions of the partition of India

In addition to the enormous historical literature on the Partition, there is also an extensive body of artistic work (novels, short stories, poetry, films, plays, paintings, etc.) that deals imaginatively with the pain and horror of the event.

See also

• Indian reunification
• British East India Company
• British India
• List of Indian Princely States
• Indian independence movement
• Pakistan Movement
• East Bengal
• History of Bangladesh
• History of India
• History of Pakistan
• Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
• India (disambiguation)

References

Further reading

Popularizations

• Collins, Larry and Dominique Lapierre: Freedom at Midnight. London: Collins, 1975. ISBN 0-00-638851-5
• Zubrzycki, John. (2006) The Last Nizam: An Indian Prince in the Australian Outback. Pan Macmillan, Australia. ISBN 978-0-3304-2321-2.

Memoir

• Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam: India Wins Freedom, Orient Longman, 1988. ISBN 81-250-0514-5

Academic monographs

• Ansari, Sarah. 2005. Life after Partition: Migration, Community and Strife in Sindh: 1947—1962. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 256 pages. ISBN 019597834X.
• Butalia, Urvashi. 1998. The Other Side of Silence: Voices from the Partition of India. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 308 pages. ISBN 0822324946
• Chatterji, Joya. 2002. Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition, 1932—1947. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. 323 pages. ISBN 0521523281.
• Gilmartin, David. 1988. Empire and Islam: Punjab and the Making of Pakistan. Berkeley: University of California Press. 258 pages. ISBN 0520062493.
• Gossman, Partricia. 1999. Riots and Victims: Violence and the Construction of Communal Identity Among Bengali Muslims, 1905-1947. Westview Press. 224 pages. ISBN 0813336252
• Hansen, Anders Bjørn. 2004. "Partition and Genocide: Manifestation of Violence in Punjab 1937-1947", India Research Press. ISBN 9788187943259.
• Hasan, Mushirul (2001), written at Oxford and Delhi, India's Partition: Process, Strategy and Mobilization, Oxford University Press, 444 pages, ISBN 0195635043.
• Ikram, S. M. 1995. Indian Muslims and Partition of India. Delhi: Atlantic. ISBN 8171563740
• Jain, Jasbir, written at Cambridge, UK, Reading Partition, Living Partition, Rawat Publications, 338 pages (published 2007), ISBN 8131600459
• Jalal, Ayesha, written at Cambridge, UK, The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan, Cambridge University Press, 334 pages (published 1993), ISBN 0521458501
• Kaur, Ravinder. 2007. "Since 1947: Partition Narratives among Punjabi Migrants of Delhi". Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195683776.
• Khan, Yasmin (September 18, 2007), written at New Haven and London, The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan, Yale University Press, 250 pages (published 2007), ISBN 0300120788
• Page, David, Anita Inder Singh, Penderel Moon, G. D. Khosla, and Mushirul Hasan. 2001. The Partition Omnibus: Prelude to Partition/the Origins of the Partition of India 1936-1947/Divide and Quit/Stern Reckoning. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195658507
• Pandey, Gyanendra. 2002. Remembering Partition:: Violence, Nationalism and History in India. Cambride, UK: Cambridge University Press. 232 pages. ISBN 0521002508
• Raza, Hashim S. 1989. Mountbatten and the partition of India. New Delhi: Atlantic. ISBN 81-7156-059-8
• Shaikh, Farzana. 1989. Community and Consensus in Islam: Muslim Representation in Colonial India, 1860—1947. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 272 pages. ISBN 0521363284.
• Talbot, Ian and Gurharpal Singh (eds). 1999. Region and Partition: Bengal, Punjab and the Partition of the Subcontinent. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 420 pages. ISBN 0195790510.
• Talbot, Ian. 2002. Khizr Tiwana: The Punjab Unionist Party and the Partition of India. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 216 pages. ISBN 0195795512.
• Talbot, Ian. 2006. Divided Cities: Partition and Its Aftermath in Lahore and Amritsar. Oxford and Karachi: Oxford University Press. 350 pages. ISBN 0195472268.
• Wolpert, Stanley. 2006. Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 272 pages. ISBN 0195151984.
• J. Butler, Lawrence. 2002. Britain and Empire: Adjusting to a Post-Imperial World. London: I.B.Tauris. 256 pages. ISBN 186064449X
• Khosla, G. D. Stern reckoning : a survey of the events leading up to and following the partition of India New Delhi: Oxford University Press:358 pages Published: February 1990 ISBN 0195624173

Articles

• Review by Chudhry Manzoor Ahmed Marxist MP in Pakistani Parliament book by Lal Khan 'Partition can it be undone?'
• Gilmartin, David. 1998. "Partition, Pakistan, and South Asian History: In Search of a Narrative." The Journal of Asian Studies, 57(4):1068-1095.
• Jeffrey, Robin. 1974. "The Punjab Boundary Force and the Problem of Order, August 1947" - Modern Asian Studies 8(4):491-520.
• Kaur Ravinder. 2007. "India and Pakistan: Partition Lessons". Open Democracy.
• Kaur, Ravinder. 2006. "The Last Journey: Social Class in the Partition of India". Economic and Political Weekly, June 2006. www.epw.org.in
• Mookerjea-Leonard, Debali. 2005. "Divided Homelands, Hostile Homes: Partition, Women and Homelessness". Journal of Commonwealth Literature, 40(2):141-154.
• Morris-Jones. 1983. "Thirty-Six Years Later: The Mixed Legacies of Mountbatten's Transfer of Power". International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs), 59(4):621-628.
• Spate, O. H. K. (1947), "The Partition of the Punjab and of Bengal", The Geographical Journal 110 (4/6): 201-218
• Spear, Percival. 1958. "Britain's Transfer of Power in India." Pacific Affairs, 31(2):173-180.
• Talbot, Ian. 1994. "Planning for Pakistan: The Planning Committee of the All-India Muslim League, 1943-46". Modern Asian Studies, 28(4):875-889.
• Visaria, Pravin M. 1969. "Migration Between India and Pakistan, 1951-61" Demography, 6(3):323-334.

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Partition of British India

Bibliographies

• Select Research Bibliography on the Partition of India, Compiled by Vinay Lal, Department of History, UCLA; University of California at Los Angeles list
• A select list of Indian Publications on the Partition of India (Punjab & Bengal); University of Virginia list
• South Asian History: Colonial India — University of California, Berkeley Collection of documents on colonial India, Independence, and Partition]
• Indian Nationalism — Fordham University archive of relevant public-domain documents]

Other links

• Can Partition be undone? Economic and Political Review India by Ranabir Sammadar
• Partition of India by A. G. Noorani.
• Clip from 1947 newsreel showing Indian independence ceremony
• Partition of Bengal, 1947, Asiatic Society of Bangladesh
• Personal Stories of Hindu Sindhis