The Demand for Partition of India

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

About the Author SYED ALI MUJTABA (b. 1962) is currently working as a journalist. "The Demand for Partition of India and the British 1940-45" is his doctoral work done at the South Asia Division, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

Mujtaba has an aptitude for academic and research. His research papers have appeared in journals like Strategic Analysis of the IDSA, Journal of South Asia, Jaipur, Polsan Studies Nepal, surfaced in the Political Science Abstracts from France.

Mujtaba had been to London, Oxford, Cambridge to pursue Research. He presented a paper at the Darwin College, Cambridge. He had also been to the Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu(Nepal) to read a paper. Besides, he had attended numerous conferences, seminars, workshops of national and international level.

Mujtaba had teamed up with an American scholar, Brnce Vanghan, to do some research papers and popular writings at the JNU. His newspaper writeups have surfaced in all major national and regional dailies of the country. His hobbies include reading, writing and research related activities.

Preface The theme "Partition of India" acquires a central place in the history of South Asia. It is as a result of this forceful event that a separate nation called Pakistan came into being.

In contemporary India whenever communal riot flares up, Indo-Pak tension hots up, right of self determination is raked up, Partition acquires a central theme in popular gossip.

The present generation is unaware of the nuances of the Partition process. They ask; was partition inevitable? At what point of time Muslims who once ruled India realised they are a minority? Why did they not participate with their combined strength in the wave of Indian nationalism spear-headed by the Indian National Congress? Why only a handful remained as a nationalist Muslim? What forced the rest to become communal? Some of these questions continue to haunt the young mind even today.

One may recapitulate, even before Muhammad Bin Qasim's conquest of Sindh, Muslims were found as far as in the pockets of Malabar coast and various other places in India. After Mahmood Ghaznavi's depredation, the road of Turkish entry was cleared by Shabuddin Ghori following the battle of Tarain in 1192. Thereafter, the conquest and consolidation of the North by the Delhi Sultans, took them down South. The rest of India was then to be governed from the North. However, after the cracking up of the central structure of the Tuglaq dynasty, regional groupings like Bahmani and Vijayanagar emerged in the South and Sharaiki in the North.

At the ideological level, the spurt of Sufi Silsila or orders, as they were called, conquered the hearts of the multitude The main protagonist of this stream belonged to the Chistya sect whose teachings were akin to the Indian cultural ethos. They became embedded in the soil of India through their message of Pantheism (numina and phenomena are the same).

The 15th, 16th and 17th centuries were the period of cultural assimilation, mutual tolerance and religious co-existence. This was the time when Vedantic philosophy, was fused with the mystic ideology of the Sufis. Dadu, Nanak, Kabir, Pipa were the torch bearers of religious tolerance and plural co-existence in India. In this socio-religious climate, emperor Akbar was experimenting with Sulah-e-Kul (peace with all) and Din-e-Ilahi, a common religion, loosely termed as divine monotheist. A secular treatise "Majmaul Bahrain" (Mingling of the ocean) was written under the agies of Dara Shikoh.

Communalism at this point of time did not exist at the popular level, the co-option of the non-Muslim nobility by the successive Mughal kings suggest that, it did not exist either at the elitist level either.

After the death of emperor Aurangzeb, the decline of the central structure set in again. This vacuum was filled by the provincial and regional kingdoms. The last flicker for the restoration of the indigenous central power was catapulated by the revolt of 1857. It's failure led, British to became the masters of India.

Introduction India's Independence and Parition are two sides of the same coin. The two shades are reflected in our natioanal movement within whose womb nestled these duality. One of success and other of failure, duccess because, ournationalism triumphed to throw away the colonial yoke, failure because it was unable to resolve the communal rigmarole and ultimately went on to consent for the partition of the country.

Over fifty years have elapsed to the partition process, still the debate remains inconclusive as to who was responsible for the division of the country. The spot-light of this work is on The Demand for Partition and the British Policy: 1940-45. Investigation of such topics are often ridden with conflicting and even contradictory work. It is very difficult to agree upon an standard argument as what had been propounded by some, the opposite is equally argued with great deftness.

By and large the running theme in the entire corpus of literature is to what extent Pakistan was intended culmination of separatist policy or unintended by product of the social forces unleashed during our freedomn struggle. How far the contending parties were responsible for the division of the country.

The orthodox British opinion suggest that they tried their outmost throughn the Government of India Act of 1935, that the representatibves of the Indian dominion and the princely states should come into the federation and frame the Constitution of India to the satisfaction of every one - British supervising till a working arrangement was evolved in India. However, the political one upmanship between Congress and Muslim League, compounded by British war time interedt precipitated a situaiton that demanded a surgical operation of the country. Muslim League wanted it, Congress consented to it and the British executed it, opinions the British view point.

The Congress view suggested that they always wanted to accommodate Muslim League in the secular framework of the country and in fact had given them assurances for the protection of their interest but this only after attaining the Puran Swaraj. Muslim League on the other hand, alleged that Congress assurances were only an eye wash and in spite of their repeated plea, the Congress always ignored to come to terms with them. They brushed aside Muslim League on the ground that Congress was the true representative of every section of Indian opinion and Muslim League was an innocuous organisation sans inherent strength. Muslim League through the bogey of Pakistan wanted to demonstrate its political strength and put pressure on Congress to accommodate them. But, since Congress did not weant to share power with Muslim League they consented for the partition of India. The debate continues, so far no final word has been agreed upon.

There are different constructs advanced and to accommodate them all is a difficult task. Nevertheless an attempt is made here to put the complex mosaic of partition literature consisting conflicting strands and prpesdent a cognitive framework of the subject by independently delving into this theme.

The growth of Muslim separatism can be explained as a consequence of the reality faced by the Muslims in their minority provinces (U.P., Bihar, Bombay) not only among the educated classes towards the available job opportunities but more among the landlord class to the reality of losing their privileged position once British rule came to an end. On the other, in the provinces where Muslims were tin majority (Bengal, Punjab and Sindh) it was a reaction to the unitary form of government that would jeopardise their dominant position after the British departure.

There is an another view wbhich says that when colonial masters doled out the benefits of office, Muslims lagged behind in terms of education and employment. As a result, they feared associating themsdelves with the mainstream nationalism spearheaded by the Indian National Congress. The resdultant isolation fomented separatist tendencies amongst the Muslims."

Muslim separatism is viewed as a product of a group mobilization to defend to defend its dwindling position. Muslims, as a result, wanted to move into their own distinct way. They tried to forge inter-regional alliances which could satisfy them alone."