India was partitioned at Independence on the 15thof August 1947 into two distinct nations. A newly established and principally Muslim state of Pakistan and a Hindu dominated India. (Shirin Keen , 1998) This occurred due to the fact that Indians were unable to establish a compromise between Hindu desires for one nation under majority rule and Muslim wishes for a separate state. The pressure from the rising wave of nationalism made running the empire politically and economically challenging and increasingly not cost effective. European capital investment declined in the years of war and India went from a debtor country in the WWI to a creditor in WWII. British’s strategy of a gradual devolution of power, its representation to the Indians successive constitutional acts and a deliberate Indianisation of the administration, gathered a momentum of its own. India moved towards self-government. (Dr.Chandrika Kaul, 2011) The timing of independence owed a great deal to WWII and the demands it put on the British government and people. The United States foreign policy pressured the end of western subjugation and imperialism. It was only a matter of time before India gained its freedom. Protests and rioting also played a role. (Dr.Chandrika Kaul, 2011) In this essay I will discuss why India broke up in 1947 and how does the violence of the break up speak to some of the benefits of imperial rule.
The conflict between India and Pakistan originated as a clash between Indian and Muslim nationalism during British colonial rule. The Indian National Congress led the Indian nationalist struggle, while the Muslim nationalist political organization was the Muslim League. Once the British government retreated from South Asia after WWII, it served notice on these two organizations to negotiate a constitutional framework for post-colonial India before its departure in 1947. But bitter tensions created by the colonial legacy of divide and rule made it impossible for the parties to meet this demand within the prescribed time. The British government imposed its own plan and departed. Devised by the last British Viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, areas whose populations were predominantly Muslim, joined Pakistan, while Hindu majority areas were to be a part of India. The boundary between India and Pakistan was drawn by British lawyer Cyril Radcliffe. (Tariq Ashan, 2002)
The division between India and Pakistan occurred due to religious influence. Mohandas Gandhi claimed that religious differences deeply divided the country, and by allowing a division would be to claim that both Islam and Hinduism are opposing religions. (Partition) The idea of this partition was considered to be logical and an inevitable outcome of the irreconcilable opposition between Hindus and Muslims. The division did not stop the conflict between India and Pakistan. Boundary issues caused two wars and continued between them. The British based their knowledge of the people of India on religious texts and the unique differences they found in them, instead of looking at how people of different religions coexisted. The British helped to establish the Mohammedan Anglo Oriental College at Aligarh and supported the All India Muslim Conference, which were institutions from which leaders of the Muslim League and the ideology of Pakistan emerged. The separation of Muslim in India was built into the Indian electoral process. There was an ideology divide between the Muslims and the Hindus of India. (Shirin Keen , 1998)
On the 16TH August 1946, Jinnah called for a “Direct Action Day” by followers of the League in support of the demand of Pakistan. The day had turned into random violence and civil disruption across north India, with thousands of lives lost. This was proof of the conflict between Hindus and Muslims. The riots showed there was a lack of military and political control as they were of social harmony. Subsequently, more evidence of the collapse of government authority was seen in the Princely State of Hyderabad, where major uprising occurred in the Telengana region, and with the Tebhaga agitation among share cropping cultivators in north Bengal. The Communist Party played a leading role in both. In the last months, British rule marked by a naval revolt, wages strike and successful demonstrations in every major city. Through all of these conflicts the British colonial government remained distant, as it concentrated on the business of negotiating a speedy transfer of power. (Dr. Crispin Bates, 2011) Support for the idea of an independent Pakistan came from large Muslim landowning families in the Pujab and Sindh, who saw it as an opportunity to prosper within a captive market free from competition. The poor peasantry of East Bengal, who saw it as an opportunity to escape from the clutches of moneylenders also supported. They were disappointed. Independent Pakistan inherited India’s longest and strategically most problematic borders. However, the subcontinent’s industry, and taxable income based remained in India, including the largest cities of Delhi, Bombay, and Calcutta. The economy of Pakistan was mainly agricultural, and controlled by feudal elites. Due to the division of India, Pakistan won a poor share of the colonial government’s financial reserves. Once the army had been paid, nothing was left over for the purposes of economic development. The advantage enjoyed by the Indian National Congress was that it had worked hard for 40 years to reconcile differences and achieve some cohesion among its leaders. The heartland of the support for the Muslim League laid in central north India was not included within Pakistan. Muslims from this region fled westward and competed with resident populations for access to land and employment, leading to ethnic conflict, specifically in Sindh. (Dr. Crispin Bates, 2011) Once at independence, in India and in Pakistan, civil, ethnic, and religious discord threatened the stability of the new country. The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, by a Hindu fanatic strengthened the hand of secularists within the government. India had maintained remarkable cohesion since independence, especially considering it is nearly the size of Europe. Seeking power and a political voice in the imperial structure, they organized themselves into a party to represent their interests, founding the Muslim League in 1906. (Dr.Chandrika Kaul, 2011) They achieved something by persuading the British that needed to safeguard the interests of the minorities, a demand that fed into British strategies of divide and rule. (Dr.Chandrika Kaul, 2011) In conclusion Islam and Hinduism were and are very different faiths, Muslims and Hindus continued to coexist peacefully. However, there were occasional outbreaks of violence that were driven more often than not by economic unfairness. (Dr.Chandrika Kaul, 2011) Once independence, India’s commitment to secularism has remained unwavering. Its constitution does not recognize a specific religion, but faith remains a crucial part of everyday life. Partitions led to mass migrations of Muslims to Pakistan and Hindus and Sikhs to India, and violence in both countries that resulted in half a million deaths. Territorial and religious disputes would describe the relationship between the two countries. (Partition and Independence , 2008)
Works Cited
Dr. Crispin Bates. (2011, November 03). The Hidden Story of Partition and its Legacies. Retrieved August 4, 2014, from BBC : www.bbc.co.uk
Dr.Chandrika Kaul. (2011, March 03). From Empire to Independence: The British Raj in India 1858-1947. Retrieved August 3, 2014, from BBC History: www.bbc.co.uk
Partition. (n.d.). Retrieved August 2, 2014, from www.mtholyoke.edu: www.mtholyoke.edu
Partition and Independence . (2008). Retrieved August 5, 2014, from The Story of India : www.pbs.org
Shirin Keen . (1998). Partition of India . Retrieved August 2, 2014, from Postcolonial Studies @ Emory: www.postcolonialstudies.emory.edu
Tariq Ashan. (2002, March). History of the India-Pakistan Conflict . Retrieved August 2, 2014, from Written for the Press for Conversation: www.coat.ncf.ca