Unit 4 Historical Enquiry
“In the context of the years of 1847- 1947, how far was the Partition of India in 1947 inevitable? “
Pawanpreet Dhaliwal
Candidate Number-3049

In the context of the years of 1847- 1947, to what extent was the Partition of India in 1947 inevitable?
-------------------------------------------------

The countries India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were once united as a whole Sub-Continent mixed with Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs ruled under the British raj in 1857. Where these countries are now, what they have become and their relationships with each other have very much been forged by the events of 1947 with Independence from Britain and the subsequent partition of India. When assessing the extent to which partition was inevitable, it can be difficult as the action itself justifies the inevitability, “Partition happened therefore it was inevitable Khaswant Singh **historian**. This tends to suggest that all history is a predetermined narrative that cannot be changed and altered. This would very much be consistent with Indian philosophy that ‘it has happened because it was written’ this suggests the inevitability of partition is considered to be seen inevitable even before looking at the contributing factors. However from a Western and particularly British perspective, 1947 heralded not only the beginning of the end of the British Empire; but as Lawrence describes, “The end of period of history which from 1492 had seen the domination of the globe by a handful of European Powers.” (1994 The rise and fall of the British Empire.) The manner of departure also calls into question the extent to which the British and on a wider level European rule was a factor in causing the Partition as well as in contributing to its inevitability. As described by Kipling’s ‘white man’s burden’, the presumed responsibility of white people to govern and "civilize" non-white people was coming to an end, but who was to govern India after the Raj?
For many historians Partition was in essence inevitable all along due to Religion as this was the main conflicting factor which “demolished the idea of a united India to continue after the rule of the Raj” HISTORIAN VIEW***. The two dominant religions in India at the time, Islam and Hinduism were seen as so diagrammatically opposed both theoretically and through practical application that coexistence within a United India would have proved impossible. Hinduism had been the dominant religion for at least 4000 years with its belief in many gods, rigid caste system and a Brahmin code based on Sanskrit which was not unlike the Catholicism of Middle Ages Europe. Its longevity and predominance in India “overlooks the fact that it was in fact a religion that was very much the product of Aryan invaders in 6000BC.” Bimal Prasad (Pathway to India's Partition: Volume 1, The Foundation of Muslim Nationalism), Islam by contrast was a relatively new religion and seen as one of invasion, conquest and conversion. Its belief in one god, equality of worship and rigid orthodoxy ran counter to the multi- dimensional Hinduism. Following experiences of the “were shaped by 1000 years of history where co-existence was tempered by atrocities, communal violence and misrule religions” Kashwant Singh (The fall of the kingdom of the Punjab). This was particularly true of the Muslim-Sikh experience and in part accounts for the particular savagery that both sides engaged in during 1946-47. At the same time Hindu resentment at the impact of Islam and particular Moghul rule (1526-1712) manifested itself in a renaissance of militant Hindu nationalism that saw British departure from the sub-continent as an excuse for the settling of scores and the wipe out of Islamic influence. These religious differences also manifested themselves on the breadth and depth of social, economic and political interdependency as interaction between the two religions in rural communities was less likely. This heightened inevitiabitly because at that time India was predominantly a rural country and In rural communities “social interaction was more limited and the largely illiterate population’s knowledge of each other’s communities would have been supplemented by the centre of most village life at the time they were the Gurudwara, Mandir or Mosque (religious places of worship)” Ishtiaq Ahmed (The 1947 partition of India: a paradigm politics in India and Pakistan ).
It can also be argued that in the years of 1857- 1947 the British had the final say of what “united India” was to be, this together with the timeframe of departure of the Raj made Partition inevitable from the start. The traditional British viewpoint in 1947 was the lack of desirability of a united India resulted in partition, this is a view is very much influenced by a benevolent view of the Empire and by those historians such as Collins and LaPierre who rely heavily on source material from Lord Mountbatten. As in all cases, the sub-continent was a reflection of the various ruling dynasties and ideologies that had governed it. The British were no different and some of the very values that were supposed to enlighten the native population were also the ones that increased the likelihood of division which in some ways affected inevitability both directly and indirectly as at various instances as the British both created and exploited the existing tensions that existed within India.
Tensions were natural within India at the time and throughout its history such as religious differences which provided a backdrop to economic tensions between the communities. In Calcutta for example Direct Action Day saw Muslim attacks on Hindu shops and moneylenders. Much of the ethnic cleansing that took place on both sides of the Punjab was borne out of economic frustration as Muslims cleared Sikh landowners and Hindu moneylenders from West Punjab and Sikhs cleared Muslims from East Punjab in anticipation of refugees from the West.
However these tensions manifested the “new leaders of India” as described by **HISTORIAN** who used them to stenthen their own power bases. This resulted in partition being the only solution to the power struggle they faced as a result of the departure of the Raj. Its argued that whilst the concept of power and the struggle for power was not new in India (e.g Mahabharat), western concepts of liberalism, democracy and power based on majority voting was. The formation of Congress in 1885, which at that time was a secular organisation who urged for a united India, had “hostility” ** david banter HISTORIAN** towards the British. This was due to British attempts to divide India on communal lines which resulted in the partition of Bengal in 1905, this impregnated the idea of partition of as for the first time it was demonstrated that areas could be divided along communal lines. This caused tensions between the Hindus and Muslims over dominance and it is no coincidence that merely a year later the All India Muslim League was formed. During the 1900s the congress and the league grew more aware of the departure of the British Raj. This was the first in India, “identity without the Raj was being defined however the way it was being defined was through religion, then region and lastly by country” Gyanendra Pandey (Remembering Partition: Violence, Nationalism and History in India). By the late 19th Century the conflicts between the religions was shown through a number of paramilitary organisations such as RSSS, who were in effect were semi fascist paramilitary groups. In response to this Hindu nationalism and in part due to their own recollections of Islamic misrule, Muslims became increasingly wary of living in a Hindu majority India. Suddenly the concept of power or no power based upon population preferences became important. This threatened the capability of a United India and was promoted by “the British census, which went one further by providing communal statistics.”, Prashant Bharaswaj, The Partition of India: Demographic Consequence. The Census was an imperial instrument which had its origins well before the British Empire. Up until the late nineteenth century there was no definitive demographic map of India. How the census contributed to the inevitability of partition was by providing an armoury in the hand of politicians and extremists who used it to exploit issues for their own ends, it provided a template of boundaries consisting of communities based on a shared heritage, language or religion that provided the basis of independence and subsequently partition. With such ideals and the evidence of a census it was little wonder that the tipping point for inevitability of partition was 1937, with the inability of Nehru and Jinnah to agree a political structure the concept of Pakistan, a communal division in favour of Muslims, was devised and cemented with the Lahore Resolution of 1940. Nehru favoured a centralised state, influenced by socialist ideals and advances made by Russia, it was also seen as an effective counter to any future foreign domination. A Partitioned India was not an option for the Congress as political calculations too were at the heart of this equation as a centralised state would show the Hindus would be predominant and “this idea was repulsive” Ishtiaq Ahmed to Jinnah. Jinnah and the Muslims argued for a federal India where provincial assemblies would counterbalance the centre and also account for those areas where the Muslims where predominant. However the congress would not agree to this as a federal India would have given Muslims undue influence in the two most affluent provinces Punjab and Bengal.
In addition to this, during the 1900-1930s there a number of murders, arsons, loot and rapes occurring within India, especially in rual areas. In the beginning of the 1930’s a great deal of psychological trauma filling “united India” which presented partition in a positive light as it was starting to seem partition was the only logical and cost effective method to control the large amount of violence and bloodshed that was taking place and secure the fastest departure time for the Raj. This explains how the tinderbox of tensions could be ignited so easily both through communal conflicts and violence which erupted from time to time but also the widespread bloodshed that occurred in Calcutta in August 1946 and the Punjab in 1947 which evidently contributed to the inevitably of a partitioned India.
For every argument that shows partition was inevitable there is a counter argument that shows perhaps partition was avoidable. Even though religion played a firm role in contributing to the inevitability of partition, the influence the British had also had equal role to play. It can be argued that partition in actual fact wasn’t a means to diffuse religious tensions, as presumed, but instead a product of the British imperial policy of ‘divide and rule’ and western educated political leaders such as Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah who used religion as a means of strengthening personal power bases. Had the British controlled the extent to which they increased the likelihood of partition, both directly and indirectly, could even suggest that partition was not inevitable.
The Divide and rule policy was in fact a measure put in to place to maintain the control they had. Through the years 1857-1900s a united India was apparent but a united India without the rule of the Raj. This was seen by the 1857 mutiny as it was the first, according the India Times, “large scale expression of Indian dissent at British rule and it was one that involved Hindus and Muslims alike.” This was seen as a threat the British’s power as a united India was powerful enough to over throw the rule and helps explain how with the height of the empire a little over 60,000 men governed a population of 300 million. However in terms of inevitability of partition, for up until the 1930’s it’s been realistically argued by Gyanendra Pandey (Remembering Partition: Violence, Nationalism and History in India) that “political developments suggested against rather than for partition.” This suggests Partition could have been avoided as both Congress, formed in 1885, and the All India Muslim League, formed in 1906, called for a United India where Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and other minorities would work together for a common benefit. This was graphically illustrated by the Lucknow Pact of 1916. The meeting at Lucknow marked the reunion of the moderate and radical wings of the Congress. According to Jaswant Singh in Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence, “the pact dealt both with the structure of the government of India and with the relation of the Hindu and Muslim communities.” Indeed Jinnah, long seen as the architect of partition and “father of Pakistan” **HISTORIAN** he as in actual fact worked for a considerable amount of time for a united India and it was only in the 1930’s that his mindset changed. In this sense Jinnah was not unlike Gandhi and Nehru who were on the whole western educated men who had seen the benefits that secularism had brought to Britain and what benefits it could bring to India. During the 1930s, “India was becoming too expensive and inconvenient for the Raj to rule”, Lawrence James (1994). The rise and fall of the British Empire. The British needed a quicker and cost effective way of leaving India. This suggests that the British Raj didn’t really have time to put India’s best interests at heart but instead use the quickest route possible out of India, partition. However if the British Raj had more time and controlled the radical religion tensions within parliament, suggests that partition could have been avoided as although socially communities in 1857-1947 didn’t mix together in the rural areas, it is evident that such interaction in the urban areas such as Delhi and Lahore communities were seen. This is certainly supported by social and economic evidence that suggests that there were considerable interdependencies between communities and evidenced by the subsequent difficulty of drawing the Radcliffe Line. In Bengal, for example, Muslims grew Jute which was processed in mills owned by Hindus to the west. Hindus grew rice which in turn was sold to Muslims in the East. In the Punjab, Sikhs who constituted 13% of the population owned 40% of the land and constituted 60% of agricultural output. They together with Muslim ‘zamindars’ provided food, shelter and livelihood for the poorer classes of all religions through tenancy, village professions and a system for maintaining village law and order supplemented by a financial and retail system maintained by Hindus. As expressed by LaPierre, in Freedom at Midnight, “In these villages, bonds were often established on the basis of class or caste rather than religion”, showing that these communities could live side by side. Nowhere was this more apparent than Lahore which at that time was known as the ‘Paris of the Orient’ as stated in the book Freedom at midnight. In later history Lahore was the sight of some of the bloodiest violence and its mere name was used an example of the inevitability of partition. However prior to the 1940’s, Lahore with its equal population of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims was the most vibrant, cosmopolitan city in India and a demonstration of what the best and brightest could do when they worked together for a common good. This history of living and working together and mutual interdependence also manifested itself throughout the period to support the suggestion that partition was not an inevitable consequence of independence and historical enmities based on religion. Up until 1930s and as evidenced by the Lucknow pact and various protests in the 1920’s the suggestion was that all were working for a united India. This suggests that partition was not inevitable as it was a product of the British imperial policy of ‘divide and rule’ and western educated political leaders such as Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah who used religion as a means of strengthening own personal power bases.
And yet partitioned happened. As suggested earlier, partition happened on account of religion as religious tensions and conflicts were so severe in the some areas of India that to some extent partition was inevitable however when examining the extent of the inevitability of partition the crucial question is when. Dostoyevsky once wrote that ‘the best way to unite two men is to persuade them to murder a third’. Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs saw themselves as Indians in a “united India” for as long the British remained and the struggle was one of removal of colonial influence. up until the 1930s, the british had a chance to allow a “united india” to success, but given their difficulties this was not possible. Therefore once it became evident that British departure was likely, Indians then began questioning the future shape of India and it is then that the differences that lay beneath the surface came to the fore and expressed themselves as a need to for two distinct identities shaped by religion-India and Pakistan, this shows that partition was inevitable Inevitability has been confused with desirability that is often based on the very historical enmities that have been highlighted above.
On this basis and given the timespan the partition of India was initially not inevitable. As mentioned, until 1920’s there was considerable evidence to suggest that all communities native to India were working together towards independence and self government in a united India. This in part was also due to the lessons of the past where a divided India had been an easy target of foreign invaders and many of the western educated elite saw the benefits that centralisation had brought to European states and in particular the British. Combined with this was a belief in secularism by the men who led the independence movement as evidenced by the pre-eminent position that Gandhi held within that movement up to 1930’s. However as the British departure became apparent, western ideals of democracy, power and nationalism were forced to confront the reality of an eastern landscape where historical tensions based on religion were still in existence (and had been exploited by the British and Jinnah/Nehru). The inability of political leaders to achieve a compromise in 1930’s most notably after 1937 elections meant that partition from this moment on was inevitable. By the time Mountbatten arrived in India, with Gandhi marginalised, efforts to decolonise whilst leaving India united were in effect futile as it evident that by then that both leaders and their parties had foreseen a future where division was the only answer. The tragedy in allowing this to happen is only magnified by their lack of foresight to understand the violent consequences of their actions upon millions of people in areas where co-existence had been the norm for hundreds of years.

Bibliography
-------------------------------------------------

Books and articles:

* Bimal Prasad (1999). Pathway to India's Partition: Volume 1, The Foundation of Muslim Nationalism. India: Manohar Pubns

* David Butler (1987). Lord Mountbatten: The Last Viceroy. London: Magna Large Print Books

* William Easterly (2006)The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. Penguin Press HC, 2006

* Ian Talbot, Gurharpal Singh (2009). The Partition of India (New Approaches to Asian History). USA: Cambridge University Press * Ishtiaq Ahmed . (2002). The 1947 partition of India: a paradigm politics in India and Pakistan. Asian Ethnicity * Jaswant Singh (2009). Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence . India * Khaswant Singh (1979). The fall of the kingdom of the Punjab. London: Sangam Books Ltd. * Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre (1997). Freedom at Midnight. London: HarperCollins; (Reissue) edition * Lawernce James (1994). The rise and fall of the Bristh Empire. Great Britan: Abacus. * Neeti Nair (2001). Changing Homelands: Hindu Politics and the Partition of India- . London: Cambridge University Press * PRASHANT BHARADWAJ, ASIM KHWAJA & ATIF MIAN (re). THE PARTITION OF INDIA: DEMOGRAPHIC CONSEQUENCES. : Harvard Kennedy School.
Photos from the border in Wagah:
Appendix 1 - Indian and Pakistani Soldiers in preparation to perform.

Appendix 2 - India’s border

Appendix 3 –Flags being lowered at the Border

-------------------------------------------------
Source Evaluation
-------------------------------------------------

The Partition of India in 1947 divided the subcontinent into three newly formed nationalist countries, it is perceived as one of the significant events of the 20th century not only in modern Indian history but in world history also. My interest in this subject stemmed from a personal experience of the partition, as I have family members which lived in the part of India that is now known as Pakistan, their experience was traumatic as they faced crossing the ‘’Radcliffe line’’. This encounter acted as a primary research which I then combined with an actual visit to Pakistan where I took photographs of Wagah, the place where a ceremony is conducted to mark the division of the two countries. The ceremony, shown in Appendix 1, is useful in creating an image of just how important the partition is considered today and in order to see if it was actually unavoidable.
I was fortunate to find original scriptures which were not only interesting but also gave me an honest outlook such as the ‘luck now pact’ and Rudyard Kipling’s poem ‘white man burden’ who presented the intimidation felt by the east from the British.
There were distinctive divisions in commentator’s interpretations of the inevitability of the partition of India, which I needed to prioritise in order to make a reliable judgement for the account. The main division was prejudices within the eastern community, a major hindrance to the validity of the sources, as bias formed from the conflict between the major religions. This evidently was seen in Ishtiaq Ahmed’s article in Asian Ethnicity, 2002, as he consistently referred to the Hindus as a threat to the global influence of Islam. This subjective view was apparent in a few historians I researched such as Khaswant Singh The fall of the kingdom of the Punjab, where his agenda wasn’t to understand the causes and consequences of partition but instead to evaluate responsibility of who caused the most heartless violence which was also shown in Neeti Nair’s Changing Homelands: Hindu Politics and the Partition of India (2001).
I personally felt the least biased source was Jaswant Singh’s Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence (2009), I found Jaswant’s account to be helpful due to his stringent nature he himself facing dismissal from the Indian Congress for supposedly praising the foundation of Pakistan. His empathy towards Pakistan and namely Jinnah was seen an offence due the severity of the clashes which occurred between the Hindus and the Muslims. His ability to view both sides was valuable for me to evaluate the broader landscape without a predisposed portrayal. The western sources were mainly based on the original scripts of Mountbatten.I used the book, The Rise and Fall of the British which gave me a clear understanding of the empire position. The most helpful British source was the Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, Freedom at Midnight (1997) which demonstrated a broad and modern view to understand the problems India faced.
All the sources gave me an insight in to the pain and suffering the people of India felt and to what extent a united and a divided India was desired. All the sources mentioned gave information in a chronological order starting from when the British decided to leave up until the partition, which was helpful to understand the eastern perspective in the context of 1857-1947.