Partition of India was inevitable and also necessary

It is little known that as early as the seventh decade of 19th.Century, say the year 1870 that is, about 12 to 13 years after our armed revolt against the British rule, there was one leading member of Muslim community named Sir Syed Ahmad Khan who was a very faithful and dependable lackey of the British rulers. His hatred for his own countrymen and emotional love for his white masters was so deep that in his book titled The loyal Mohammedans of India he has the shameless audacity to observe as under:- Without flattering the English, I can truly say that natives of India, high and low, merchants and petty shop keepers, educated and illiterate, when compared with English, in education, manners and uprightness are as unlike them as a dirty animal is to an able and handsome man. It is thus that this educated and advanced top leader of our Muslim community has described his own kith and kin. It is said that when a local Nawab offered him a job he rejected it saying I say that British sovereignty cannot be eliminated in India He devoted his life in rapprochement between Muslims and the British as he was convinced that only the British could protect the Muslims of India against the total domination by Hindus and therefore the British had to stay, He was anxious to see that the Muslims should compete with Hindus and therefore in 1875 he founded an Anglo-Oriental college at Aluigadh. He believed that representative democracy meant a rule by majority which meant a rule by Hindus. According to him the English style election would be like a game of dice in which one man would have four dice and the other only one. So, he wanted to keep Muslims out of Congress which was established in the year 1885. QAs an appointed member of Viceroys Imperial Legislative Council he opposed the principle of election contending Hindus and Muslims were two different NATIONS even though they drank from the same well and breathed the same air ( Ref:- P.76 of The Proudest Day by Anthony Read and David Fisher) The learned authors of the above book are totally inclined in favour of the British rulers of India. They make a candid admission at P. 77 of their book about the government of those days as under: The British also needed a counterbalance to the growing strength of the Hindus. Divide and Rule was never officially acknowledged policy but as a strategy it was too valuable to ignore. This policy of Divide and Rule has been even officially recognized very often and it has been meticulously perused by the British rulers up to the very end of their existence in India. Pursuant to this policy Sir Syed had handed over the administration of the Aligadh institution to English principals and also started a journal named Institute Gazette which was also conducted by an English man who used to write anonymous articles instigating Muslims against Hindus. (Ref;P.57 Gandhi Darshan)

2. Thereafter in 1906 when Lord Morley was the Secretary of State and Mineo was the viceroy a Muslim delegation waited upon the Viceroy and demanded separate electorate as well as sear reservation for Muslims in all elective bodies. It is necessary to explain what these things mean and imply. Separate electorate would mean that only Muslims could vote for a Muslim candidate and seat reservation would mean certain number of seats should be reserved only for Muslims . in practice any such arrangement would necessarily result in permanent separation of different communities of the nation. Such a nation would never unite as ne nation and would never be able to progress. There is no democratic country in this world which has such type of constitution as there are many other ways to protect the legitimate interest of minority communities, but the Muslim leaders like Sir Syed never believed in a unified Indian nation. Therefore in order to achieve the political objective, on December of 1906 All India Muslim League was formed under the permanent leadership of Aga Khan who had financed it. It is interesting to note its objectives which were as under: (a) To promote among the Musalmans of India feelings of loyalty to the British government and to remove any misconception that may arise as to the intentions of the government with regard to any measures. (b) To protect and advance the political rights and interests of Musalmans of India and respectfully represent their needs and aspirations to government. (c) To prevent the rise among Musalmans of India any feelings of hostility towards other communities without prejudice to other objects of the league. 3. The point to be noted is that there is nothing in these basic objectives to demand political freedom for the mother land and the language clearly indicates the inspiration by the rulers,. However, nothing radicle could be expected from the institution started, financed and presided over by Agakhan.. It is however ironical to note that there was one solitary voice to protest. It sounded a warning that separate electorate would mean dividing the nation against itself. This dissenting voice was of a young Muslim leader whose name is Mohamad Ali Jinnah. 4. The above was the beginning of Muslim Leagues career in the political field of India The shrewd politicians of Britain could understand how the mild attitude of the League towards the British rule could be best utilized by playing communal card. As noted above they had already started this game through their reliable lackey Sir Syed. Six years passed during which Congress leaders were agitating for getting a Home Rule status for India. It did not mean anything more than a self government of some local subjects while remaining under British suzerainty, but even such limited reforms were too much for hard core imperialists and by the establishment of Muslim League they

had now the balancing force to make their game of playing the policy of Divide and Rule easy. Indian leaders realized this and decided to confront the rulers with communal unity. So, by the month of December 1916 Congress and Muslim: League had separate meetings and came out with a solution of communal problem called Lacknow Agreement. At that time Jinnah was the president of League and it was he who had drafted this agreement. The agreement accepted the process of separate electorate which, as already explained , meant that only Muslims could vote for a Muslim. This meant a siort of permanent division between the two communities. The agreement further provided for reservation for Muslim seats in all elected bodies, but these reservation was much more than the proportion of their population; for instance, in the province of Bengal the existing proportion of Muslim seats was ten percent which was increased to 40 p.c. and in Punjab while it was 25 p.c. it was increased to 50 p.c. Similarly it was increased much moir than their population in all provinces. When some persons objected to this disproportionate reservation Shri Tilak replied that he would not object even if 100 p.c. reservation was given to any community if that could put an end to the British rule . But the British were not impressed by this show of unity as they were sure of their game of playing the communal card properly. In 1918 the government declared its intention to liberalize the administration by Montague Chelmsford ( Mont-Ford) reforms, These reforms selected some less important provincial subjects for being administered by elected members of the provincial assemblies but subject to the veto of the governor concerned. There were many deficiencies which were pointed by Congress under the President ship of Saiyad Hasan Imam, but Muslim League did not agitate against it. Meanwhile the government passed an atrocious enactment called Roulatt Act which enabled the authorities to detain any person without assigning any reason. There was great uproar and all political leaders including Mr. Jinnah strongly protested. Congress and Gandhiji led a nationwide agitation committing even breach of the provisions of this law; however neither Jinnah nor his League took any part in this agitation and Jinnah even left the country and avoided to join this agitation. Thereafter on April 9, the notorious Jallianwala Bagh massacre occurred followed by Punjab atrocities which revealed barbarism of the imperialist rule of the British, This opened eyes even of the moderates to the naked reality of the foreign rule , but it did not stir any emotion or political instinct of the Muslim League or its leader Jinnah. This was followed by Khiklafat movement which was for the restoration of a reactionary religious concept. They wanted Gandhiji to lead it which was ably done but the valiant leader of the League, Mr. Jinnah, refrained from joining it . During this movement Ali brothers, Mohamadali and Shaukatali were foremost Muslim leaders in aid of Gamdhiji who had developed deep feelings of brotherhood for them. However when Turks themselves put an end to Khilafat, there was no sense to continue the fight and therefore there was no need for Gandhis leadership. At this time a very serious communal riot broke out at a town Kohat in Frontier where 80 % or more were Muslims who killed

many Hindus, destroyed their temples, looted their properties and forced them to migrate. Gandhiji and Shaukatali were asked to inquire and report. They differed in their findings. This was the first time after the Khilafat movement that the real communal feelings came out prominently in Shaukats findings. Thereafter relations between Ali brothers and Gandhiji thinned away and Ali brothers began to side with the rulers and graduslly faded away from politics. A shockingly important fact to be noted is a public statement made by Mohamadali that if a preference was to be made between a corrupt and a debauch Muslim and a virtuous person like Mahtma Gandhi, he would certainly prefer that Muslim just because he was a Muslim!! No comments are equired to expose such vulgar stupidity, but this event is mentioned here only to show the kind of people we would have got to deal with if there was no partition of the country. Thereafter comes the year 1930 when there was yearly meting of the Muslim League presided over by Urdu poet Dr. Mohamd Iqbal. In a thinly attended meeting he passed a resolution grouping all North- Western Muslim dominated provinces an idea which was a fore runner of the concept of Pakistan, It was in this year that Mr. Jinnah being disillusioned and despaired, left India to settle in London. Year 1938 was the year when constitutional reforms as contemplated by Mont-ford report were in force and in most of the provinces Congress was able to form its ministries. It is interesting to note that in spite of separate electorate Muslim League put a vary poor show even in the provinces where Muslims were in majority. In the undivided Punjab total seats were 84 out of which it could secure only two, in undivided Bengal total seats were 117 out of which it could secure only 38 seats, in Sind it secured only three out of 33 seats and in the Frontier which was purely a Muslim dominated province, it could not secure a single seat. By this time Mr. Jinnah had already returned to India, having failed to realize his dreams of getting the job of the membership of Privy Council or of House of Commons in England. When he realized what was the reality of his political position as a result of popular elections, he decided to play his communal card properly by taking full advantage of the sympathy of Tory leaders of Britain. So, in the month of April 1938 a meeting of Muslim League was called in which a resolution was passed objecting to the singing of Vande Mataram, the most popular national anthem, the teaching process adopted in schools managed by the government and various other things even though they were all according to the election manifesto on which elections were won by the Congress. Ultimately when the matter came for consideration at a higher level following eleven points were put as conditions for a compromise formula. These points were: (1) Vande Mataram should niot be sung any where. (2) The existing boundaries of Muslim majority provinces should never be changed in future. (3) Cow slaughter by Muslims should not be prevented in any manner .

(4) Calling of AAzan by Muslims should not be obstructed. (5) Family laws (known as personal laws) and traditions of Muslims should be protected by law. (6) In the civil services of every province number of seats for the Muslims should fixed by law. (7) Congress should not oppose Communal award of Ramsey Macdonald. (8) There should be an enactment prohibiting any restrictions on use of Urdu language. (9) There should be seat reservations for Muslims even in all local bodies. (10)The existing three colors of the national flag should either be changed or the flag of Muslim League shuld fly along with the present national flag. (11) It should be officially conceded that Muslim League is the only and true representative of all Muslims of India. Looking to the present constitution of India, a few of these conditions would be redundant but most of them were put forward for the whole of India purely with a view to arouse communal virus in the illiterate Muslim masses. In fact this was a sure indication of the inevitability of future partition. Next year in 1939 Pandit Jawaharlalji had been on tour of Europe. He was very warmly received even in England by important political figures This inspired Mr. Jinnah to send League reprehensives for explaining League policy to the persons who counted. Accordingly, two persons named Khaliku Zaman of U.P. and Abdur Raheman of Calcutta were sent. They could only see one Col. Muir Head, the then Under Secretary of State for India. He told them that the government had good sympathy for them and they should point out to him what the government could do for them . In response, Khaliku Zaman got up and went to the wall where the map of India was hanging, He pointed out to the North-Western provinces having Muslim majority and also Eastern provinces of Bengal and Assam. Muir Head understood what it meant and expressed that it was fine. He then took the guests to his superior, the Secretary for State for India,who also assured them that he was in favour of dividing India into three groups and also asked them to assure Mr. Jinnah about the partitioning of India as aspired by him. After thus being assured of government support, the League in its open

general session at Lahore passed a resolution on 22nd March 1940 to obtain what is presently known as Pakistan. In the meanwhile the second world war had started and on 3rd, September 1939 Viceroy Lord Linlithgow had announced, without consulting any of the Indian leaders, that India had joined the war in support of Britain. Thereafter he individually called Indian leaders for rendering help in war efforts. When he met Jinnah he was told that Muslim League was willing to render all help on condition that the government should cut off both the wings of Congress and for that purpose should amend the Government of India Act of 1935.Thereupon Viceroy asked him whether he wanted that the the Congress ministries should be dismissed? Jinnah said surely so, because they want to destroy you as well as all Muslims Viceroy then asked him whether it was true that he had said in one of the meetings that he was not believing in the modern democratic process. In reply Jinnah said that in a country where one community was in permanent majority and another in permanent minority, democracy can not work and therefore division of India was the only solution. ( Ref: P. 286 Proudest Day ). Thereafter, during Gandhi-Jinnah talks in 1943 while discussing the question of taking a plebiscite in Muslim majority provinces on the question of Pakistan Mr.. Jinnah took the strand that if any such plebiscite was taken, only the Muslims should be allowed to vote!! On the question whether Muslims of India were constituting a separate nation Gandhiji asked whether a persons nationality can change only because he changes his religion, Jinnah had no answer. One does not know from where he giot an enlightenment that Indian Muslims belong to a different nation simply because they were converted. If Jinnah was rght what will now happen to crores of Muslims presently residing in India? Such perverse thinking of Jinnah is mentioned here only to show that partition of the country was inevitable and also necessary. One of the misconceptions is that when the British finally decided to quit they did so by partitioning the country to create an independent state of Pakistan. Such an impression is created because throughout their rule just before Cabinet Mission visited, all responsible authorities of the government had, by their utterances and actions, supported the creation of Pakistan. But the facts are that the British government had consulted their army chief whether partition of India for the creation of an independent state of Pakistan would be in interest of Britain from the security point. The opinion was against it and therefore the very first clause of the Mission proposals was the rejection of the division. The idea was to create a weak federal government with different grouping of states to facilitate the concept of Pakistan ( Details of the Cabinet Mission pln cn be found in the last portion of my previous article Gandhiji as politician).

Another misconception is that Pandit Jawaharlal and Sardar Patel could have avoided partition. But the question is what was their option? The basic and over-shadowing fact was that the labour government of Britain had finally decided to leave by a fixed date and Lord Mountbatten was sent with definite instruction to finish his task before that date. He had therefore to see that the parties arrive at some conclusion before the fixed date. At the initial stage league had accepted the Mission plan but Congress had not. Government was in a hurry to form an interim ministry which could not be immediately formed as Jinnah was insisting that Congress could not select any Muslim as its representative but ultimately it had to forego this unreasonable stand . When a coalition ministry ofCongress and League was thereafter formed Congresas found that at every stage League members were obstructing and it was impossible to carry on administration smoothly. On the other hand Muslim Leagues Direct Action was conducted, not against the British, but against Hindus and Sikhs which resulted in hellish conditions of Noakhali, and ln Bihar as its reaction. Under these circumstances the only option available to the Congress was either to leave the country to chaos or to accept completely the mission plan. If Mission plan was fully accepted by congress this countr4y would have been put in a condition worst than that of present Pakistan After all what Jinnah and his League have gained is, to use Jinnahs own words, a Maimed, Mutilated and Moth-eaten Pakistan. And as we know within a very short time after its formation itr was fuether mutilated as East bangal separated and formed its own independent state. You have only to look at the present condition of Pakistan and compare with that of India to know whether Nehru and Patel committed mistake or whether they have saved the future of our country by their decision. I have no doubt that the partition of the country was not only inevitable but was also necessary.

Q1) What were the events that led to the inevitability of the partition? In 1905, all of Bengal - and India - rose against the parititon of Bengal; contrast this to 1947, when a communally divided nation split. What changed in 42 short years? For this, we have to peel away the layers of misinformation and preconceived notions that still pervade our minds. It was not such a simple matter; and this is too long a topic to be fully justified in a sub-heading. To encapsulate:

The key event - in fact, the only event of fatal importance (fatal to unity) was the 2nd world war. The refusal of the congress to assist and resign the ministries has been identified as a himalayan blunder. It wasnt; this just goes to prove how shoddy our education of history has been. The british had promised in 1914 to free India after the first world war; this was later reneged on. Further, there was actually no point fighting to free european nations when India was herself a slave. Thus, the congress stand comes across as bold and accurate: the joker in the pack was Jinnah, who colluded with the british from September 1939. This is documented history, and is not open to discussion. As early as 1933, the British was visualised a partition; the original plan was to hive off Baluchistan from India. Thus, it was always the brits who were playing both sides of the coin. These 2 events led to the inevitability of partition. Q2) How could these events have been averted The fallacious impression of unity till 1920 or thereabouts glibly overlooks the existing internal tensions and pull-pressures - and the sequence of events let loose by the fall of Muslim rule over Asia; the rise of Syed Ahmed Khan, the counterbalancing rise of Jamal-Al-Din Al-Afghani among others. The only thing is that these were in a tiny minority - the Muslim classes were, by and large - against disunity till even the early 1940s. But the presence of causes of rifts was a fact, Under normal circumstances, these would have subsided with time. But the times were not normal It was not possible to maintain equanimity; the British were hell-bent on partition. The historical record of conversations and minutes of meetings pretty much prove that point. There is nothing that anyone could have done to avert partition. If Jinnah had not approached, the Brits would have. There is suspicion that this was done once during the round table conference. "It is of paramount importance that India should not secede from the Empire. If, however, the colony could not be held, the alternative was to keep a strategic peice of it under british control - possbily Baluchistan" - Winston Churchill, May 5th, 1945 Everyone would do well to remember that Hindus and Muslims lived peacefully from around 700 AD to 1910 AD - a matter of 1210 years. Something happened in these last 40 - 50 years to vitiate the atmosphere... and it is that something that I am hunting for... trying to understand in my ongoing quest... This process of alienation did not start in the 1900s; it did not start by itself - and paradoxically, it was not initiated by the Brits. The existing circumstances after 1857 were utilised by the Brits; wounds were rubbed raw, and used to maintain control over the masses. Simultaneous developments - innocuous developments by and large - in both communities created further opportunities for alienation - which were tapped by the Brits. All three were players in this drama -and at this point I am not prepared to state more, as for me this is a work in progress. While it is clear that position on both sides were increasingly intractable. we should not forget that around 1900 they were not so bad. The british policy of divide and rule has never been fully explained to us... "If amity among the various communities were somehow achieved, its immediate result would be that the united communities would join us in showing the door... Winston Churchill Jawaharlal Nehru: Essentially these were : the creation and protection of vested interests bound up with british rule; a policy of counterpoise and balancing of different elements, and the encouragement of fissiparous tendencies and division among them - The Discovery of India

I am not a historian; but I am deeply interested in understanding our colonial history. So far as I am aware and my readings of several books on this topic goes, the partition was not a simple affair. There is a lot that remains to be understood. Perhaps the one book that comes close to giving me an understanding is the book by Jaswant Singh; especially if I read Mukherjee's book also. I would advise all to studiously avoid non-indian works on this topic - I have read both - and Indian works are far, far more unbiased IMO; To answer your question - Partition was inevitable. Indian movement could not have gone forward without the mass struggle advocated by Gandhiji; this was against Jinnah's ego - who was increasingly sidelined. He went to London, and returned a changed man. His meeting with Linlithgow on 3rd Sept 1939 clearly indicates his unwillingness to accept anything less than partition; it also clearly documents the British attitude and strategy of Partition. Thereafter, it was relatively easy to whip up communal tensions in minority reginos; majority regions were pro-India till 1947! The 8th book superbly chronicles the way the divide and rule policy worked in favour of partition and further whipping up communal tensions... This cannot be explained in an answer - or even in a book - as the list below will reveal. Furthermore, there are some details that cannot be put in an internet forum... This is a journey of discovery to be undertaken by everyone... if interested, please read the following material given below (preferably in the order stated) References: 1) From the ruins of empire- Pankaj Mishra 2) Partition - The Untold Story - Narendra Sarila 3) Jinnah, Partition, Independence - Jaswant Singh 4) The Case For India - Will Durant 5) India's Struggle For Independence - Bipin Chandra Pal 6) Churchill's Secret War - Madhushree Mukherjee 7) The Discovery Of India - Jawaharlal Nehru 8) Bengal Divided: The Unmaking Of A Nation: 1905 - 1971 - Nitish Sengupta