Partition: Was the Partition of India preventable?

Interesting Question... very interesting indeed. It is my continuing quest to understand this very topic; I am currently on my - oh, 17th book - {Becoming Indian, which is about the cultural enslavement of India}. I intend to follow this up with another great and rare book I found in a bookshop: Bengal Divided: The Unmaking Of A Nation: 1905 - 1971; so I can honestly state that this is a work in progress. I have thought quite a bit about this, and am yet to come to any definitive conclusion. But let me attempt as answer at this, and take the questions asked one-by-one 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: http://reflectionsvvk.blogspot.in/2013/01/book-review-shadow-of-great-game-untold.html 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 It was not possible; 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. 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... References: 1) From the ruins of empire- Pankaj Mishra 2) Partition - the untold story - Narendra Sarila 3) Jinnah - Jaswant Singh

Partition of India - Could it be Avoided? “Partition was made on the basis of religion and a particular community. Why we people always take it as a national debate. It is six decade old issue. When we people are demanding small states on the basis of language we speak. Then how come we even imagine that two different ideologist communities would have stayed peacefully.” Hindus and Muslims lived peacefully together under the Mughal rule, but British raaj carved the path for communal disharmony. When the dream of India was seen, it was looked as the” Akhandh Bharat”. But in 1947 riots were at peak, and it was unrealistic to bind the two communities together, and when it came to choosing partition or cabinet mission plan, we were better off with the partition, Cabinet mission plan "his plan sought to arrange for India to be divided into Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan; since Congress had vehemently rejected 'parity' at the Centre. A list of princely states of India that would be permitted to accede to either dominion or attain independence was also drawn up." Wikipedia There were three options during 1947, except Partition. 1. United Undivided India – that’s Akhandh Bharat. 2. United provincial India with a weak centre – That is a weak centre, with strong provincial states. 3. Balkanization of India –Which is India being divided into 25-30 states, as the cabinet mission gave the right to princely States to join India or be independent state. In 1900’s India was never United, a “ Akhandh Bharat” was a hallucination and extremely impossible .When even language became such a large issue, that riots occurred to decide whether will Hindi, Urdu or Hindustani would be the official language. Even North - devnagri ( punjabi, marathi, bengali,hindi..etc) were opposed south - Dravidian languages ( tamil, telugu kanada) vice versa. In a state, where language was such a big issue, how would two large communities survive? Given the condition in 1947, partition was the only way to achieve peace and harmony. Jinnah and the Muslim League were afraid that Muslims will be in great danger, as after the British raj, India would be a “Hindu Raj". He saw it coming, as India would be a Hindu dominated state, which could have problems for the Muslim minority. He thought Indian Muslims were better in a separate state. He never said that Muslim and Hindu were never friends. Neither did he say that Hindu, Christians and everyone else would not live in Pakistan, It’s just that he was concerned about the future of Muslims. History tells us that with the British policy of divide and rule, there was already a divide between the Hindus and Muslims. Do you think that with independence all these problems, the hatred and the suspicion would just disappear? Well even the very size of the country would have been unmanageable. India grows after independence, due to the great constitution, which was formulated in 1950.It helped India grow, and saw it flourishing. May be after that 33% Muslims and 60% Hindu’s would have lived with harmony, but that's just a vague thought. But be Rational!! The partition was Unavoidable. Now who is the culprit -? The seed of communal hatred was the gift of British. When they came they saw these 2 communities as separate and treated them differently, Churchill did the initiation, and Mountbatten followed. In 1947 British were in a hush-hush process, that after terrorizing India for 200 years, they left it in a dismal state, Mountbatten did nothing to stop communal violence. Rather than making situations better, worsen them off by calling the independence 8 months before the actual date. Finally, it was the religious communities, the religious groups who made the partition a reality. Well all said and done, Partition cannot be reverted, and it’s good for India. We can be good neighbors, as the cultural feelings we share are same. India should treat its minority better, and Pakistan should treat its minority much better. There can be various perspectives of both sides of the coin and one would believe in the benefit of what they believe. Hypothetically, may be Akhand Bharat would have performed well later, But during 1940's and 1950’s, it was fairly impossible to bind it all together. Source-http://rohit-instincts.blogspot.in/2009/09/partition-of-india-could-it-be-avoided.html

It is my continuing quest to understand this very topic; I am currently on my - oh, 18th book -  Bengal Divided: The Unmaking Of A Nation: 1905 - 1971; so I can honestly state that this is a work in progress. I have thought quite a bit about this, and am yet to come to any definitive conclusion. But let me attempt as answer at this, and take the questions asked one-by-one 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: http://reflectionsvvk.blogspot.in/2013/01/book-review-shadow-of-great-game-untold.html 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 Among Others... Similar to this question:

Reading about it, it seems obvious it depended on a lot of specifics, any of which could have turned out differently. Having made a decision and paid a high price, people feel a strong need to justify it as inevitable. In the US, discussion of the Civil War always goes this way. However, it is true that communal violence can easily become a positive feedback loop that is difficult to stop.

M.A. Jinnah realized that in a Free India it would be Gandhi who justifiably would be the National Pater and he would be a person of no consequence and decided to to try his luck to be the 'Father of a a New Nation"

Well for this I think we have to go back more than 30 years back to Lucknow Pact of 1916 where in the Muslim League joined Congress. A certain M.A. Jinnah, father of modern Pakistan was very influential in uniting Congress and the League then. Fast forward another 5 years and we see that the name of Jinnah is no where to be found and the man who is leading the freedom struggle was M.K.Gandhi. Of course Gandhi taking over here and leading the cause from the front was necessary and in the heat of the moment he might have forgotten about Jinnah and this has resulted in Jinnah's anger against the Congress and his views that the Muslims in the nation will always be looked down. So in my opinion the neglect attitude shown by the leaders then towards Jinnah may have been the seeds for the division of this nation.

Definitely NO. In the article (the link to which I have attached below) I have elaborated as to why this line of reasoning is greatly flawed and has no fundamental basis. Election data show that overwhelming numbers of Muslims favoured Partition and the British could not have ignored them. Had they done that India would have ended up being ravaged by civil war in similar circumstances like many African countries. http://thespeakingkid.blogspot.in/2013/11/nehru-founding-father.html

There are three point of views to look at the partition of India. From a muslim's point of view, from a hindu's point of view and a british point of view. Now in India, we are fed a narrative of the partition story, of agnostic Jinnah, of saintly Nehru and Gandhi, of a genius Viceroy mountbatten. From hindu's point of view it was an unnecessary cry for attention, for muslims it was needed and their right to a exploitation free life with equal rights, from a british point of view, it was not needed as it besmears the british raj with inadequacy in their administrative skills. The partition of India could had been avoided, but for what cause, to showcase a false secularism, brotherhood that we hindus totally lack within our own religion (casteism, badayun case and many more), let alone being able to live in harmony with people who eat cows, a worshipped deity in hindusim. What Pakistan has mutilated itself into now is shameful, but the cause of creation of Pakistan was genuine, if not needed. Muslims had lost their sense of identity after British started Indian participation in politics, Congress in different ways started sidelining the muslims, afterall muslims were outsiders, as mughals, indians were predominantly hindus. We see hindustan being used, Anandmath was a roaring success, it contained anti-muslim text. Hence, India had started to become more and more Hindu, muslims were losing their sense of identity and India wanted its identity back. B.R. Ambedkar championed rights for dalits and seperate electorate for them, Gandhi believd in unity and fasted. Sometimes we need to go under the wraps of these moralities and see the reality, which gandhi lacked. Today we see how dalits are treated. Khairlanji massacre is an example.

Yes. Had the Muslim leaders of the present day Pakistan and Bangladesh listened to the true muslim leader Maulana Abul Kalam Azad instead of the Muslim league of Jinnah that became a part of British propaganda, it would've been stopped then.