Towards Independence and Partition
Towards Independence And Partition (Intro)
The period between the 1930s and 1947 was a crucial phase in India's struggle for independence. While the nationalist movement intensified its demand for Purna Swaraj, the political landscape became increasingly complex. The Second World War, changes in British policy, and the growing demand for a separate Muslim state by the Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, shaped the final trajectory towards the end of colonial rule. This period culminated in the granting of independence, but tragically, also in the Partition of the country into India and Pakistan.
Following the Civil Disobedience Movement, the British government introduced the **Government of India Act, 1935**. This Act, while falling short of the demand for full independence, introduced provincial autonomy and established elected provincial legislatures. The Congress participated in the provincial elections held in 1937 and formed ministries in most provinces, gaining valuable administrative experience.
However, the outbreak of the **Second World War** in 1939 changed everything. The Congress ministries resigned in protest against the British government's decision to involve India in the war without consulting Indian leaders. The war years (1939-1945) saw a further intensification of the nationalist struggle, notably the Quit India Movement, and simultaneously, a hardening of political positions, particularly between the Indian National Congress and the All India Muslim League.
As the war ended, the British realised that they could no longer hold onto India. The focus shifted from suppressing the nationalist movement to negotiating the terms of transfer of power. However, the question of India's future – whether it would remain united or be partitioned – became the central and most contentious issue, leading to intense political manoeuvring and communal tension.
Understanding Partition Politics, Memories, Experiences (Intro)
The Partition of India in August 1947 was a watershed moment in the history of the Indian subcontinent. It involved the division of British India into two independent states: India and Pakistan (which initially comprised West Pakistan and East Pakistan, the latter becoming Bangladesh in 1971). This political division was accompanied by the partition of provinces like Punjab and Bengal, which had significant populations of both Muslims and non-Muslims (Hindus and Sikhs).
Understanding Partition requires examining not just the high politics of negotiations between the British, the Congress, and the Muslim League, but also the human cost. It was a period of unprecedented violence, mass displacement, and trauma. Millions of people were uprooted from their homes, forced to migrate across the newly drawn borders. Estimates of the number of people displaced range from 10 to 20 million, making it one of the largest migrations in human history. The number of deaths is estimated to be between several hundred thousand and two million.
Partition was not just a political event; it was a deeply personal and communal experience. The memories and experiences of Partition survivors, recorded in oral histories, literature, and personal accounts, reveal the horrors of communal violence, the loss of homes and livelihoods, the trauma of migration, and the pain of separation from loved ones and ancestral lands. These narratives offer a crucial perspective beyond the official histories of political negotiations.
Studying Partition involves grappling with complex questions: Why did it happen? Could it have been avoided? How did the process of division unfold? What were its immediate and long-term consequences? And how do we remember and grapple with its legacy today?
A Momentous Marker (Partition)
Partition stands as a momentous marker in the history of the Indian subcontinent, signifying the end of colonial rule and the birth of two nation-states, but also representing a tragic culmination of communal politics and violence. Its impact continues to shape the political, social, and cultural landscape of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
Partition Or Holocaust?
The term "Holocaust," originally associated with the mass extermination of Jews by Nazis, has sometimes been used by historians and witnesses to describe the violence and scale of suffering during Partition. While debates exist regarding the appropriateness of this comparison, its use highlights the sheer brutality, systematic nature of violence in certain areas, and the immense human tragedy that unfolded.
The violence during Partition was marked by:
- Communal Riots: Large-scale riots erupted between communities (primarily Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims) in Punjab, Bengal, and other areas.
- Targeted Attacks: People were targeted and killed simply because of their religious identity.
- Massacres: Villages and trains carrying refugees were attacked, leading to mass killings.
- Sexual Violence: Abduction, rape, and mutilation of women were widespread and horrific features of the violence.
- Forced Conversions: People were forced to change their religion.
- Mass Displacement: Millions were forced to leave their homes and seek refuge across the new borders.
The state machinery, including the police and army, was often ill-equipped or unwilling to control the violence effectively, and sometimes even participated in it. The chaos and brutality led many to feel that they were experiencing an event of genocidal proportions.
The Power Of Stereotypes
Communal violence during Partition was fuelled by deeply ingrained stereotypes and historical narratives that portrayed one community as the enemy of the other. Propaganda and communal rhetoric, spread by some political groups and individuals, played a significant role in creating an atmosphere of fear and hatred.
- Stereotypes depicted the 'other' community as inherently violent, untrustworthy, and oppressive.
- Historical events were often interpreted through a communal lens, blaming one community for past injustices against the other.
- Rumours and misinformation spread rapidly, triggering violent reactions.
- Individuals who had lived together peacefully for generations were suddenly turned against each other, manipulated by communal forces.
These stereotypes were used to dehumanise the 'other', making it easier for people to justify violence against them. The power of these negative stereotypes in inciting hatred and violence remains a crucial, and disturbing, aspect of understanding the tragedy of Partition.
Why And How Did Partition Happen?
The question of why and how India was partitioned remains a subject of intense historical debate. There is no single, simple answer, but rather a complex interplay of historical factors, political developments, and decisions made by key players.
Culminating Point Of A Long History?
Some historians argue that Partition was the inevitable outcome of a long history of communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims in India. They point to medieval history, the decline of the Mughal Empire, and the rise of distinct communal identities under British rule as factors that made a unified India impossible.
However, many historians dispute this "two-nation theory" and the idea of inherent, age-old communal animosity. They argue that while differences existed, Hindus and Muslims coexisted peacefully for centuries and shared many cultural practices. They contend that communalism as a political force, demanding separate political rights and eventually a separate state, was largely a modern phenomenon that developed under specific historical conditions, particularly influenced by British policies and political mobilisation from the late 19th century onwards.
The Provincial Elections Of 1937 And The Congress Ministries
The provincial elections of 1937, held under the Government of India Act, 1935, played a significant role in shaping the political landscape leading to Partition. The Indian National Congress won a clear majority in most provinces and formed ministries.
The performance of the Congress ministries from 1937-1939 was viewed differently by the Congress and the Muslim League. The League alleged that the Congress ministries were discriminatory towards Muslims and did not adequately protect their rights. They pointed to issues like the 'Bande Mataram' controversy, the Wardha scheme of education, and instances of alleged discrimination. The Congress denied these charges, claiming they worked for all communities.
Crucially, in provinces where the Congress had a clear majority, they often refused to form coalition governments with the Muslim League, particularly in the United Provinces (present-day Uttar Pradesh). The League had hoped to share power. This exclusion led the Muslim League to believe that Muslims could not expect justice or power in a future independent India dominated by the Congress. This strengthened Jinnah's demand for a separate political entity for Muslims.
The “Pakistan” Resolution
Following the experience of the Congress ministries and feeling increasingly marginalised, the All India Muslim League adopted a resolution at its Lahore session on 23rd March 1940. This resolution, often referred to as the **"Pakistan" Resolution**, demanded "Independent States" for the Muslims in the north-western and eastern parts of India where Muslims were in a majority. At this stage, the demand was for autonomous units within a larger federation, and the name "Pakistan" was not explicitly used in the resolution text, although it became associated with it.
This resolution marked a formal articulation of the demand for a separate political future for Indian Muslims and significantly raised the stakes in the negotiations for independence.
The Suddenness Of Partition
Despite the growing demand for Pakistan since 1940, the actual decision to partition India and the speed with which it was implemented caught many by surprise, leading to chaos and violence. The timeline for the transfer of power was initially set for June 1948. However, the last Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, advanced the date to August 1947.
The boundary between India and Pakistan was drawn by the **Boundary Commission** headed by Sir Cyril Radcliffe, a British lawyer who had never been to India before. The Radcliffe Line was finalised and announced just days before the Partition came into effect on 15th August 1947. This hurried and secretive process meant that people on the ground had little time to prepare for the division or even know on which side of the border their homes would fall. This suddenness exacerbated the violence and mass migration.
Post-War Developments
Several developments after World War II contributed to the inevitability of Partition:
- Weakened British Authority: Britain was economically exhausted by the war and decided to grant independence to India. They were eager to leave quickly.
- Simmering Discontent: The Quit India Movement and the Indian National Army (INA) trials had shown the depth of nationalist feeling and the declining loyalty of Indian troops to the British.
- Elections of 1946: In the provincial elections held in 1946, the Congress swept the Hindu-majority constituencies, while the Muslim League won almost all the Muslim seats. This victory strengthened the League's claim to be the sole representative of Indian Muslims and reinforced their demand for Pakistan.
- The Cabinet Mission (1946): The British government sent the Cabinet Mission to India to find a solution for the transfer of power. The Mission proposed a three-tiered structure: a weak centre, provinces, and three groups of provinces (two Muslim-majority, one Hindu-majority). This plan initially offered a potential alternative to outright partition but failed due to disagreements between the Congress and the Muslim League over its interpretation and implementation.
- Direct Action Day (1946): Following the failure of the Cabinet Mission plan, the Muslim League called for "Direct Action Day" on 16th August 1946, to press its demand for Pakistan. This led to widespread and brutal communal riots in Calcutta, which quickly spread to other parts of India, particularly Bengal, Bihar, and Punjab. The failure to control these riots convinced many, including some Congress leaders, that Partition might be a necessary evil to prevent further bloodshed.
A Possible Alternative To Partition
The **Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946** is often seen as a potential alternative that could have preserved a united India, albeit with a weak federal structure. The plan envisaged India remaining united under a weak central government controlling only defence, foreign affairs, and communications. Provinces would be grouped into three sections (Sections A, B, and C), which would have their own legislatures and executives and could frame their own constitutions.
Section A: Hindu-majority provinces. Section B: North-Western Muslim-majority provinces (Punjab, Sindh, NWFP, Balochistan). Section C: North-Eastern Muslim-majority provinces (Bengal, Assam).
The Congress and the League both initially accepted the plan, though with reservations and differing interpretations. However, disagreements over the power of the Centre, the compulsory grouping of provinces, and the procedure for framing the constitution led to the breakdown of the plan. Jinnah eventually withdrew the League's acceptance, and the path towards Partition became clearer.
Towards Partition
By early 1947, the political situation had deteriorated significantly, marked by increasing communal violence and a complete breakdown of trust between the Congress and the Muslim League. The British government, under the leadership of Clement Attlee, announced in February 1947 that they would leave India by June 1948.
Lord Mountbatten arrived as the new Viceroy in March 1947 with a mandate to transfer power. Faced with the deteriorating situation, the unlikelihood of a united India, and perhaps the British desire for a quick exit, Mountbatten put forward the **Partition Plan**, also known as the **Mountbatten Plan** or the **June 3 Plan**, on 3rd June 1947.
The Plan proposed the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan. It offered provinces the choice to join either dominion or remain independent (though this latter option was quickly discouraged). It also provided for the partition of Punjab and Bengal, subject to the vote of their legislative assemblies, and a referendum in the North-West Frontier Province and the Sylhet district of Assam.
The Congress leadership, despite their long-held commitment to a united India and Gandhi's opposition, reluctantly accepted Partition. They felt that it was the only way to achieve independence and avoid further large-scale communal violence, or that the alternative (a weak, fragmented centre) was not viable. The Muslim League accepted the plan as it met their demand for Pakistan.
The Indian Independence Act, 1947, gave effect to the Mountbatten Plan, creating the two independent Dominions of India and Pakistan on 15th August 1947. This Act simultaneously dissolved British paramountcy over the princely states, giving them the option to accede to either India or Pakistan or remain independent (though most eventually acceded to one of the two countries).
Thus, the process of Partition, driven by a complex mix of factors including British policy (like 'Divide and Rule'), the failure of negotiations, the political strategies of the Congress and the Muslim League, communal mobilisation, and the escalating violence on the ground, culminated in the division of the subcontinent.