Managing the Partition of India - Essay Example

How Well Was the Partition of India Managed? The Partition of India stands as one of the most significant events in human history. The events that transpired freed the two nations from the shackles of the British rule. Consequently, Pakistan and India became two sovereign states at midnight on the 14th and 15th of August, 1947. Yet experts and citizens of India and Pakistan alike view the partition of India as a tragedy "a multifaceted phenomenon in which lot of factors played their role" and "various formulations are popularized to suit the political interests of vested interests.” 1 But before discussing the partition of India, it is imperative to evaluate briefly the events and occurrences in Indian history - dominated for nearly 300 years by the British. No one could imagine, even the British, who initially came to India as traders, that they would be able to occupy India making its inhabitants subjects under their rule and domination. India had prior to the arrival of the British and other Europeans been one of the most prosperous regions in the world, with many natural resources and well established trade. The British traders obtained the license to establish the East India Company from King James 1st in 1600, and the Company’s first ships arrived in 1608. They established numerous trading posts along the east and west coasts of India, leading to considerable growth of English communities thriving around the areas of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. Not only did Britain aim to expand territories, many other European nations as well including, France, Denmark and Portugal had also been making advances to access the resources of other African and Asian countries. This imperialistic stance and expansionist policy, as well as the demand for new goods, materials and trade routes were often attributed as outcomes of the impact of the industrial revolution taking place across Europe. The French soon after began to establish outposts, heightening the tension between Britain and France as the East India Company wanted to monopolize all trade. Several wars between the two imperial powers finally resulted in France's defeat and Britain was able to gain the upper hand. As a result, the French soon lost most of their colonies. With France now gone, Britain was able to establish a firm foothold in India and by the 1850s Britain controlled most of the Indian subcontinent. However, the British rule turned increasingly unpopular (Singh 1990). The first major revolt against the British rule occurred in 1857 when the soldiers of the British Indian Army carried out a mutiny and offered their services to the Mughal Emperor. This mutiny quickly spread to other parts of India and it is argued that the uprising, which seriously threatened the British rule in India, was undoubtedly the culmination of mounting Indian resentment toward the social and political policies perpetrated by the British over many decades. The mutiny was eventually thwarted. Nonetheless, all political power was now transferred from the East India Company to the Crown and in 1858, Britain began to directly control most of India. However, the clamour for equal rights and independence mounted. The late nineteenth and early twentieth century would see the growth of new political parties and ideological groups which continually called for the end to direct British rule in India. With the end of the Second World War, the Indian subcontinent witnessed a major political power shift that not only emancipated the country from colonial rule, but also divided the nation into two independent countries, India and Pakistan. The political leaders from these two countries, having fought together for independence from the British, ultimately concocted schemes for the division and partition of the country. The plans for the partition started as early as the end of nineteenth century with the implementation of the British divide and conquer strategy. Under this administrative policy, the British worsened the existing conflicts between the Hindu and the Muslim communities, as for instance, during a census taken by Britain, surveyors categorized people according to their religion viewing and treating them as totally separate and distinct from one another which in turn increased the already mounting religious rifts between the groups. This friction resulted in perpetual disagreements. Such energies, many scholars contend, could have been utilised better to advance freedom and independence. This use of a divide and conquer policy only meant that Britain was more easily able to administer and control the large population of India with little British manpower. This policy not only had social repercussions but also political outcome, seemingly permeated through into Indian politics. These were reminiscent of the two political factions, Indian National Congress consisting of Hindus and the Muslim League supported by the Muslim radicals (Bahadur 1972). The first half of the twentieth century witnessed a growing political segregation between the Congress and the League. The league felt threatened by the more powerful Hindu majority as it perceived that the Hindus in the administrative control would result to the inequitable treatment of the Muslim minority. This resentment resulted to the culmination of the demand by the Muslim league for a separate Muslim country, Pakistan. This demand gradually grew stronger and in 1940, the league officially called for a separate Muslim state. However, the leaders of the Indian National Congress opposed the division of India on various issues which include religion. Historians argue that the Hindus objected to the demand because they feared a return to Muslim control of India - control which existed prior to the arrival of the British. Despite the League’s calls for a Muslim state it was not until 1946, that the boundaries of independent Pakistan were established. Moreover, the partition brought about other problems with regards the allocation of the amount of land or assets and the political structure it should take. The prevailing view in that period was that, Pakistan should exist as a separate state of the federation of India or as an independent sovereign nation. When the time came that the British had decided to leave India, the colonizers organised meetings in order to decide India’s fate and political structure. The British sent a three-man cabinet to discuss the transfer of power in India to a single administration (Menon 1957). It drafted a plan for ‘three-tier federation” which the cabinet brought forward on 16 May 1946 suggesting for the setting up of a largely autonomous loose federation of provinces. The plan necessitated the division mainly basing on which religious group held the majority (Menon 1957). The resulting union of states was defined as a confederation of three groups of provinces which consisted of firstly the Muslim majority provinces of Sind, Punjap and NWFP, and the second and third groups would consist of the largely Hindu-populated provinces of Bengal and Assam. Each group was to be governed with a largely autonomous local government but issues regarding foreign affairs, finance, communication and defence would be controlled by a central Indian government. However, an alternative plan was later proposed by the committee on the 16th June 1946, which recommended for the partition of Indian land and assets on the basis of religious considerations - a Hindu majority India and a Muslim majority Pakistan. However, the Indian National Congress strongly opposed and rejected the 16 June plan as its members strongly opposed the partition and saw it as inadvertent division of the country. Hence, the Indian National Congress accepted the 16th May plan that proposed a loose federation of states and one which provided for an undivided India. The Muslim league, hesitant at first, eventually accepted the scheme. With the acceptance of the 16th May plan, Lord Wavell, India’s viceroy at that period, invited political leaders of the Indian National Congress and Muslim League to form a coalition government. Nehru took charge as vice president of ‘The Viceroy’s Executive Council’ (Brown 1994). However, The Muslim league was unhappy with the new government and Jinnah continued his calls for an independent Pakistan as he felt that he had been pressured into accepting the plan. Jinnah held a protest calling for a day of action in which he promised to divide and destroy India. Violence had already broken out in the Punjab and Bengal and the protests only worsened the situation further. The leaders of Indian National Congress tried to convince the leaders of the League not to split the country, but the ultimately failed in all their attempts (Menon 1957). Meanwhile, Lord Mountbatten who had replaced Lord Wavell as Viceroy, put forth a recommendation on 3rd June of 1947 (also known as the Mountbatten plan) calling forth a total division of India. The plan suggested for India’s partition, including the division of her complete assets and the formation of a separate, sovereign Pakistan based on religious considerations. The Muslim League consequently jumped at the idea put forward by Mountbatten. However, the leaders of the INC showed hesitancy. Nevertheless, Sardar Patel of the Indian National Congress, first accepted the proposal (and later represent the Indian National Congress during partition meetings) he viewed the plan more feasible than the proposal which set forth a unified India – a plan met with strong opposition and violence (Menon 1957). Eventually the rest of the Indian Nation Congress realized that if they were to achieve independence that they would have to agree. Ultimately, leaders passed the resolution calling for a separate Pakistan, accepting the Mountbatten plan of 3rd June 1947. Having decided upon the partition, complications arose with regards creating geographical boundaries, as for instance, which areas should be allotted to India and which should be for Pakistan. These issues caused concerns amongst the political leaders of both Great Britain and India. To provide solutions to this, Sir Cyril Radcliff, a lawyer from England, was summoned by the British administration to carry out the task of drawing the line of division between India and Pakistan. Radcliff had never been involved with the affairs of the Indian administration and unfamiliar with most of the Indian political leaders as well as the existing political issues of the country. Mountbatten asserted that whatever decisions regarding the drawing of the boundary would be considered impartial by both the sides, arguing that he had no personal reservations for any of them. Radcliff began the partition scheme by identifying the regions with major Muslim populations. The regions of Punjab, Sindh in the west and Bengal in the east, were included in what is now known as East Pakistan and the West Pakistan. The leaders largely accepted the Radcliff’s decisions as these were largely based on the data with regards the population. However, once the borders had been agreed there were instances where the village borders lay in some parts in India and some in Pakistan. There were even instances where the dividing line passed through a single house with some rooms in one country and others in the other. Radcliff’s justification for such a inadvertent division was that no matter what he decide for, people would suffer in some ways. Furthermore, constraints in time, amidst the rising tensions and violence had significant effects on the final outcome of the scheme. He made no real attempt to ensure that the border skirted villages or was drawn between densely populated areas instead of right through them. As a result, Radcliff has been accused of being completely apathetic about the sufferings of the Indians. What is worse, the division was wrapped in secrecy, Indians were not permitted to review it, since disputes continuously occurred which in turn, could cause delay in the Partition. The exact borders between India and Pakistan were unknown until after the partition of both countries. This uncertainty, brought about by the issues on the partition, was the one of the root causes of the thousands of deaths of both Muslims and Sikhs as they attempted evacuate to places they believed the new boundaries would arise (Brown 1994). The political leaders of India eventually reached a consensus and approved the 3rd June plan, which the British Parliament passed on June 18, 1947. The act was mainly founded on the outlines of the Indian Act of 1935 which stipulated the creation of a provincial government run by the Indian leaders under the central administration controlled by the British. The act officially recognized the granting of independence and the partition of India and Pakistan as two sovereign states. The Act included provisions which specified that the British must leave starting on the 15th of August that same year. Both the dominions were granted the freedom to independently deal with the issues of internal and external affairs, security and the constitutional framework to replicate. The British emperor was at free will to give up the title of ‘The Emperor of India’, which he did on 22nd June, 1947. With this, both the countries were offered the membership of Commonwealth of Nations at its own discretion. It was decided that Lord Mountbatten, the last governor general, should look after the transfer of powers to the respective governments of India and Pakistan. On the 14th of August he officially handed over the power to the Pakistan government with Liaqut Ali Khan as the acting Prime Minster and Muhammadali Jinnah as the Governor General of Pakistan. Nehru was elected as the first prime minister of India and Dr. Rajendra Prasad as the first president. Mountbatten handed over the powers to India in New Delhi on the 15th of August 1947 (Menon 1957). Historians often ask why Britain was so eager to leave India and what consequences this had. With the end of Second World War, the British had incurred heavy financial losses and were struggling to rebuild Britain. With these limited financial resources, it had become difficult to administer India whose population and politicians were intent on achieving independence. Therefore it is often argued that the process of imparting independence was hastily concocted to avoid the situation in which British administration would have to control the worsening situation especially the riots. However, this resulted into many unexpected occurrences - the major one was the widespread outbreak of uncontrolled communal riots which both India and Pakistan struggled to appease. With the independence of India, the British rule which lasted t for nearly hundred years came to an end, yet resulting to the division of the country into two. Presently, Pakistan celebrates 14th of August as its independence day whereas India celebrates it as 15th of August. Mixed opinions exist about the role that the British administration played during and before the partition of India actually took place. As previously mentioned the workability of the Radcliff line was questionable on certain issues. In places it ran through densely populated areas, and in some cases through cities, rather than going through the areas of lesser density and In some regions sheer confusions persisted and there was little clarity regarding where exactly the border lie. Historians claim that the British haste to leave resulted in violence on both sides of the border – a conflict which have been effectively prevented with a controlled demobilization of the masses through specified border areas and under the control the British who had the skill and necessary experience to control the situation. The forces of the newly formed governments of India and Pakistan were incompetent in terms of power, resources and experience to control the mobilization of the people and manage the situation efficiently. The period witnessed a complete breakdown of law and order, many became homeless and thousands were murdered and killed as the religious violence escalated. Historians contend that with the end of World War II, the British had very limited resources with which to administer the large Indian subcontinent and that the urgency in which Britain handed over power to India and Pakistan was significant in order to save themselves from dealing with the deteriorating religious conflict prior to partition (Philips, and Wainwright, 1970; Menon 1957). Prior to partition the Indian civil service, armed forces, communications and transport systems and administrative systems had to be set up and managed. India had the advantage over Pakistan as most of these elements were already in place in India. Pakistan, however, had to construct a new capital city, establish its new armed forces and civil service. Britain had made no provision for this when it granted independence to Pakistan but it is widely accepted that despite these the Indian government managed to cope successfully because the Indian workers had already been doing much of the work prior to partition. The state of the Indian economy after partition is also often studied, like Britain, India was also struggling to cope with the economic after -effects of the war and no provision on how to deal with the outcome had been proposed. Despite this, India had a well-established industrial sector with excellent financial networks to support it. Though much of the improvements in industry had been geared towards war production these were quickly reversed (Singh 1990). Hence, considering the aforementioned data, how well was the partition of India managed? The British withdrawal from India was hastily done, no real consideration was given to the people of India and how they would be affected. Britain was financially bankrupt and the deteriorating violence and religious animosity was something that it was unable to cope with or even unwilling to deal with (Singh 1990). While the Indians appear to have gained most from partition, Pakistan still appears to be struggling today. Moreover, both India and Pakistan have been engaged in several wars since the partition, and disputes still continue over contested areas such as the Kashmir. Thus, it is easy to analyse the outcome of the management of the partition, and the only way is to take a quick glance at the aftermath of the partition. Bibliography Singh, Anita I. (1990). The Origins of the Partition of India 1936-1947.(New York, Oxford University Press.) Bahadur, Lal. (1972). The Muslim League, Its History, Activities & Achievements. (Michigan, Book Traders)† Menon, V. P. (1957). The Transfer of Power in India. Bombay: (Orient Longman) Philips, C. H. and Wainwright, M. D. (1970). The Partition of India: Policies and Perspectives 1935-47.(London: Allen and Unwin) Judith, M. Brown. (1994) MODERN INDIA: The Origins of an Asian Democracy (Oxford University Press) K. Theodore Hoppen, THE MID-VICTORIAN GENERATION 1846-1886, (Clarendone Press, 1998) Puniyani, Ram (2002), Social Roots of Partition Process Secular Politics- No.2, Vol Read More