The Partition in India - Essay Example

Ghandi the need for the partition of India was an untruth (Ghandi). To Jinnah, the very unity of the time was artificial and a partition was justified (Jinna). To the British, the main concerns were to dismantle its empire as soon as possible while leaving a stable Indian sub-continent (Wenger and Zimmermann). Unfortunately, the two primary objectives were arguably, inversely connected to each other. The partition and what followed would disappoint all the parties involved. Ghandi would come to realize the unity he wanted and believed in could crumble within a matter of months with disastrous consequences. Jinnah’s perfect partition of Muslims and Hindus was both unpractical and set alight dormant hostilities, brining about the worst on all sides. The British were able to accomplish one of their primary objectives of dismantling the empire. However, in their final months, the semblance of unity they had imposed on India through colonial administrative techniques backfired, and the complications in administrating the partition caused further problems and the result would be one of the most sensitive flash points in the world, which exist to this day (Wenger and Zimmermann). The partition of India began as an ill-guided and unnecessary attempt at creating a fair and balanced result for everyone and could have been avoided altogether (Dr Pandey). However, as time passed, especially after world war two, the political obstacles from Whitehall, Congress and the Muslim League evolved and the partition became a necessary solution needed in order to avoid the apparent clash of cultures, religions or societies that now made a federal India an unviable option (Dr Pandey). The complexities of the partition while taking into account the different races, religions and cultures involved along with the political and socio-economic and nationalistic trends at the time made the process a very delicate and if not, confusing. The events preceding and following the partition is somewhat similar to a vicious cycle of aggression, indecisiveness, and misconceptions. Above all the chaos was Great Britain, which had just come through the most devastating conflict of the century and arguably, in known history (Dr Pandey), (Wenger and Zimmermann). The colonial power was under severe strain in both economic and militarily terms. The burdens of maintaining an empire no longer overshadowed the problems at the home front (Wenger and Zimmermann). The spread of communism and the rise of the super powers, compelled it to dismantle is empire quickly and efficiently as possible and allow it to rebuild itself. Accordingly, some rightly question the role of Great Britain during this time, some would question the sincerity of its resolutions and efforts to create a fair and balanced partition, and others would question its role in administrating the partition and its effects on the violence and chaos. Thus, this essay will critically examine the role of Great Britain before, during and after the partition. From the high-level discussions with the national leaders of the time to its resolutions that created the partition of India while examining in detail the various consequences of the partition and ranging the violence to the economic misfortune to befall millions of people. A clear understanding of British Raj is essential to understanding the events that lead up to the independence and partition of India. The people and the events that would eventually lead to the partition were first mobilized by Government of India Act of 1935 (Dr Pandey). The act was the result of the Round Table Conferences held in London between 1930 and 1933), over two years of parliamentary debates and the delaying tactics of Sri Winston Churchill (Dr Pandey) who was opposed to the transfer any Imperial power into the hands of India. The act allowed the establishment of almost a full responsible government in the 11 provinces of British India. Based on the British parliamentary system, the governance of the provinces fell on Indian ministers were responsible to the elected legislatures of the provinces. The federal part of the Act transferred only a portion of the central power into the Indian hands but this element was never implemented. Another condition for a federation was that at least half of the total populations of all states (562 Indian states and British India) voluntary accede. Although the 1935 Act brought the Indian states close the political arena for the first time, it must be noted that the major players were always the British Raj, Congress and the Muslim League (ML). Accordingly, up to 1930 the British were mainly occupied in securing the full implementation of the 1935 Act. However, the British soon realized that the earlier enthusiasm of the princes joining the federation had subsided significantly and the Governor-General of the time, Lord Linlithgow had made very little progress when World War 2 finally broke out (Dr Pandey). With the onset of the war Great Britain had to move any plans for a federal scheme into cold storage and thus putting the question of India on hold. The Muslim League was opposed to the proposed federation since it knew that any sort of central government in India would be Hindu dominated (Jinna). However, it was willing to accept the provincial element of the Act in which it was reasonably assured of running the government in 5 provinces where the Muslims were the majority. These included Sind, Balumchistan, North West Frontier Province (NWFP), the Punjab and Bengal. Congress was opposed to the whole Act because it did not grant Indian the full independence it wanted nor did it even give India the dominion status (Dr Pandey). However, both the ML and Congress did contest in the 1937 elections, which were held for the implementation of the provincial part of the Act. Congress won a decisive victory, winning 8 provinces including the NWFP. The ML on the other hand, failed to capture any of the 5 Muslim provinces. This victory convinced Jawaharlal Nehru, the leader of Congress that the ML and the sectarian and reactionary forces it had represented had all but collapsed. He then rejected the ML’s demand to share one third of the power in Congress governed provinces. This caused wide spread anger and calls of unfairness, since the ML had been revived as a party just before the election, while Congress ruled the provinces from 1937 to 1939. The election and the result to share power caused the leader of the ML, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, to raise the cry of “Islam in danger” (Dr Pandey). Thus the process took a sharp turn and solidified a more radical and more religious edge to the process of devolution and administration. Jinnah built on the common fears of Muslims that their culture, livelihood and freedom were at the mercy of the Hindu dominated political system with Congress at the helm. However, even with this new radical edge the ML was never poised to become as powerful as it would become and it did so only due to British support which started after October 1939. World War 2 literally left no part of the world untouched, and this was certainly true for British India. In Churchill’s words a war of necessity, would drive Great Britain to commit everything it had at all costs, to fight the axis Europe and Asia. In the process, every part of the British Empire was mobilized to fight a war in multiple fronts. In its urgency to fight a more powerful enemy, the British suspended formalities, put reforms on hold and cut through as quickly as possible in order to organize the defense of its colonies and begin the long drawn out fight of WW2. In the process India, would be dragged into conflict without the explicit consultations with the ruling party, Congress. Congress, in turn, resigned the provincial ministries in protest against being dragged into war without any assurance that India would be made independent immediately after the war (Dr Pandey). The opposition of Congress definitely irritated Lord Linlithgow. Thus, he started supporting Jinnah for two reasons. To undermine the claim of Congress that it represented all communities and classes of India and to help transform the ML into a powerful national counter-force in India’s national life (Dr Pandey). Having becomes stronger with British support, the league passed the Pakistan resolution” in 1940, asking for Muslim majority states to become independent. Thus, the seeds of nationalism and an independent homeland began to grip the Muslims of India. Further consolidating the ML’s position, Linlithgow also made it clear that there would be no constitutional changes without the consent of the ML. Sir Stafford Cripps’ plan of 1942 implicitly gave the Muslim provinces of India the option of forming a separate state if they did not wish to remain in as part of an Indian Union (Wenger and Zimmermann),(Dr Pandey). As the war intensified and two months after Cripps mission failed, Congress launched a mass civil disobedience campaign, named the quit India movement in 1942. War weary and not in a mood to tolerate further instability in its colonies, the British banned Congress and imprisoned its leaders. In the meanwhile, the ML came to be the only significant force in the political arena. During the period of 1942 and 1945, the ML came under the aegis of Sir Winston Churchill, the wartime prime minister of Great Britain. He had opposed any transfer of power from the very beginning, and through the ML he saw the last hope of retaining a British Empire in India (Dr Pandey). In June 1945, the Indian leaders were gathered at the Simla conference which was called in by Lord Wavell, the man who succeeded Lord Linlithgow in 1943. At this conference, embolden by its recent strength, Jinnah made further demands. The ML was offered as many seats as Congress in the proposed provincial government of India. However, Jinnah raised the stakes even further by demanding that the ML be accepted as the sole representative of the Muslims of India and that Congress should not be allowed nominate any Muslim from its allotted quota to the government. As expected, Jinnah’s demands were fiercely opposed by Congress which not only had a lot of Muslims within its ranks but was also fielding a Muslim president for the year (Dr Pandey). While Wavell was prepared to go ahead without the approval of the ML, Churchill was adamant and would not endorse any scheme that did not have Jinnah’s approval. This was the very climax of the political complexities that began to plague the process. The British under Churchill wanted to hold some sort of influence in India and their tactic of divide and rule was certainly at play here, by endorsing the minority ML and standing silent while it made counterproductive and radical demands. Congress had dismissed the ML during the onset and grew very suspicious of British efforts since every move made my Britain to mediate seemed to have a hidden agenda that was bias towards the ML (Nehru) (Jinna). However, the ML emerged the stronger than ever in both its idea and appeal, thus emerging as a strong contender and a counterweight to Congress. The British labor party had a bias in favor of congress; however it could no longer ignore the ML as a prime player in Indian politics. Soon after the Simla conference Clement Attlee became the British prime minister and in order to test the relative strength of the two parties, he called for a general election. The results confirmed the strength of the ML which has now won all the Muslim seats in the central legislature while Congress won all the general seats. Thus in order to negotiate with the two main parties, Clement sent a Cabinet Mission consisting of Lord Pethick-Lawrence, Sir Stafford Cripps and A.V. Alexander to India. However, the commission failed to induce the parties to arrive at a negotiated settlement. Thus the cabinet moved on to make its own awards; it rejected Jinnah’s demand for two separate and sovereign states. It went on to lay down proposals where the so called 6 Pakistan provinces would be organized into two different groups and bestowed with varying degrees of autonomy. Autonomy in all matters of governance except for defense, foreign affairs and communication over which the Union Government was to have control. It was within this framework that a constitution was to be drawn up. It was also agreed upon that until the constitution was drawn up, an interim government composed of Congress and ML nominees (Dr Pandey). Jinnah accepted the awards but the friction between Jinnah’s ML and congress would move on to derail the whole process, creating one of the worst scenes of systematic violence to be witnessed in Asia. Initially all parties agreed to the drawing up of a new constitution; however Congress leaders began to fear that if ever the Pakistan provinces were to break away from the Indian Union, they would take with them Assam and large parts of Bengal and the Punjab which had been largely dominated by Hindus. The resulting indecisiveness and confusing in the ranks of Congress caused Jinnah to retract his original acceptance of awards allocated by the Cabinet Mission. He then went on to call for direct action or civil war to commence on the 16th of August 1946 (Dr Pandey). The radical turn in politics again highlighted the many flaws of the process that led up to the partition. At no given point of time were all 3 major parties ready to make progressive and negotiated settlements. When Congress had the upper hand it spent its opportunity by opposing British Military action, the ML used its influence on making radical demands while the British, after years of stalling and distractions seem to settle down only after Congress and the ML had passed the point of no return. Thus, the partition will always be remembered for its poor timing and constant change in the political landscape and the distribution of power amongst the three major players. The civil war that began in Calcutta on that date soon spread over the whole country, the delicate peace and the non-violent movement envisioned by Ghandi and others vanished as faster than the violence that replaced it. In the interim government, Congress and ML which had been jointly governing since September 1946 had proven themselves in compatible at almost all levels. The friction between the two made them powerless to end the cycle of violence (Dr Pandey). The congress leadership which had been thus far dedicated to a unity government yielded to Jinnah but was determined to prevent the Hindu majority states of Bengal and the Punjab to be absorbed by a Muslim state. Therefore, on the 8th of March 1947, Congress issued a demand for the division of Punjab on religious lines. To facilitate the separation, Lord Mountbatten arrived in Delhi on 22nd of March. Mountbatten, sent by Attlee was supposed to set the stage for the end of any formal British rule and conclude the transfer of power and the partition itself (Wenger and Zimmermann). However, as Congress leaders, except for Ghandi had actually agreed that a division was the only way to put an end to the civil war; Mountbatten completed his task sooner than expected. On the 2nd of June 1947, all the leaders accepted the partition plan, according to which the people of the northern Muslim provinces or Pakistan provinces were to decide for themselves if they wanted to partition. By 15th of August, All Hindu- Majority states including Hyderabad and Junagadh joined the Indian union while all Muslim majority states, except Kashmir joined Pakistan. However, war had to be waged for the procession of Kashmir. After the UN intervention of 1949, 32000 square miles remained with Pakistan while 54,000 square miles remained with India. The partition even though strictly religious lines failed to absorb the full effect of the high politics of the time (Dr Pandey). The violence of the partition should be given special attention. Following the partition and of the subcontinent and the establishment of Pakistan and India, a series of mass migrations set in. Hindus left Pakistan and Muslims left India. The partition also set alight sectarian and religious strife. The result was approximately 10 million people as refugees and casualties. The violence spiked in the boarder provinces of Kashmir and Jammu, where Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus were caught up in a three way battle for supremacy. The exchange of populations began before the boundary commissions made its final decisions and one by one, leaders such as Jinnah and Sardar Swaran Singh began to accept the migration as a necessary solution. Ghandi and the Congress party however, rejected the idea of mass migrations. After the boundaries were announced, Migrations ranged from individual and family sized units to close to 900,000 strong convoys. As the migrations intensified so did the riots. Dubbed under the August Anarchy the violence recorded exceeded anyone’s expectations. Prior to the violence there was inflammatory material passed within the ranks of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs, and inciting them to violence against each other. Everywhere, the minorities bared the brunt of the violence. Thus the Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus alike suffered from the violence. Refugees travelling to and Fro via train or foot convoys were frequently interrupted and it was a common sight to see thousands robbed and abused while women were kidnapped and raped and many more were killed. In the midst of the chaos, the economic factor played a crucial role. Laborers in the predominantly agricultural states turned on their landlord, debtors turned on their landlords, while others fled to start a new life with a clean slate. Thus, murder and destruction in order to gain economic benefits were not uncommon. When the violence took hold, holy symbols also became a target, for example, Muslims would slaughter cows in from of Hindu temples while Hindus would kill pigs in front of mosques. Women were particularly targeted during the violence, often viewed as property; the conduct of women was often seen as central to a family’s honor code. Thus women from opposing sides were often kidnapped, raped and mutilated in order to psychologically affect the opponents. Women who survived were often not welcome home and looked upon as damaged goods that no longer had any value. Another prevalent feature that was linked to the violence was the honor killings. Either the male kin would kill their women to prevent them from falling into the hands of the enemy or women were given packets of suicide or implicitly or explicitly told to kill themselves to safe guard the honor of a family or village. This was so heavily ingrained into the minds of people that women who refused were often attacked, mostly by their own families and women who lived to tell the tale were often looked down upon in disgrace. The government of India eventually set up a fact finding mission headed by G.D.Khosla. Kholsa determined that close to 250,000 lives had been lost on all sides while the number of women who were raped and abducted came close to 100,000. The return of these women, and their future status was further complicated by the code of family honor which would leave a grey area for years to come. The eventual recovery and normalization of the status would take decades to agree upon. The mood before and after the partition is beautifully captured by the renowned Indian author Saadat Manto. In his story called the Toba Tek Singh, Manto captures the various emotions prior and after the partition with regards to the inhabitants of an asylum. He captures the mood of confusion, bewilderment and traces its evolution to anger and violence amongst the patients. Towards the end capturing the reluctance and final acceptance of the partition with, cleverly using the protagonist as a metaphor while letting the reader decipher the meaning of the end. He gives his readers a wide range of options ranging from sanity and insanity to confusion and anger (Manto). In conclusion, this essay has traced the evolution of the partition from the Government of India Act to the partition of India under Lord Mountbatten to the violence and the scars of history that remain very visible to this day. One thing remains clear, the chances to avert the final consequences of the partition presented themselves at every corner of the events preceding the partition. For example, the provincial elections of 1937 and the proposals of the Cabinet Mission. However, at no one time were all three parties ready to proceed in a positive manner. Ghandi and the Congress were too idealistic; Jinnah and the ML were too radical; and the British were too distracted with the war and short sighted policies of retaining imperial power in India. In the end, as the colonial master and main protagonist throughout much of the history of the partition, Britain cannot be blamed for not doing anything. In fact Britain was obsessed with appeasing all sides of the table. However, one could blame Britain for not doing enough. When the time came, it did not use the power and influence it had in order to rein in the radical views of the ML or deliver the assurances Congress craved; instead it opted to play the part it liked best, a tolerant and silent giant waiting for the Congress and ML to come to a negotiated settlement. In the times of nationalism, communism and radical politics which it had shed blood and treasure to defeat, it allowed India’s leaders to experiment for itself instead of intervening. Thus Britain can be blamed for not doing enough but it can never be blamed for letting its subjects learn with a firsthand experience. Works Cited Dr Pandey, B B. "The Partition of India." Editor), James Clark (Excecutive. An encyclopedia Of Modern History. London: The Hamlyn Publishing Group, 1978. 266-267. Ghandi, Mahatma. "The collected works of Mahatma Ghandi." Hasan, Mushirul. Indias Partition. Delhi: Oxford Univercity Press, 1993. 69-74. Jinna, M.A. "Presidential Address." Hasan, Mushirul. Indias Partition. Delhi: Oxford Univercity Press, 1993. 1-44. Manto, Sadaat. “Toba Tek Singh.” Nehru, Jawaharalal. "The Discovery of India." Hasan, Mushirul. Indias Partition. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1993. 74-81. Wenger, Andreas and Doron Zimmermann. International Relations : From the Cold War to the Globalized World. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Inc, 2006. Read More