UNIT 12 PARTITION OF INDIA
Structure
12.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
12.2 British Policies and Partition
12.3 Muslim League and Jinnah
12.4 Congress and Partition
12.5 Gandhi and Partition
12.6 The 1946 Election and Popular Opinion
12.6.1 Cabinet Mission Plan and a Strong State
12.7 Social and Economic Background
12.8 Overview
12.9 Summary
12.10 Terminal Questions
Suggested Readings
12.1 INTRODUCTION
The British conquered India and gave it a political unity that it had enjoyed only for short
periods of time in its long history. This political unification based on imperialist expansion
quickened the pace of political change in India in conjunction with the spread of modern
education and the growth of modern forms of transport and communications. Yet, when
the British left India in 1947, the country was divided along religious lines into India and
Pakistan. This has been attributed to a policy of divide and rule that the British followed.
That Britain was responsible in the break-up of British India was believed by all the
Indian nationalists including Gandhi; he believed that both Hindus and Muslims ought to
strive for communal harmony, which was consciously damaged by the ‘third party’ i.e. the
British rulers. During the period of World War II, Gandhi even said that the communal
problem would never be resolved until the British left India. Since the British deliberately
encouraged the League and its demand for Pakistan after March 1940, Gandhi argued
that Hindu-Muslim unity was a pre-requisite for fighting the British and for freedom
around 1942, and also argued that the communal problem would never be settled until
the British left India.
The partition of India was the product of complex processes and was the outcome of
several factors and the role of the British, the Muslim League and the Indian National
Congress for the division of the subcontinent. Partition was neither inevitable nor the
product of sheer chance. It was not the fulfillment of destiny or the logical outcome of
the two nation theory; nor was it simply an accident that was produced by a single wrong
decision or failure of judgment. It was the period 1937-1947 that saw the quickening of
, Partition of India 133
the pace of political developments, but there were underlying differences in the levels of
economic and social development of the Hindu and Muslim communities of the subcontinent
that played a role. Conflicts based on class and culture got intertwined with new forms
of politics and concepts of democracy and nation-states during the closing years of
colonial rule.
Aims and Objectives
After reading this Unit, you would be able to understand
The socio-economic and political background to the partition of India
The role of the Congress and Muslim League in the process and
The 1946 popular opinion that also played a role in the partition
12.2 BRITISH POLICIES AND PARTITION
The British’s purpose of the policy of divide and rule, for deliberately favouring one
community and then the other, is to prevent the coming together of Indians against the
British. The acceptance of the Muslim League demand for separate electorates in 1909
was a major divisive move that vitiated the political culture of India until independence in
1947. Some argue that the Muslim League deputation to the Viceroy in 1906 itself was
a command performance and the League was set up soon after by an elite group trying
to promote its interest. The British extended it to the Sikhs as well. Gandhi and B.R.
Ambedkar, through a compromise in 1932 thwarted a British attempt to drive a wedge
between the Depressed classes and the upper caste Hindus by offering separate
electorates to the former. The argument is no longer confined to the institutional
mechanisms of representative government that were slowly being introduced by the British
in India. Historians and anthropologists now argue that the British classification practices
encouraged the representation as well as the self-representation of Indians according to
caste and religion.
The Census listed various castes and communities in India, and also counted them. The
colonial practice of census and surveys thus encouraged the idea of ‘enumerated
communities’ and led to the concept of majority and minority in different parts of the
country. Fuzzy identities were replaced by hard and singular identities often forcing groups
with complex and multiple identities to choose one (Cohn, Appadurai, Kaviraj). The
British Orientalist scholarship played a role in the development of ideas about the
peculiarities of Indian society. The codification of the laws of the Hindus led to the
freezing of the dynamic nature of traditional society and culture and valourised a primarily
textual and elitist upper caste conception of Hindu law and practices. The codification of
Muslim Law also led to the rigid interpretation of law and reduced the role of
interpretation that had been important in Muslim jurisprudence. The writing of history also
shaped ideas of community that soon became the commonsense of the time. The British
perception of Indian society in terms of religious and cultural differences led to the
exaggeration of religious and cultural conflict (Mushirul Hasan, Gyan Pandey).
As Gandhi had observed in Hind Swaraj, the Hindus and Muslims had learned to live
with each other before the British established their rule in India. It was British rule that
produced greater differences between the two communities. The historians focused only
on the periods of conflict ignoring the much longer periods of harmony between
Structure
12.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
12.2 British Policies and Partition
12.3 Muslim League and Jinnah
12.4 Congress and Partition
12.5 Gandhi and Partition
12.6 The 1946 Election and Popular Opinion
12.6.1 Cabinet Mission Plan and a Strong State
12.7 Social and Economic Background
12.8 Overview
12.9 Summary
12.10 Terminal Questions
Suggested Readings
12.1 INTRODUCTION
The British conquered India and gave it a political unity that it had enjoyed only for short
periods of time in its long history. This political unification based on imperialist expansion
quickened the pace of political change in India in conjunction with the spread of modern
education and the growth of modern forms of transport and communications. Yet, when
the British left India in 1947, the country was divided along religious lines into India and
Pakistan. This has been attributed to a policy of divide and rule that the British followed.
That Britain was responsible in the break-up of British India was believed by all the
Indian nationalists including Gandhi; he believed that both Hindus and Muslims ought to
strive for communal harmony, which was consciously damaged by the ‘third party’ i.e. the
British rulers. During the period of World War II, Gandhi even said that the communal
problem would never be resolved until the British left India. Since the British deliberately
encouraged the League and its demand for Pakistan after March 1940, Gandhi argued
that Hindu-Muslim unity was a pre-requisite for fighting the British and for freedom
around 1942, and also argued that the communal problem would never be settled until
the British left India.
The partition of India was the product of complex processes and was the outcome of
several factors and the role of the British, the Muslim League and the Indian National
Congress for the division of the subcontinent. Partition was neither inevitable nor the
product of sheer chance. It was not the fulfillment of destiny or the logical outcome of
the two nation theory; nor was it simply an accident that was produced by a single wrong
decision or failure of judgment. It was the period 1937-1947 that saw the quickening of
, Partition of India 133
the pace of political developments, but there were underlying differences in the levels of
economic and social development of the Hindu and Muslim communities of the subcontinent
that played a role. Conflicts based on class and culture got intertwined with new forms
of politics and concepts of democracy and nation-states during the closing years of
colonial rule.
Aims and Objectives
After reading this Unit, you would be able to understand
The socio-economic and political background to the partition of India
The role of the Congress and Muslim League in the process and
The 1946 popular opinion that also played a role in the partition
12.2 BRITISH POLICIES AND PARTITION
The British’s purpose of the policy of divide and rule, for deliberately favouring one
community and then the other, is to prevent the coming together of Indians against the
British. The acceptance of the Muslim League demand for separate electorates in 1909
was a major divisive move that vitiated the political culture of India until independence in
1947. Some argue that the Muslim League deputation to the Viceroy in 1906 itself was
a command performance and the League was set up soon after by an elite group trying
to promote its interest. The British extended it to the Sikhs as well. Gandhi and B.R.
Ambedkar, through a compromise in 1932 thwarted a British attempt to drive a wedge
between the Depressed classes and the upper caste Hindus by offering separate
electorates to the former. The argument is no longer confined to the institutional
mechanisms of representative government that were slowly being introduced by the British
in India. Historians and anthropologists now argue that the British classification practices
encouraged the representation as well as the self-representation of Indians according to
caste and religion.
The Census listed various castes and communities in India, and also counted them. The
colonial practice of census and surveys thus encouraged the idea of ‘enumerated
communities’ and led to the concept of majority and minority in different parts of the
country. Fuzzy identities were replaced by hard and singular identities often forcing groups
with complex and multiple identities to choose one (Cohn, Appadurai, Kaviraj). The
British Orientalist scholarship played a role in the development of ideas about the
peculiarities of Indian society. The codification of the laws of the Hindus led to the
freezing of the dynamic nature of traditional society and culture and valourised a primarily
textual and elitist upper caste conception of Hindu law and practices. The codification of
Muslim Law also led to the rigid interpretation of law and reduced the role of
interpretation that had been important in Muslim jurisprudence. The writing of history also
shaped ideas of community that soon became the commonsense of the time. The British
perception of Indian society in terms of religious and cultural differences led to the
exaggeration of religious and cultural conflict (Mushirul Hasan, Gyan Pandey).
As Gandhi had observed in Hind Swaraj, the Hindus and Muslims had learned to live
with each other before the British established their rule in India. It was British rule that
produced greater differences between the two communities. The historians focused only
on the periods of conflict ignoring the much longer periods of harmony between
