1

INTRODUCTION

“We divide and you rule.”

-M. A. Jinnah

August 15, 1947 marked the day of the end of the 200 year long British rule and saw the

partition of India into Muslim controlled Pakistan and Hindu dominated India.

How did India’s partition come about? Why did Indian Muslim political elite

demand a seperate state? What could British have done differently? Is partition a wise

policy option in order to deal with ethnic conflict and communalism? How did Britain

possess the moral right to impose partition? These questions are not easy to deal with. For

many Indian political thinkers partition was the inevitable and least painful way for

Hindus and Muslims which were supposedly not able to co-exist peacefully in a single

state. Whether it was a wise decision to avoid civil war regarding the “irreconcilable

differences” between Hindu majority and Muslim minority or a peculiar imperial practice

of the British at the time of withdrawal still bothers many. The traumatic experience of

partition, “the division of minds” still affects upon relations between India and Pakistan

at both state and society level.

In this paper the researcher will be discussing the role of the British administration

in the process of partition of the Indian subcontinent. If one can try to seek an answer to

whether the British administration acted responsibly in responding to the political

demands of Hindus and Muslims. Attention will be given to the impact of British

imperial approach in worsening already fragile communal relations.

OBJECTIVES

 To know the purpose of partition of India

 To understand the role of British in the separation of Pakistan from India

 To understand British’s motive in this separation

 To realize the creation of Pakistan as a new state

SOURCES

This project work entitled “ROLE OF BRITISH IN CREATION OF PAKISTAN” is

carried out with the help of Primary Sources and Secondary Sources. Primary sources

like ‘The Great Partition-The Making of India and Pakistan’ by Yasmin Khan.

Secondary Sources like historical articles by various authors and web sources have

been largely taken into consideration.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

An article titled “Religious leadership and the Pakistan movement in Punjab” by David

Gilmartin, University of California, Berkeley, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 13, No. 3

(1979), pp. 485-517.

Also another article titled “Genesis of division: The Origins of the Partition of

India 1936—1947” by Anita Inder Singh, India International Centre Quarterly, Vol. 16,

No. 3/4 (MONSOON 1989/WINTER 1989), pp. 128-132.

These articles made to choose the topic for the project. The first article dealt with

how due to religious differences and riots between Hindu and Muslim gave rise to the

partition and how it affected the region of Punjab. The second article dealt with the origin

of partition and how that was finally carried away.

METHEDOLOGY

This research is basically descriptive, analytical and interpretative in nature. Appropriate

sources and citations have been referred wherever necessary. Foot notes also have been

included for all the material facts stipulated. Books and other materials as dictated by the

Faculty of History have been extensively referred which ultimately gave this research

project a firm structure.

BACKGROUND OF THE PARTITION OF INDIA

The first official meeting of the Indian National Congress (INC) was held in 1885. The

Muslim League had been formed as a result of the British Government efforts to divide

the province of Bengal along religious lines, which had collapsed in the face of the

vehement opposition led by the INC. The Muslim League had been formed to safeguard

the rights of the Muslims in any case of such divisive actions of the British. Originally

formed as an opposition to the INC, the Muslim league had generally agreed with the

INC in their mutual motive of expelling the British from the country. The British,

however, had always attempted to pit the INC and the Muslim League against each other.

With the onset of the First World War, India had provided the British with the service of

one million Indian soldiers on the assumption that such helpful actions might finally

translate into political leniency on the part of the British, which may even result in

independence of the nation. While such moves were consented by both the INC and the

Muslim League, they had been severely wrong. Following the atrocities committed by the

British in Amritsar in 1919, where the British had opened fire on an unarmed assemblage

protesting against the British Regime in India, which had claimed more than thousand

lives, the political scenario had changed drastically. 1

The 1930s had witnessed millions of people without previous political inclinations

signing up with INC and the Muslim League. Mohandas Gandhi, who had become a

1
David Gilmartin, Religious leadership and the Pakistan movement in Punjab, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 13, No.
3, University of California, Berkeley, 1979, pp. 485-517.
 5

prominent and leading personality in the INC, had always upheld the cause of a united

India with no discriminations between the Hindus and the Muslims. However, other

members of the INC had demurred to join the Muslim League in a political fight to purge

the British from India. Such alienation had initiated the Muslim League to think in terms

of a separate nation for the Muslims.2

BRITISH’S MOTIVE IN THIS SEPARATION

The main motive of the British was to create tensions between the two.

Many have wondered why the British and Indian leaders did not delay until a

better deal over borders could have been agreed. One explanation is that in the months

and years immediately following World War Two, leaders on all sides were losing

control and were keen to strike a deal before the country descended into chaos.

Immediately before World War Two, India was ravaged by the impact of the Great

Depression, bringing mass unemployment. This created tremendous tensions exacerbated

during the war by inflation and food grain shortages. Rationing was introduced in Indian

cities and in Bengal a major famine developed in 1942.3

The resulting discontent was expressed in widespread violence accompanying the

Congress party's 'Quit India' campaign of 1942 - a violence only contained by the

deployment of 55 army battalions.

2
https://www.mapsofindia.com/ accessed on 2nd September 2017 at 6:50 PM
3
Abdullah, Ideology and State, Policy Perspectives, Vol. 7, No. 2 (July - December 2010), pp. 75-103
 6

With the cessation of hostilities, the battalions at the disposal of the government in

India were rapidly diminished. At the same time, the infrastructure of the Congress Party,

whose entire leadership was imprisoned due to their opposition to the war, had been

dismantled.4

The Muslim League, which co-operated with the British, had rapidly increased its

membership, yet still had very limited grassroots level organization. This was

dramatically revealed on the 16 August 1946, when Jinnah called for a 'Direct Action

Day' by followers of the League in support of the demand for Pakistan. The day had

dissolved into random violence and civil disruption across north India, with thousands of

lives lost. This was interpreted by the British as evidence of the irreconcilable differences

between Hindus and Muslims. In reality, the riots were evidence as much of a simple lack

of military and political control as they were of social discord.

Further evidence of the collapse of government authority was to be seen in the

Princely State of Hyderabad, where a major uprising occurred in the Telengana region,

and with the Tebhaga ('two-thirds') agitation among share-cropping cultivators in north

Bengal. A leading role was played in both by the Communist Party of India.

Elsewhere, the last months of British rule were marked by a naval mutiny, wage

strikes and successful demonstrations in every major city. In all of these conflicts the

4
Y. Krishan, Mountbatten And The Partition Of India, History, Vol. 68, No. 222 (1983), pp. 22-38.
 7

British colonial government remained aloof, as it concentrated on the business of

negotiating a speedy transfer of power.5

INDEPENDENCE AND PARTITION

World War II sparked a crisis in relations between the British, the INC and the Muslim

League. The British expected India once again to provide much-needed soldiers and

materiel for the war effort, but the INC opposed sending Indians to fight and die in

Britain's war. After the betrayal following World War I, the INC saw no benefit for India

in such a sacrifice. The Muslim League, however, decided to back Britain's call for

volunteers, in an effort to curry British favor in support of a Muslim nation in post-

independence northern India.6

Before the war had even ended, public opinion in Britain had swung against the

distraction and expense of empire. Winston Churchill's party was voted out of office, and

the pro-independence Labour Party was voted in during 1945. Labour called for almost

immediate independence for India, as well as more gradual freedom for Britain's other

colonial holdings.

5
https://www.bbc.co/ accessed on 29th August 2017 at 7:10 PM
6
Anita Inder Singh, Genesis of division: The Origins of the Partition of India 1936—1947, India International
Centre Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 3/4 (MONSOON 1989/WINTER 1989), pp. 128-132.
 8

The Muslim League's leader, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, began a public campaign in

favor of a separate Muslim state, while Jawaharlal Nehru of the INC called for a unified

India.

As independence neared, the country began to descend towards a sectarian civil

war. Although Gandhi implored the Indian people to unite in peaceful opposition to

British rule, the Muslim League sponsored a "Direct Action Day" on August 16, 1946,

which resulted in the deaths of more than 4,000 Hindus and Sikhs in Calcutta (Kolkata).

This touched off the "Week of the Long Knives," an orgy of sectarian violence that

resulted in hundreds of deaths on both sides in various cities across the country.

In February of 1947, the British government announced that India would be

granted independence by June 1948. Viceroy for India Lord Louis Mountbatten pleaded

with the Hindu and Muslim leadership to agree to form a united country, but they could

not.

Only Gandhi supported Mountbatten's position. With the country descending

further into chaos, Mountbatten reluctantly agreed to the formation of two separate

states and moved the independence date up to August 15, 1947.7

With the decision in favor of partition made, the parties next faced this nearly

impossible task of fixing a border between the new states. The Muslims occupied two

main regions in the north on opposite sides of the country, separated by a majority-Hindu

7
Y. Krishan, Mountbatten And The Partition Of India, History, Vol. 68, No. 222 (1983), pp. 22-38.
 9

section. In addition, throughout most of northern India members of the two religions were

mixed together - not to mention populations of Sikhs, Christians, and other minority

faiths. The Sikhs campaigned for a nation of their own, but their appeal was denied.8

In the wealthy and fertile region of the Punjab, the problem was extreme with a

nearly-even mixture of Hindus and Muslims. Neither side wanted to relinquish this

valuable land, and sectarian hatred ran high. The border was drawn right down the middle

of the province, between Lahore and Amritsar. On both sides, people scrambled to get

onto the "right" side of the border or were driven from their homes by their erstwhile

neighbors. At least 10 million people fled north or south, depending on their faith, and

more than 500,000 were killed in the melee. Trains full of refugees were set upon by

militants from both sides, and all the passengers massacred.9

The geographical locations of the Muslims had made the partitioning of India an

even more complex procedure. In northern India the Muslims were concentrated in two

major areas situated on the opposite sides of the country with a Hindu majority in

between. Also almost the entire of north India was an intermixture of Hindus, Muslims,

Sikhs, Christians and other minorities. In the midst of all these, the Sikhs had also

advocated for a nation of their own, but such claims had been brushed off by the British.

Punjab with its almost equal ratios of Muslims and Sikhs had now developed into an

8
Shahid M. Amin, Security in the Gulf: Pakistan's Role and Interest, Pakistan Horizon, Vol. 51, No. 1, January
1998, pp. 17-28.
9
https://www.thoughtco.com/ accessed on 2nd September 2017 at 5:50 PM
 10

extreme problem. Neither the Sikhs nor the Muslims had wanted to part with the wealthy

and the fertile lands of the province and the feeling of apartheid was intense. As a result,

the province had been partitioned right across the middle between Lahore and Amritsar.

What had followed was an indescribable melee in which people had wanted to get on the

preferred sides of the partition as dictated by their religious affiliations. People were

ousted from their homes by their past neighbors that had resulted in millions of refugees.

The partition had caused an absolutely chaotic and unwanted displacement of at least ten

million people while 500, 000 lives were claimed in the affray.10

On August 14, 1947, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was founded. The following

day, the Republic of India was established to the south.

10
David Gilmartin, Religious leadership and the Pakistan movement in Punjab, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 13,
No. 3, University of California, Berkeley, 1979, pp. 485-517.
 11

CONCLUSION

In this paper the researcher would like to conclude that Partition was not a departing gift

of an imperial power rather it was a result of intertwining factors including political

choices made by both the British and India’s political elites within the context of the

impact of the Second World War. The British played Congress and League off one

another in the meantime Congress and the League also made a series of “tactical errors”.

The Partition of India was such an event which devastated both the nations, India and

Pakistan, completely. The impact of the partition of India was quite distressing. The

immediate result of partition was violence. Communal riots took place throughout the

country destroying lives, wealth and resulting in a bitterness that was hard to wipe out.

Moreover, after India attained Independence, the minorities were affected directly in the

areas of partition. Their fate was in a perilous situation. In addition to this, the 'Direct

Action' campaign by the Muslim League was followed by the Calcutta killing and

disturbances in the Noakhali district of East Bengal. Tension prevailed in the areas of

Bihar and Punjab and the North-West Frontier Province as well. These areas witnessed

massive bloodshed and arson.

According to the Indian Independence Act 1947 the princely states in India were

left to choose whether to accede to India or Pakistan or to remain outside. As the

aftermath of partition, all of them were incorporated into one or other of the new
 12

dominions. In this connection, Jammu and Kashmir had to face the question of choice.

This led to further anxiety among the two communities. Observing such communal

hostility, Gandhi and Jinnah both issued a joint appeal to Lord Mountbatten. But he, too,

failed to bring about any noticeable change in the relations between the two communities.

The aftermath of the partition also reported to have displaced about 12 million to 15

million people in the former British Indian Empire. These refugees moved across the

borders to regions which were completely foreign to them. Apart from the fact that the

country was divided, the provinces of Punjab and Bengal were also separated. These

divisions caused disastrous riots and claimed the lives of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. 11

Impact of Partition of India also gave rise to the problem of refugees. The Hindus

and Sikhs in West Pakistan entered the Indian border by the shortest routes. The flow

proceeded through East Punjab and the city and province of Delhi and overflowed into

the western districts of the United Provinces. The refugees were driven from their homes

under conditions of inexpressible dismay and misery. The mass destruction in Western

Pakistan had its impact in East Punjab too. The trouble continued to spread in the areas of

Patiala and East Punjab States to the western districts of the United Provinces, especially

Meerut and Saharanpur. The States of Bharatpur, Alwar, and Delhi also witnessed the

problem. The Muslims in these areas now started a mass exodus to the Pakistan border.

11
David Gilmartin, Religious leadership and the Pakistan movement in Punjab, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 13,
No. 3, University of California, Berkeley, 1979, pp. 485-517.
 13

Impact of Partition of India also resulted in communal migration from East Bengal. The

Hindus from East Bengal had to undergo severe destitution and adversity. In fact, the

problem aroused when West Pakistan officials established themselves in East Bengal.

Thus it is believed that the policy of the West Pakistan officials was responsible for the

mass exodus of Hindus from East Bengal.

Thus, the impact of partition of India included communal mass devastation, the

two-way migration of refugees, and the failure of the administrative machinery was faced

by the nation.
 14

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ARTICLES/JOURNALS

 Abdullah, Ideology and State, Policy Perspectives, Vol. 7, No. 2,

July - December 2010.

 Anita Inder Singh, Genesis of division: The Origins of the Partition

of India 1936—1947, India International Centre Quarterly, Vol. 16,

No. 3/4 (MONSOON 1989/WINTER 1989).

 David Gilmartin, Religious leadership and the Pakistan movement in

Punjab, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 13, No. 3, University of

California, Berkeley, 1979.

 Shahid M. Amin, Security in the Gulf: Pakistan's Role and Interest,

Pakistan Horizon, Vol. 51, No. 1, January 1998.

 Y. Krishan, Mountbatten And The Partition Of India, History, Vol.

68, No. 222, 1983.

WEB SOURCES

 https://www.bbc.co/ accessed on 29/8/17 at 7:10 PM

 https://www.books.google.co.in/ accessed on 30/8/17 at 9:20PM

 https://www.historydiscussion.net/ accessed on 29/8/17 at 5:47PM

 https://www.mapsofindia.com/ accessed on 2/917 at 6:50 PM

 https://nsamer.com/ accessed on 1/7/17 at 5:20 PM

 https://www.researchgate.net/ accessed on 30/8/17 at 9:16AM

 https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/ accessed on 28/8/17 at 5:38PM

 https://www.thoughtco.com/ accessed on 2/9/17 at 5:50 PM

 https://whc.unesco.org/ accessed on 29/8/17 at 5:28PM