Who was responsible for the partition of India and creation of Pakistan?

[Bilal9]

Please watch this very interesting video in its entirety on the causes and circumstances of creation of Pakistan and the movers and shakers at that time (1905 to 1948). And THEN (ONLY THEN) please comment. There are English subtitles.

These are very learned and well read historians commenting from Bangladesh and India, both Hindu and Muslims.

Also talks about the role of the extreme views of Shyamaprasad Mukherjee in all this (who was the founder of the the Hindu Mahasava, the predecessor to the RSS). There are views of current RSS supporters too (a few folks). You can clearly see the common RSS falsehoods being floated (Hindus are being tortured in Bangladesh, Muslims from Bangladesh infiltrating India etc.).

Makes you think deeply about why Hindu leaders at that time supported the creation of Pakistan.

Explanation in Bengali:

শুরুতে ড.মুখার্জি ভারত বিভাজনের তীব্র বিরোধী ছিলেন। ১১ ফেব্রুয়ারি ১৯৪১ সালে তিনি বলেন, মুসলিমরা যদি ভারত বর্ষের বিভাজন চায় তবে ভারতের সকল মুসলিমদের উচিত তাদের তল্পিতল্পা গুটিয়ে পাকিস্তান চলে যাওয়া। পরবর্তীকালীন সময়ে লর্ড মাউন্ট ব্যাটেন এর বাড়িতে ভারত বিভাজন ও বাংলা বিভাজন নিয়ে আলোচনা হয়। সভায় সিদ্ধান্ত হয় সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠ মুসলিম ও হিন্দু জেলা প্রতিনিধি দের নিয়ে দুটি আলাদা সভা হবে এবং সবার মতামত নেয়া হবে। একটি সভার ফলাফলও যদি বাংলা ভাগ এর পক্ষে যায়, তবে বাংলা ভাগ হবে। মুসলিম সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠ এর সভায় বাংলা বিভাজনের বিপক্ষে বেশি ভোট পড়ে। কিন্তু হিন্দু সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠদের সভায় বাংলা বিভাজনের পক্ষে ভোট পড়ে। ড.মুখার্জী এখানে বড়সড় ভূমিকা পালন করেন। ব্রিটিশদের ভারত ছাড়তে হবে- এ কথা তারা ১৯৪৫ সাল নাগাদ পুরোপুরি বুঝে গিয়েছিল। তখনকার ব্রিটিশ সরকারের পরিকল্পনা অনুযায়ী, ১৯৪৮ সালের ৩০শে জুনের আগেই ভারতবর্ষের ক্ষমতা হস্তান্তর করতে হবে। সেজন্য ১৯৪৬ সালের মার্চ মাসে কেবিনেট মিশন নামে একটি প্রতিনিধি দল পাঠানো হয়েছিল ভারতের স্বাধীনতার প্রক্রিয়া নিয়ে আলোচনা করতে। এর কয়েক মাস পরেই জওহরলাল নেহেরুর নেতৃত্বে অন্তর্বর্তী সরকার গঠন করা হলেও মুসলিম লীগ প্রথমে তাতে যোগ দেয়নি।

In the beginning Dr. Mukherjee was strongly opposed to the partition of India. On February 11, 1941, he said that if the Muslims wanted the partition of India, then all the Muslims of India should leave for Pakistan. Later, in the house of Lord Mount Batten, the partition of India and the partition of Bengal were discussed. It was decided in the meeting that there would be two separate meetings with the majority of Muslim and Hindu district representatives and everyone's views would be taken. If the result of a meeting also goes in favour of the partition of Bengal, then Bengal will be divided. In the Muslim-majority meeting, there were more votes against the partition of Bengal. But in the meeting of the Hindu majority, the vote was in favour of the partition of Bengal. Dr Mukherjee played a major role here. By 1945, the British had to leave India – they had fully understood this. According to the plan of the then British government, the power of India should be transferred before June 30, 1948. Therefore, in March 1946, a delegation called the Cabinet Mission was sent to discuss the process of India's independence. A few months later, an interim government was formed under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru, but the Muslim League did not join it at first.

 

[Zhukov]

Many factors. But Number 1 is World War 2 , Rise of Facism in Europe and complete collapse of Europe in hands of Nazis. All colonial holdings got indipendence because center of colonial powers stronghold fell. Also subsequent rise of two ideological giants the USA and Soviet Union further sealed fate of Colonial Powers.

 

[Maula Jatt]

Pakistan and India should have been different countries but partition was wrong

Minority religion with shared ethnic boundaries should have been autonomous republic with Thier own, millitias, legal structure etc and 20-30 year grace period after which they could choose to join India

This could have prevented the killings and complete collapse of entire cities and the cultural changes that took place after regions became religiously homogeneous

That's just my opinion, I don't think many people from both sides would agree with it

 

[kazaki]

Please watch this very interesting video in its entirety on the causes and circumstances of creation of Pakistan and the movers and shakers at that time (1905 to 1948). And THEN (ONLY THEN) please comment. There are English subtitles.

These are very learned and well read historians commenting from Bangladesh and India, both Hindu and Muslims.

Also talks about the role of the extreme views of Shyamaprasad Mukherjee in all this (who was the founder of the the Hindu Mahasava, the predecessor to the RSS). There are views of current RSS supporters too (a few folks). You can clearly see the common RSS falsehoods being floated (Hindus are being tortured in Bangladesh, Muslims from Bangladesh infiltrating India etc.).

Makes you think deeply about why Hindu leaders at that time supported the creation of Pakistan.

Explanation in Bengali:

শুরুতে ড.মুখার্জি ভারত বিভাজনের তীব্র বিরোধী ছিলেন। ১১ ফেব্রুয়ারি ১৯৪১ সালে তিনি বলেন, মুসলিমরা যদি ভারত বর্ষের বিভাজন চায় তবে ভারতের সকল মুসলিমদের উচিত তাদের তল্পিতল্পা গুটিয়ে পাকিস্তান চলে যাওয়া। পরবর্তীকালীন সময়ে লর্ড মাউন্ট ব্যাটেন এর বাড়িতে ভারত বিভাজন ও বাংলা বিভাজন নিয়ে আলোচনা হয়। সভায় সিদ্ধান্ত হয় সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠ মুসলিম ও হিন্দু জেলা প্রতিনিধি দের নিয়ে দুটি আলাদা সভা হবে এবং সবার মতামত নেয়া হবে। একটি সভার ফলাফলও যদি বাংলা ভাগ এর পক্ষে যায়, তবে বাংলা ভাগ হবে। মুসলিম সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠ এর সভায় বাংলা বিভাজনের বিপক্ষে বেশি ভোট পড়ে। কিন্তু হিন্দু সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠদের সভায় বাংলা বিভাজনের পক্ষে ভোট পড়ে। ড.মুখার্জী এখানে বড়সড় ভূমিকা পালন করেন। ব্রিটিশদের ভারত ছাড়তে হবে- এ কথা তারা ১৯৪৫ সাল নাগাদ পুরোপুরি বুঝে গিয়েছিল। তখনকার ব্রিটিশ সরকারের পরিকল্পনা অনুযায়ী, ১৯৪৮ সালের ৩০শে জুনের আগেই ভারতবর্ষের ক্ষমতা হস্তান্তর করতে হবে। সেজন্য ১৯৪৬ সালের মার্চ মাসে কেবিনেট মিশন নামে একটি প্রতিনিধি দল পাঠানো হয়েছিল ভারতের স্বাধীনতার প্রক্রিয়া নিয়ে আলোচনা করতে। এর কয়েক মাস পরেই জওহরলাল নেহেরুর নেতৃত্বে অন্তর্বর্তী সরকার গঠন করা হলেও মুসলিম লীগ প্রথমে তাতে যোগ দেয়নি।

In the beginning Dr. Mukherjee was strongly opposed to the partition of India. On February 11, 1941, he said that if the Muslims wanted the partition of India, then all the Muslims of India should leave for Pakistan. Later, in the house of Lord Mount Batten, the partition of India and the partition of Bengal were discussed. It was decided in the meeting that there would be two separate meetings with the majority of Muslim and Hindu district representatives and everyone's views would be taken. If the result of a meeting also goes in favour of the partition of Bengal, then Bengal will be divided. In the Muslim-majority meeting, there were more votes against the partition of Bengal. But in the meeting of the Hindu majority, the vote was in favour of the partition of Bengal. Dr Mukherjee played a major role here. By 1945, the British had to leave India – they had fully understood this. According to the plan of the then British government, the power of India should be transferred before June 30, 1948. Therefore, in March 1946, a delegation called the Cabinet Mission was sent to discuss the process of India's independence. A few months later, an interim government was formed under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru, but the Muslim League did not join it at first.

I dont know who was responsible , but it was not done fully , according to two nation theory hindus and muslims can not live togather , it would have been better if all hindus should have moved to india and all muslims should have gone to pakistan .

 

[Maula Jatt]

I dont know who was responsible , but it was not done fully , according to two nation theory hindus and muslims can not live togather , it would have been better if all hindus should have moved to india and all muslims should have gone to pakistan .

Should have given us more land than, you have more Muslims than entire population of Pakistan

Should have cleansed Hindu regions near Pak, resettled Muslims and than could play this argument - that would have been "fun" (sarcastic way- ofcourse it's sick)

Btw "pakistan" struggle wasn't about relgious - they had 3 reasons for it and one of them in the end was relgious

All India Muslim leagues Pakistan struggle on the other hand was mostly about religion

 

[Maula Jatt]

Btw "pakistan" struggle wasn't about relgious - they had 3 reasons for it and one of them in the end was relgious

All India Muslim leagues Pakistan struggle on the other hand was mostly about religion

@kazaki
idea of Pakistan far predates the All-India Muslim League (whom initially ridiculed the concept) and instead has it's origins in the student organizations of Bazm-i-Shibli (founded in 1915) and later the Pakistan National Liberation Movement (1930) founded by 4 Punjabi and Pashtun students headed by Choudary Rehmat Ali, in fact, if Rehmat Ali's claim that his ideas were passed onto him by his father is to be believed, then the idea of Pakistan may have been floating around as early as the 1880's, mere decades after the British conquest of modern-day Pakistan.

These groups were created as a pushback to what they perceived as a British attempt to "Indianize" their distinct 'nations':

"India, constituted as it is at the present moment, is not the name of one single country; nor the home of one single nation. It is, in fact, the designation of a State created by the British for the first time in history. It includes peoples who have never previously formed part of the Indian nation at any period of its history, but who have, on the contrary, from the dawn of history till the advent of the British, possessed and retained distinct nationalities of their own". ~ Now or Never, 1933


"The congress had designated all British possessions in South Asia as India denied to the non Indian nations the right to their own nationhood, and, by making pretentious claims, stamped Indian nationality on the peoples of this area." ~ "What does the Pakistan National Movement Stand For?" Pamphlet, 1930's

"That is, the statement which was to save us from national self-destruction on the altar of "Indians", safeguard our right to distinct national existence, mark the appearance of a de-Indianized Muslim country of nearly 35 million people, protect the heritage of the first three centuries of our history, inflict the first decisive defeat on the forces of "Indianism", and last, but by no means least, alter forever the course of the Millat, of Dinia (South Asia), and, I dare say, of Asia." ~ Ch, Millet and the Mission, 1930's

This mistake has certainly cost us dear. It has compromised our nationality and labelled us all as "Indian". I say this, not because there is anything wrong with the word "India" which, in itself, is perhaps as respectable as any other name; but because we are not "Indian" and, therefore, for us to style ourselves or our institutions "Indian", is nothing but an act of renegation. ~ Ch, The Menace of Indianism, 1930's

----

In response, they sought the independence of their 'homeland': Pakistan, a federation of 5 regions that were distinct from India but close enough to each other to constitute a single nation.

An important note here is that they saw religion as one of three (not the sole) grounds for the basis of the independence of Pakistan:

"I am enclosing herewith an appeal on behalf of the thirty million Muslims of PAKISTAN, who live in the five Northern Units of India--Punjab, North-West Frontier (Afghan) Province, Kashmir, Sind, and Baluchistan. It embodies their demand for the recognition of their national status, as distinct from the other inhabitants of India, by the grant to Pakistan of a separate Federal Constitution on religious, social and historical grounds." ~ Pakistan Declaration, 1933

In their literature, they saw Pakistan as a nation that had always existed, but had went through different names in history. They also highlighted Pakistan's connection to it's ancient heritage, a notion that many members here mock. This is remarkable considering that this was from the early 1900's

"It will therefore be seen that Pakistan is one of the most ancient and illustrious countries of the Orient. Not only that. It is the only nation in the world which in the antiquity of its legend and lore, as in the character of its history and hopes, compares with Iraq and Egypt -the countries which are known as the cradle of the achievements of Mankind." ~ Fatherland of the Pak Nation

"It must be remembered that, in different periods of its life, Pakistan has had different names -names whose very variety epitomizes its past history, just as its present name symbolizes its present position, its future prospects, and its ultimate destiny in the world" ~ Fatherland of the Pak Nation

"The Mihran, also known as the Indus, is the longest, the greatest, and the most truly national river of Pakistan, and its course lies through most of the provinces of the country" ~ Ch, Physical Features

"In their origin the Paks belong to the stock from which sprang those gifted tribes of the pre-historic times who created and developed the oldest civilization of the Mihran Valley and, for that matter, of the world." Ch, Ethnical Stocks

"Pakistan, as already mentioned, was one of the three civilized regions of the globe~the other two being Iraq and Egypt. This fact stands out prominently against the dim hack-ground of that still ill-defined period in the growth of the human race. It shows that, in pre-history, Pakistan was one of the lands where civilization was born; where Man made his first attempts at courting Nature for his subsistence; and where he achieved his first successes in his elemental struggle for life." ~ Ch, National Story

That is not to say that they were not steeped in religious nationalism like other groups of their time. For example, they demanded independence for Indian and Bengali Muslims, but in their own separate nations (Osmanistan and Bangistan) instead of having them migrate to Pakistan, the movement also began embracing a more Pan-Islamic ideology towards the end.

The reason why we're not taught about them is because they became fierce opponents of the All-India Muslim League whom they accused of hijacking the Pakistan Movement. They claimed that true independence was not achieved and that they would fight on. This led to an eventual crackdown where the PNLM was axed and its members forced into exile, along with the seizure of their assets. All footprints of the movement was scrubbed and their leader; Rehmat Ali would die in exile, penniless

Credits- @Talwar e Pakistan

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

I dont know who was responsible , but it was not done fully , according to two nation theory hindus and muslims can not live togather , it would have been better if all hindus should have moved to india and all muslims should have gone to pakistan .

Ethnic and religious cleansings are crimes against humanity. Partition was of land based on majority and minority.

It is idiocy to divide a country by religion. Cannot divide history and transfer ethnicities here and there.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

Suppose there are two countries, one based 100% on religion X and other 100% religion Y. Someone from X says he wants to be religion Y, then he gets deported to country Y. After two days he says he is religion X again. He gets deported back. Two days later he says he is religion Y now. And so on. What are you going to do with him. Murder him? Or deny him his natural rights as a human? Or continually shuttle him back and forth? This is to showcase the stupidity and criminality of pure religious division. The assumption is that people are like cattle branded with religion on their bottom. It is the debasement of humanity which is against religious principal to begin with.

 

[ziaulislam]

Pakistan and India should have been different countries but partition was wrong

Minority religion with shared ethnic boundaries should have been autonomous republic with Thier own, millitias, legal structure etc and 20-30 year grace period after which they could choose to join India

This could have prevented the killings and complete collapse of entire cities and the cultural changes that took place after regions became religiously homogeneous

That's just my opinion, I don't think many people from both sides would agree with it

That was the plan ie musliymajority provinces in divided but Nehru pulled a surprise by selling his wife to viceroy.. result..a bloody partition of Muslim provinces huge migration water crisis of Punjab Kashmir war

 

[MisterSyed]

That was the plan ie musliymajority provinces in divided but Nehru pulled a surprise by selling his wife to viceroy.. result..a bloody partition of Muslim provinces huge migration water crisis of Punjab Kashmir war

Yes! , Kashmir , Muslim Majority districts Sorrounding kashmir .

 

[Bilal9]

I dont know who was responsible , but it was not done fully , according to two nation theory hindus and muslims can not live togather , it would have been better if all hindus should have moved to india and all muslims should have gone to pakistan .

If all Hindus in Bangladesh refuse to go to India and are happy in Bangladesh (which they actually are) - can we force them to go?

What right do we have to do that?

Unless we are a Junta-controlled savage entity like Mynamar which displaced the Rohingyas. Which we are not.

 

[BananaRepublicUK]

If all Hindus in Bangladesh refuse to go to India and are happy in Bangladesh (which they actually are) - can we force them to go?

What right do we have to do that?

Unless we are a Junta-controlled savage entity like Mynamar which displaced the Rohingyas. Which we are not.

Despite the land of milk and honey that is India, despite CAA, alleged persecution of minorities —-

Bangladesh has a rising Hindu population. Hindus are reverse migrating in droves to Bangladesh.

There is no better proof for the tolerance of Bangladeshis.

 

[RescueRanger]

@kazaki
idea of Pakistan far predates the All-India Muslim League (whom initially ridiculed the concept) and instead has it's origins in the student organizations of Bazm-i-Shibli (founded in 1915) and later the Pakistan National Liberation Movement (1930) founded by 4 Punjabi and Pashtun students headed by Choudary Rehmat Ali, in fact, if Rehmat Ali's claim that his ideas were passed onto him by his father is to be believed, then the idea of Pakistan may have been floating around as early as the 1880's, mere decades after the British conquest of modern-day Pakistan.

These groups were created as a pushback to what they perceived as a British attempt to "Indianize" their distinct 'nations':

"India, constituted as it is at the present moment, is not the name of one single country; nor the home of one single nation. It is, in fact, the designation of a State created by the British for the first time in history. It includes peoples who have never previously formed part of the Indian nation at any period of its history, but who have, on the contrary, from the dawn of history till the advent of the British, possessed and retained distinct nationalities of their own". ~ Now or Never, 1933


"The congress had designated all British possessions in South Asia as India denied to the non Indian nations the right to their own nationhood, and, by making pretentious claims, stamped Indian nationality on the peoples of this area." ~ "What does the Pakistan National Movement Stand For?" Pamphlet, 1930's

"That is, the statement which was to save us from national self-destruction on the altar of "Indians", safeguard our right to distinct national existence, mark the appearance of a de-Indianized Muslim country of nearly 35 million people, protect the heritage of the first three centuries of our history, inflict the first decisive defeat on the forces of "Indianism", and last, but by no means least, alter forever the course of the Millat, of Dinia (South Asia), and, I dare say, of Asia." ~ Ch, Millet and the Mission, 1930's

This mistake has certainly cost us dear. It has compromised our nationality and labelled us all as "Indian". I say this, not because there is anything wrong with the word "India" which, in itself, is perhaps as respectable as any other name; but because we are not "Indian" and, therefore, for us to style ourselves or our institutions "Indian", is nothing but an act of renegation. ~ Ch, The Menace of Indianism, 1930's

----

In response, they sought the independence of their 'homeland': Pakistan, a federation of 5 regions that were distinct from India but close enough to each other to constitute a single nation.

An important note here is that they saw religion as one of three (not the sole) grounds for the basis of the independence of Pakistan:

"I am enclosing herewith an appeal on behalf of the thirty million Muslims of PAKISTAN, who live in the five Northern Units of India--Punjab, North-West Frontier (Afghan) Province, Kashmir, Sind, and Baluchistan. It embodies their demand for the recognition of their national status, as distinct from the other inhabitants of India, by the grant to Pakistan of a separate Federal Constitution on religious, social and historical grounds." ~ Pakistan Declaration, 1933

In their literature, they saw Pakistan as a nation that had always existed, but had went through different names in history. They also highlighted Pakistan's connection to it's ancient heritage, a notion that many members here mock. This is remarkable considering that this was from the early 1900's

"It will therefore be seen that Pakistan is one of the most ancient and illustrious countries of the Orient. Not only that. It is the only nation in the world which in the antiquity of its legend and lore, as in the character of its history and hopes, compares with Iraq and Egypt -the countries which are known as the cradle of the achievements of Mankind." ~ Fatherland of the Pak Nation

"It must be remembered that, in different periods of its life, Pakistan has had different names -names whose very variety epitomizes its past history, just as its present name symbolizes its present position, its future prospects, and its ultimate destiny in the world" ~ Fatherland of the Pak Nation

"The Mihran, also known as the Indus, is the longest, the greatest, and the most truly national river of Pakistan, and its course lies through most of the provinces of the country" ~ Ch, Physical Features

"In their origin the Paks belong to the stock from which sprang those gifted tribes of the pre-historic times who created and developed the oldest civilization of the Mihran Valley and, for that matter, of the world." Ch, Ethnical Stocks

"Pakistan, as already mentioned, was one of the three civilized regions of the globe~the other two being Iraq and Egypt. This fact stands out prominently against the dim hack-ground of that still ill-defined period in the growth of the human race. It shows that, in pre-history, Pakistan was one of the lands where civilization was born; where Man made his first attempts at courting Nature for his subsistence; and where he achieved his first successes in his elemental struggle for life." ~ Ch, National Story

That is not to say that they were not steeped in religious nationalism like other groups of their time. For example, they demanded independence for Indian and Bengali Muslims, but in their own separate nations (Osmanistan and Bangistan) instead of having them migrate to Pakistan, the movement also began embracing a more Pan-Islamic ideology towards the end.

The reason why we're not taught about them is because they became fierce opponents of the All-India Muslim League whom they accused of hijacking the Pakistan Movement. They claimed that true independence was not achieved and that they would fight on. This led to an eventual crackdown where the PNLM was axed and its members forced into exile, along with the seizure of their assets. All footprints of the movement was scrubbed and their leader; Rehmat Ali would die in exile, penniless

Credits- @Talwar e Pakistan

This !

 

[Faqirze]

It was a lose-lose situation, something was going to happen regardless even if we didn't partition. If "India" stayed "united", there would have been so much communal and inter ethnic/caste violence and on top of that separatist movements to the point the place would have full blown balkanized and split up into 50 smaller parts.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Anywhere the British had colonies, they have tried breaking up their colonies during decolonization era - Example Israel/Palestine etc

Even attempted something similar against USA during war of 1812
War_of_1812
Americans were smart enough to understand its consequences unlike those from the subcontinent and flatly rejected it

The Indian tribes allied to the British lost their cause. The Americans rejected the British proposal to create an "Indian barrier state" in the American West at the Ghent peace conference and it never resurfaced.

UK goals were to divide Subcontinent into ethnic/religious/caste and even racial lines with hopes of turning Subcontinent into another Middle east

Idea being small warring nations with deep enmity for their neighbors will always be busy with each other and never possess the capability or intention to inflict revenge of Britain

As an added bonus these nations may invite an external power (preferably UK for the British ) to settle disputes, simply resetting time to early events of colonization.

To India's luck they only got away with partial divisions on religious lines

A large unified formerly British colonial state was always seen as a threat to UK similar to USA