Monday, September 7, 2009

Partition of India - Could it be Avoided?

“Partition was made on the basis of religion and a particular community. Why we people always take it as a national debate. It is six decade old issue. When we people are demanding small states on the basis of language we speak. Then how come we even imagine that two different ideologist communities would have stayed peacefully.”

But i want to talk about it-


Hindus and Muslims lived peacefully together under the Mughal rule, but British raaj carved the path for communal disharmony.
When the dream of India was seen, it was looked as the” Akhandh Bharat”.
But in 1947 riots were at peak, and it was unrealistic to bind the two communities together, and when it came to choosing partition or cabinet mission plan, we were better off with the partition,

Cabinet mission plan "his plan sought to arrange for India to be divided into Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan; since Congress had vehemently rejected 'parity' at the Centre. A list of princely states of India that would be permitted to accede to either dominion or attain independence was also drawn up." Wikipedia

There were three options during 1947, except Partition.

1. United Undivided India – that’s Akhandh Bharat.
2. United provincial India with a weak centre – That is a weak centre, with strong provincial states.
3. Balkanization of India –Which is India being divided into 25-30 states, as the cabinet mission gave the right to princely States to join India or be independent state.

In 1900’s India was never United, a “ Akhandh Bharat” was a hallucination and extremely impossible .When even language became such a large issue, that riots occurred to decide whether will Hindi, Urdu or Hindustani would be the official language. Even North - devnagri ( punjabi, marathi, bengali,hindi..etc) were opposed south - Dravidian languages ( tamil, telugu kanada) vice versa. In a state, where language was such a big issue, how would two large communities survive?

Given the condition in 1947, partition was the only way to achieve peace and harmony.
Jinnah and the Muslim League were afraid that Muslims will be in great danger, as after the British raj, India would be a “Hindu Raj".
He saw it coming, as India would be a Hindu dominated state, which could have problems for the Muslim minority.
He thought Indian Muslims were better in a separate state.
He never said that Muslim and Hindu were never friends.
Neither did he say that Hindu, Christians and everyone else would not live in Pakistan,
It’s just that he was concerned about the future of Muslims.

History tells us that with the British policy of divide and rule, there was already a divide between the Hindus and Muslims. Do you think that with independence all these problems, the hatred and the suspicion would just disappear?

Well even the very size of the country would have been unmanageable.

India grows after independence, due to the great constitution, which was formulated in 1950.It helped India grow, and saw it flourishing. May be after that 33% Muslims and 60% Hindu’s would have lived with harmony, but that's just a vague thought.


Now this side,
If we had been together it would have been a big superpower, not fearful of china or USA.
No Kashmir problem.
When minority is so big as if the size of 33%, it would have taken care of itself, it’s more than dalit population which takes care of itself quite well.
Pakistan and Bangladesh who have economic and governmental problems, would have been better,


There was massive butchery,
Around 1 million died in this moment and around 7 million people moved from Pakistan to India.
It could have been avoided,
But in 1940's there was "a Grieve communal crisis"

Now the big point
Muslims for whom the partition was made, would they have been better?
May be, because the condition of Pakistan is worsening, and Indian Muslims are enjoying a respectable place in the society. In fact Indian Muslim society is the most liberal in the world.

But be Rational!!
The partition was Unavoidable.

Now who is the culprit -?

The seed of communal hatred was the gift of British.
When they came they saw these 2 communities as separate and treated them differently,
Churchill did the initiation, and Mountbatten followed.
In 1947 British were in a hush-hush process, that after terrorizing India for 200 years, they left it in a dismal state,
Mountbatten did nothing to stop communal violence. Rather than making situations better, worsen them off by calling the independence 8 months before the actual date. Finally, it was the religious communities, the religious groups who made the partition a reality.

Well all said and done,
Partition cannot be reverted, and it’s good for India. We can be good neighbors, as the cultural feelings we share are same. India should treat its minority better, and Pakistan should treat its minority much better.
There can be various perspectives of both sides of the coin and one would believe in the benefit of what they believe.

Hypothetically, may be Akhand Bharat would have performed well later,
But during 1940's and 1950’s, it was fairly impossible to bind it all together.

Just a Fact -

"Sare Jahan Se Acha Hindustan humara" was written by Muhammad Iqbal.He is known as the "Muffakir-e-Pakistan ("The Thinker of Pakistan")" . He was the one who gave the idea of separate state for the Indian Muslims.

1 comment:

Seshasayee Babburkamme said...

Both Muhammed Iqbal and Mohammed Ali Jinnah made the transition from Nationalists to Islamic fundamentalists. From a secular outlook to an Islamic outlook.

Muhammad Iqbal had penned the following lines:
Sare Jahan Se achcha Hindustan Hamara...
Hindu hain, hum Watan hai, Hindustan Hamara.

Some years later he changed that to
Muslim hain hum Watan hai, Sara Jahan Hamara and this is after is rejected Nationalism and became the Guiding light of Tehrik-e-Pakistan.

Jinnah also made the transition from a staunch Nationalist to an
avowed Islamist.

I believe Partition could have been avoided if the Muslim majority states were guaranteed to have Muslim chief Ministers and the rights of the minorities in either Hindu majority or Muslim majority states had been guaranteed and protected by the constitution.

But then there is no guarantee that an army with a sizable number of Muslims would not have attempted to oust democracy and a Muslim General had imposed himself as the dictator of the whole of India and begun the persecution of Hindus.

Even today India's Unity is guaranteed only if the Muslim population is contained to be less than 15%. Once it becomes more than that, trouble will surely come.