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

[Wergeland]

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

But yet, that is excactly how most nations and civilizations are divided.

Spain expelled all muslims and jews.
India is trying to expell muslims
All europeans countries are Christians
All middleeastern countries are muslim-majority (Israel being a fairly new contruct in that sense)

 

[bluesky]

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 have not yet fully gone through the video. But, I have read that Jinnah and the Muslim League leaders, when demanding Pakistan, were not actually expecting it to really happen.

They would have been happy with two Muslim majority areas to be two autonomous regions within India. It was actually the Congress leaders who feared this autonomy of the menace/ trouble making Muslims within India.

So, their conclusion was that instead of two autonomous Provinces/ States, the country should be divided into distinct two/ three on the basis of communal line.

It was finalized by the British govt, Congress Party and the Muslim League, Hence the creation of Pakistan as a separate, independent and sovereign country with distinct border lines.

Note another point. Pakistan was declared independent on 14 August 1947 and India/ Delhi on 15th. Why not on the same day? The British govt wanted stability. So, Delhi was still a British colony when Pakistan was declared independent on 14 August and the Delhi govt (also London) recognized Pakistan. Independent India was created next day, London and Karachi recognizing it.

This was very important for Pakistan to be recognized as a sovereign country. Now, I found an internet link on what I stated above about two autonomous region for the Muslims. Please read below.

"With India's two political parties unable to agree, Britain devised the Cabinet Mission Plan (in 1946). Through this mission, Britain hoped to preserve the united India which they and the Congress desired, while concurrently securing the essence of Jinnah's demand for a Pakistan through 'groupings.'[72] The Cabinet mission scheme encapsulated a federal arrangement consisting of three groups of provinces".

"Two of these groupings would consist of predominantly Muslim provinces, while the third grouping would be made up of the predominantly Hindu regions. The provinces would be autonomous, but the centre would retain control over the defence, foreign affairs, and communications. Though the proposals did not offer independent Pakistan, the Muslim League accepted the proposals".

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


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

Are not you simplifying things like all other half-educated Indians? Read and learn, idiot!!

 

[nope]

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

But yet, that is excactly how most nations and civilizations are divided.

Spain expelled all muslims and jews.
India is trying to expell muslims
All europeans countries are Christians
All middleeastern countries are muslim-majority (Israel being a fairly new contruct in that sense)

I don't know of any country which partitioned the land of a single ethnicity, such as Punjabi, Kashmiri and Bengali, purely because of a difference in religion. Northern Ireland is separate from Ireland because the former wanted to be with the United Kingdom, while Israelis and Palestinians do not consider each other the same ethnicity.

In India and the subcontinent, Muslims are natives. The Roaring Lions of Faith emblem of India [Hindustan] belongs to my ancient Vihari Deva/Shareef ancestry, which is of Abrahamic faith descending from Prophet Ibrahim and Kethura. So, I am in my Vihari ancestral faith as a Hindustani Muslim. My ancient caste ancestry moved from the Indus toward the Ganges approximately around 1000 BCE. The ruling caste was the top Vedic caste on the Indus. Ancient Ayodhya [Awadh] and Maurya, and medieval Delhi and Mughal empires, were Indian empires based on the Hindustani ruling caste.

Today, there are over two million Muslims in Spain proving the idiocy of what Christian Spain did. In Arab Muslim ruled Spain, there were plenty of Christians and Jews, probably the majority. Christian Europe had centuries of religious persecutions, anti Jewish pogroms, religious inquisitions and Christian religious wars. They are called the Dark Ages by the Westerners themselves.

Christian Spain persecuted and expeled Spanish Muslims and Jews. There was no United Nations. Now countries are obliged by International law to protect all people in their states, regardless of religion and ethnicity, thus no state is a people dumping ground for another state. Westerners went through Enlightenment which brought to the forefront the philosophy of human rights, something which all people today, including Europeans, need to focus on.

 

[Progressive1]

We dont care and love Pakistan, pakistanis have moved on of history and want to focus on nation building.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

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

This is a nonsensical claim that has no historical basis. The fact and irony is that "India" as a political entity and "Indian" as an identity are all products of the British. The British were an instrument of forceful amalgamation of a continent (which is what led to the creation of India) with far greater diversity than either Europe or the Middle-East , not the opposite as you claim.

In fact, to visualize it for you, this was South Asia on the eclipse of the British Invasion of modern-day India in 1757:

On the start of the British Invasion of modern-day Pakistan in 1843:

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

This is a nonsensical claim that has no historical basis. The fact and irony is that "India" as a political entity and "Indian" as an identity are all products of the British. The British were an instrument of forceful amalgamation of a continent (which is what led to the creation of India) with far greater diversity than either Europe or the Middle-East , not the opposite as you claim.

In fact, to visualize it for you, this was South Asia on the eclipse of the British Invasion of modern-day India in 1757:

View attachment 847527

On the start of the British Invasion of modern-day Pakistan in 1843:
View attachment 847528

My opinion is based on British actions elsewhere

Feel free to disagree

 

[Homo Sapiens]

This is a nonsensical claim that has no historical basis. The fact and irony is that "India" as a political entity and "Indian" as an identity are all products of the British. The British were an instrument of forceful amalgamation of a continent (which is what led to the creation of India) with far greater diversity than either Europe or the Middle-East , not the opposite as you claim.

In fact, to visualize it for you, this was South Asia on the eclipse of the British Invasion of modern-day India in 1757:

View attachment 847527

On the start of the British Invasion of modern-day Pakistan in 1843:
View attachment 847528

Without a common cause to fight the mighty British imperialists, the fur-flung and hugely divided ethnicities of the sub continent based on religion, cast, customs, language would never form any common, made-up identity 'Indians'. British built Railway spanning across the Sub-Continent also helped to foster Indian nationalism as well as Western education brought by the British. But I think, the common fight for independence is the most crucial one. It is impossible to imagine that, without the British, the existing Nawab of Bengal and Oudh, Nizam of Hyderabad, the Marathas, The Sikh Empire, The durrani empire would come into terms and form Indian union. It would never happend if these entities entered into 2Oth century by maintaining their independence and border.
@Syama Ayas

 

[Maula Jatt]

With a common cause to fight the mighty British imperialists, the fur-flung and hugely divided ethnicities of the sub continent based on religion, cast, customs, language would never form any common, made-up identity 'Indians'. British built Railway spanning across the Sub-Continent also helped to foster Indian nationalism as well as Western education brought by the British. But I think, the common fight for independence is the most crucial one. It is impossible to imagine that, without the British, the existing Nawab of Bengal and Oudh, Nizam of Hyderabad, the Marathas, The Sikh Empire, The durrani empire would come into terms and form Indian union. It would never happend if these entities entered into 2Oth century by maintaining their independence and border.
@Syama Ayas

here's my thinking
Pakistan would have been there with a different name but with the addition of Kashmir and eastern Afghanistan or Pashtun parts of Afghanistan, I don't see Sikhs lasting long, Muslims always supported Pashtun rulers - Indian Punjab, etc would be their own thing
its relationship is something like Iran, Turks rulers, generals, and Persian soldiers, bureaucracy, ministers(even now Turks hold a lot of power in Iran, supreme leader, generals, presidents etc)- my prediction is we are moving towards the same
Hindi speaking regions have always been one
don't know about others,
Bengal would have been a bigger power, bihar would be dominated by it

South India is anyone's guess
- all in all Hindi speakers won the most from British colonization, and got a lot of power

 

[bluesky]

This is a nonsensical claim that has no historical basis. The fact and irony is that "India" as a political entity and "Indian" as an identity are all products of the British. The British were an instrument of forceful amalgamation of a continent (which is what led to the creation of India) with far greater diversity than either Europe or the Middle-East , not the opposite as you claim.

In fact, to visualize it for you, this was South Asia on the eclipse of the British Invasion of modern-day India in 1757:

View attachment 847527

On the start of the British Invasion of modern-day Pakistan in 1843:
View attachment 847528

I wonder why many Pakistanis think themselves as non- Hindustani when it’s entire history revolved around Delhi. Today’s Pakistan is a newly formed geographical unit separated by religious fervor before 1947.

It is disgraceful to think Pakistan was ever part of Afghanistan or the Central Asia. Rather, a part of Afghanistan belonged to India. Read the history of Chandragupta Maurya and his battles against the Greek forces in Afghanistan.

However, border of any country of today kept on changing all the time in the past.

Now, some of you will come your usual stupid comment that Chandragupta was a Hindu and Pakistani history started only after the Arabian Muhammad bin Qasem invaded Sindh. This is how you guys disrespect your forefathers who fought against all sorts of invaders.

Very nasty perception of history you guys have! Better get rid of it and be a Hindustani.

 

[ThunderCat]

I won't give this false premise question any attention except for posting this from Twitter:

 

[kazaki]

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.

As If bangladeshis dont believe in two nation theory , two nation theory was born in bangal . They started pakistan movement .

 

[Bilal9]

As If bangladeshis dont believe in two nation theory , two nation theory was born in bangal . They started pakistan movement .

Did you see the video?

Hindu intellectuals interviewed in the video state very clearly that Hindu intellectuals in Kolkata and elsewhere were equally if not more convinced about splitting Bengal into two entities, given the numbers of Muslim leaders and their intellectual leadership in undivided Bengal at that time (led by Sher-e-Bangla and Suhrawardy), which they could not dare challenge at the time. If Bengal remained undivided, Muslims would have become way too powerful in it, leading to the sidelining of Hindu leadership and eventually leading entire WB (including part of Bihar and Jharkhand to have become part of Muslim majority East Pakistan. That was to be avoided at any cost by Hindu leadership.

That is exactly why Congress leaders (including Shyamaprasad Mukherjee of the Hindu Mahasabha/RSS splinter group) wanted the division of Bengal and supported the creation of Pakistan. More so than Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq and Suhrawardy did.

Alongside the division of Bengal, Hindu Mahasabha leaders (Savarkar especially) pushed for splitting Punjab along with Bengal, for similar reasons.

The fact that Jinnah was a deft politician and well-informed negotiator was gravy on the side, and helped the Muslim league's cause for Pakistan. But Jinnah ultimately negotiated badly, most of Muslim majority areas of Assam was given to India.

I don't think you watched the video - give it some due time.

 

[Maula Jatt]

Alongside the division of Bengal, Hindu Mahasabha leaders (Savarkar especially) pushed for splitting Punjab along with Bengal, for similar reasons.

these people in their nice houses didn't realize the absolute carnage their decision caused for decades to come
think of millions of death, rapes, kidnappings- all of it because of power politics - all of these atrocities get blamed on Muslims or Muslim leadership but other side was equally if not more responsible for genocide in Bengal and Punjab

 

[Homo Sapiens]

That is exactly why Congress leaders (including Shyamaprasad Mukherjee of the Hindu Mahasabha/RSS splinter group) wanted the division of Bengal and supported the creation of Pakistan. More so than Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq and Suhrawardy did.

Shymaprasad Mukheree and Hindu Mahashabha campaigned that, even if India remains intact, Bengal must be split along the religious line. After the Government of India act 1935, which opened the door for the democratic election of the provinces and majority community gained political power, they saw that, even if India remain undivided, Bengal would certainly come under Muslim domination by virtue of being Muslim majority. Calcutta centric Hindu Bhadralok class was opposed to this prospect and wanted to curve out a Hindu majority West Bengal where they could maintain their hegemony unchallanged. So even if Jinnah was unsuccessful at creating Pakistan, Bengal and perhaps Punjab would still be divided along religious line, all the Muslim majority provinces forming a block, and Hindu majority forming another block within undivided post Independent India and a civil war like situation would have been developed by 1950s or 1960s. So, one way or another, partition of India was inevitable.