An inevitable separation

                      The Partition of India


The partition of India was a grim affair that was accompanied by heavy loss of life and exuberant communal rage. As people traversed to either side of the border, they were forced to restart their lives from scratch and live in a chronic state of anguish and suffering. Hundreds of thousands lost their lives, millions were displaced and losses of billions were incurred.  All this gives rise to numerous questions- Was the Partition really inevitable? What role did the Britishers play, couldn't they have left a united India? What led to the Partition? 

The first formal call for Pakistan was made by the Muslim League in March 1940 which was headed by Muhammad Ali Jinnah. The Muslims wanted a separate nation lest they will be dominated by the Hindus in the independent nation. As the League continued to gain support, they reached a point where there was no turning back. Even when the Congress leaders tried to cut a deal with Jinnah, they failed and lamented ignoring Jinnah's deliberations back in the 1920s. Mahatma Gandhi went as far as to offer Jinnah to be the first leader of the government of independent India. This did not seem to suffice his appetite and ambition for Pakistan, and neither did the Congress back this proposal. 

In 1857, The British Army was taken aback when the Hindus and Muslims had rebelled unitedly against the British during the Sepoy Mutiny led by Mangal Pandey. Upon seeing two religious groups united against a single cause, the British were rendered irate. They resorted to the infamous Divide and Rule policy which ensured that two different religious groups did not unite against a foreign ruler. The British made it their mission to adopt this policy and utilize it to exacerbate animosity between the Muslims and Hindus in the later decades. 

The Second World War had fractured Great Britain, if not crippled it. It owed huge debts to the United States. Britain had faced a series of defeats during the War and had to rebuild itself. The cost of maintaining an empire that expanded over various continents couldn't be born any longer, it had to let the crown of the jewel - India - go. British rule in India could not be perpetuated but they could leave a mark whose impact would be felt for the times yet to come. 

Post-War Britain showcased an unusual decisiveness towards the prospect of an Independent India. The Labour Party sent Sir Stafford Cripps, a revered politician with close ties to the Indian Congress, to negotiate terms for Indian independence. He wanted to leave behind a united India for the Congress to govern but he soon discovered the improbability of his dream. It was easier to get the consent of the Hindus for a division than the Muslims' acquiescence for a union. The Hindus and Sikh would surely lament for their "brothers and sisters" stuck on either side of the border, but they are highly unlikely to have the power or will to revolt on their behalf. 

Originally, the British were supposed to leave India in June 1948. The last viceroy Lord Mountbatten decided to hasten their departure and cut it short to August 1947. Some blame it upon this promptitude to cause heavy bloodshed. 

The crucial task of dividing the border was given to Sir Cyril Radcliffe, and the borders are aptly named after him. The Princely states were masters of their own fates and could accede to either nation. One such princely state - Jammu & Kashmir, an Indian territory over which disputes still persist was ruled by a Hindu maharaja and had a majority Muslim population. Maharaja Hari Singh agreed to accede to India on 26th October, 1947 which is known as Accession Day. This decision was made after tribal groups backed by Pakistan had attacked the Valley and caused loss of life. Such is the economic and political vitality of Kashmir for Pakistan that much of its foreign and defence policy revolves around it. Though, the Punjab massacre was horrible, it was short lived ; it is the Kashmir issue which has poisoned every aspect of Indo-Pakistan relations. 

In my opinion, the British took advantage of the overt dispute between the Hindus and Muslims. Had the dispute been resolved at an earlier the Partition might have never happened. Amusingly, the British left India in the same level of chaos as they found it in. 

Written by, 

Vaibhav Jain and Veertej Sehdave 

Stay tuned for more interesting stories 
Your opinion matters to us. Please help us improve by giving your valuable feedback. 
Thanks for taking out time to read it. 









Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Winter is coming.

Image
Arguably, one of the best shows to be ever made, Game of Thrones followed the stories of various rulers vying for power over the fictional continent of Westeros. The complex world of GOT was first discovered by our world in the series of novels named A Song of Ice and Fire, written by George R. R. Martin. The show reached every pinnacle of success and fame but very few people know about the fact that GRRM's exquisite world is based on the War of the Roses, a series of civil wars fought for the throne of England.  Fought in the 15th century, the conflict was initiated by the death of the ruler King Edward III and the instant succession of his grandson, Richard II, as the ruler. Edward's eldest son had already died before the death of his father. Passing of the throne directly to the grandson enraged the four other sons of Edward. This complex kerfuffle of inheritance guaranteed a tussle within the family and various generations began claiming the right to the throne. Richard was...
Read more

A tale of an Ambitious Statesman

Image
‘Et Tu, Brute?’ these were the last words exclaimed by Julius Caesar as he stood helpless while being stabbed by his best friend, Brutus, along with ‘The Liberators’, a group of senators who were disturbed by Caesar’s ambitions and perceived them as a threat to the existence of the Roman Republic which their ancestors have fought to establish. But was his assassination justified? What events led to this gruesome and brutal murder? Is being ambitious wrong? Caesar has shared power over Rome along with Pompey and Licinius Crassus under the First Triumvirate. As his popularity among people grew, he advocated certain reforms which included uniting the Roman Republic into a cohesive unit and wanted to bring order back into the Republic. Fearing his growing popularity, the Senate demanded of him to relinquish his Army. Refusing to do so, he broke the law to seize power and led an army against Pompey. They fought a civil war which was ultimately won by Julius Caesar and he started dominee...
Read more

Regal affairs continued

Image
At last, the tenth year is finally here. The 'Iliad'  narrates the events of this year only over a period of fifty-one days. Throughout the war, the Greeks have laid claim to many war prizes from the surrounding countryside. One of these prizes just so happens to be Chryseis, the daughter of Chryses, a priest of Apollo. A quarrel takes place between Achilles and King Agamemnon. Achilles claims that her release would palliate the Wrath of Apollo upon the entirety of the Greek army. The dubious king refused to heed to Achilles, this ultimately leads to Achille's withdrawal from the war. At this point, Achilles' companion Patroclus borrows his armor and enter the battle with their contingent of soldiers to help the distressed Greeks who have been fighting for weeks till no end. Supposing it to be Achilles himself, the Trojans flee in terror from the camp before Patroclus, who pursues them to the town and lays waste to everything they held dear. At last Patroclus, himself i...
Read more