Skip to main content

Indian Partition - The Forgotten Question

The Partition of India was a terrible catastrophe. There is no doubt about that. Millions were killed, displaced, thousands were raped, orphaned etc. All this was done in a space of a few months. Mobs frantically killed each other for life, religion, property, identity, revenge and any other reason they could then think of. Even since the call for Direct Action, there was no doubt about a serious religious conflict. What followed was an eventual ethnic cleansing of parts of India of non Muslims and Muslims. How it happened, what happened, how trains full of dead bodies piled up on each side of new borders is well known. Hundreds of books have been written, research over decades have been published. We know all that.

The basic idea of it all was simple - Jinnah believed Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations and the latter should have a distinct political entity for themselves, based on Islam, their faith. To identify this they had to prove one thing. That the All India Muslim League had the support of the majority of Muslims. This was largely possible because of a genius policy - one of separate electorates. This concept has been carried over to modern Republic of India, possibly ushering in countless more conflicts in the present and near future. But that's another story for another time.
1946 - 'The Great Calcutta Killings'. Bengal was under AIML rule at that point of time.

The Indian National Congress claimed itself to be representative of all Indians, regardless of faith. The 1937 Indian elections showed some good results (for Congress). Under Jawaharlal Nehru, the INC won 707 seats and the AIML won only 106 seats. [1] [2] Naturally, the Congress was bullish and felt that the Muslims were sufficiently in their favor to continue the trend. The provincial results can be obtained from the Wiki page.

In the last decade, since the Pakistan Resolution or Lahore Resolution, slogans of Vande Mataram and Jai Hind were being made to make way for ones like 'Chin ke lengay Pakistan', 'Lekay rahengay Pakistan' etc. Of course, I wish not to mention the more anti Hindu ones in this case, but the rabidly honest communal-ization of politics was pretty much well underway.

Then came the 1946 elections. AIML fought with a single agenda - that of Pakistan and INC fought on Independence with Unity. This was just after the conclusion of the Second World War. The British were anxious to get out without losing face. To appeal to the Muslims (obvious appeasement), Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was the Party President for INC and Jinnah for AIML. Here was what the results came out to be.

923 seats went to the INC and only 425 went to the AIML. INC got 58+% of the vote share. In contrast BJP today rules India with a combined share (with NDA) of about 39%. Besides most of present day India, INC won NWFP (currently Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and FATA in Pakistan) while the AIML won Bengal and Sindh.

So you may wonder - this was a clear defeat, was it not?

Not so fast. In reality, the AIML never wanted to win the election. They fought on the plank of Islam and a separate nation for those following it. And they proved their point - that they alone overwhelmingly represented Indian Muslims. [3]

The fact remains that the vast vast majority of Indian Muslims voted for a separate country (in excess of 74.75%) [4]

Which brings me to the question - I have saved it for the last.

Let us assume that 70%+ Muslims (an absolute majority of Muslims) vote for Pakistan, breaking India. Even then, Muslims comprised only 24% of the total Indian population.

What did the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Buddhists, the Parsis, and others have to say in the matter? It is obvious that the entire non Muslim population overwhelmingly voted for the Indian National Congress and other non sectarian parties. Why was this majority vote totally ignored? Did the voice of the Muslims count much much more than the rest of India's population?

I am not sure if the question is genuine or just rhetorical.

Update: I am not exactly against the Partition. I consider myself a realist. The Partition was inevitable, the industrial scale riots could possible have been minimized. But that is another story all together.

Sources -
[1] Joseph E. Schwartzberg. "Schwartzberg Atlas". A Historical Atlas of South Asia. Retrieved 2012-04-05.
[2] Reeves, P. D. (1971). "Changing Patterns of Political Alignment in the General Elections to the United Provinces Legislative Assembly, 1937 and 1946". Modern Asian Studies. 5 (2): 111–142
[3] Nadeem Paracha, Dawn, "The Election That Created Pakistan", http://www.dawn.com/news/1105473/the-election-that-created-pakistan - Retrieved 2014-05-11
[4] Ramchandra Guha, India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy

Popular posts from this blog

Burhan Wani – The man and his mission

Burhan Wani – The man and his mission The death of a young ‘hero’? On the 8th of July, Burhan Muzaffar Wani died in the Valley of Kashmir. Thousands poured out on the streets to commemorate his services to the movement that he had come to symbolize of late. The relative calm of the region was shattered with curfews, killings and allegations of human rights abuses. His father was proud for the services his son had offered in the name of their faith, convinced that he would go to Heaven. Amidst all this, the romantic ideals of a young boy, just off his teens began to shake up the youth of the entire country, both in and beyond India. There is a lot of unrest in the Kashmir Valley recently, especially in the aftermath of the death, nay execution of Burhan. All of this is not unexpected in any way. In fact, this was foreseen. Even his glorification, his elevation to the status of a martyr in the service of Islam does not come as a surprise to me.
There is a section of the media and a sig…

Letters, open and counters

In this Information age, the opinions of people are shaped by the discourse that happens in the media – the newspapers, the internet forums, the videos that are shot, the letters, open letters and counter letters. A vast majority of them are full of half-truths and that is not surprising as every side has skeletons to hide. The problem arises when a gullible population (read Indians) digest these printed words both offline and on as the ultimate Truth without question. Secondary sources and even imaginary accounts becomes Gospels to be used to shut anyone who dares to oppose the mainstream discourse.
The Quint has recently published an open letter by a veteran soldier of the Indian Army named Major Gaurav. They apparently waited for a counter to that which was furnished by a Wasim Khan, a ‘Kashmiri’ who now is settled in Mumbai and runs a successful media agency (not surprising). So before we go into braindead blaming attempts, let’s analyze the two pieces one by one and check the m…

How Sri Sri destroyed the Yamuna River

Yamuna was a beautiful river in Northern India. It originates in the Yamunotri glacier at a height of 6400 metres above sea level. You may not remember it, and no, it's not Ganga.

Let me remind you of a picture of the beautiful river here, the river that flows by the Taj Mahal.
Yes, the picture above was real. The river supported a population of 57 million people. It continues to do now. The water was pure. Animals were aplenty. The air was sweet and the birds flocked to the area in thousands. The local forests on both sides of the floodplain were thicker than those in the Amazon and the waters were filled with fish. The standards of conservation of biodiversity was impeccable and often produced as an example to other river management bodies.

Then came Sri Sri. An Indian godman who owned millions to spread his pagan beliefs and something called 'Indian' culture along with the cultures of the world. I mean, who does that in the 21st century? Don't we have the Internet t…