Partition_of_India

For over three hundred years the Indian subcontinent was tightly managed a Western superpower. Following World War II, England was simply unequipped with the resources necessary to keep the great British Empire together, reluctantly giving sovereignty to many of its colonies, including the “jewel in Britain’s Imperial crown,” India. (Kaul, 2011) A precursor for the disastrous decolonization of Africa, the British government divided up its Southern Asia holdings by religious majority, without taking into account the full scale of placing borders on a map; they displaced more than fourteen million people. (Bharadwaj, 2008) The Partition of India was a devastating event, with horrible violence occurring between the new states, Pakistan and India. However, to view the conflict most effectively, one must see it from the point of view of the British Monarchy and its subjects, the people of India. Since the year 1600 and the establishment of the East India Company, the British have had a hold in India, siphoning its resources to fuel the mercantile ideology. With several hundred million people, India was ripe for the taxing, and that is exactly what the British Raj did. Economist Angus Madison’s statistics on India show that India’s share in the world economy declined from 27% when the English arrived, to just 3% in 1950. (Madison, 2003) This shows just how much the British took from the citizens of India; they arrived in a flourishing, tremendously wealthy nation and transformed it into the recovering third-world country that it is today. It is difficult to comprehend how valuable India was in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Viceroy of British India, Lord George Curzon once said, “We could lose all our dominions and still survive, but if we lost India, our sun would sink to its setting.” (What Life Was Like, 1999) This quotation proved to be true; the era of decline for Britain coincided with the loss of India. There were several reasons for the decolonization of India. Firstly, the British did not have the financial resources to keep its great empire together. World War II had drained Britain of most of its capital, leaving it deeply indebted and unable to manage such a huge landmass filled with such diverse populations. The post-war lackluster economy could not simultaneously support overseas efforts while dealing with the more pressing European issues. Secondly, Britain was pressured by the two new world superpowers to decolonize. The United States loaned England several billion dollars in aid during the war, most notably in the Lend-Lease Act of 1941. One of the conditions on this money was that Britain would agree to begin decolonization, which the United States believed would benefit its own economical interests. (Holley, 2010) On the other hand, the Soviet Union insisted that the British Empire should cease because it went against its own anti-imperialist ideology. Finally, there were the independence movements in India itself. By the late 1800s, nationalist movements started cropping up in the Indian subcontinent. New technologies such as the railway helped the spread of information through India, helping nationalists increase awareness to their cause. (Keen, 1998) In addition, the efforts of Gandhi and his protest for the British to “Quit India” gained massive support throughout the Indian population. (Bush, 1985) His non-violent protests would often dissolve to riots, and the British ended up imprisoning Gandhi and deploying 55 battalions to India to control the population. (Bates, 2011) Nevertheless, a nationalist position had taken hold in the populace, and tensions could not be settled until the British left. While the reasons for decolonization were largely economical, the reasons for partition were religiously based. By the end of this process, the world would have the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of India. The British were originally going to give all of India sovereignty. However, demands from the Muslim League, an Indian political party wishing for a separate Muslim State, eventually resulted in two separate countries. (Keen, 1998) They promoted a policy for the Crown to “Divide and quit,” forming two countries. This was in direct opposition to the Indian National Congress, who advocated for a united India with no British influence. The reason that the British listened to the Muslim League and not the Congress was because the Muslim League had supported the Allies in World War II, while the Congress refused to let Britain make decisions for India. Following this, the League gained authority until the point that both political groups had “equal footing [in] any negotiations with the British.” (How did the, n.d.) Partition began on August 15, 1947, nearly one month after the Indian Independence Act was passed by British Parliament. Partition itself was one of the bloodiest events in Indian history. It was undertaken in accordance to the Mountbatten Plan, the blueprint for division made by Lord Louis Mountbatten, the Viceroy of India in 1947. The main components of the plan were: legislative assemblies in states Punjab and Bengal would vote on partition, India would become independent regardless of the result on August 15, 1947, and a boundary would be set between India and Pakistan by Britain. (Chandra, 2012) The legislation passed in both Punjab and Bengal, meaning half of each would go to create the new states. Bengal’s transition went with relative ease; the real conflict occurred at the Radcliffe Line in Punjab. The Radcliffe Line was the border created by Sir Cyril Radcliffe, a wealthy British man who had only been present in India for five weeks. (The Radcliffe Line, 2011) Using “out-of-date maps and census materials,” Radcliffe hurriedly drew up the border. (Bates, 2011) His ignorance to the geography and demographics of Punjab was a direct factor to the upcoming violence. In addition, the region known as Kashmir was excluded from the plan altogether, which causes ownership clashes to this day. Another important factor was the way the British left India. They hastily departed the subcontinent following the transfer of power into Indian hands, meaning no third party facilitated the trans-border movement that was to follow. (Bates, 2011) From their perspective, once the nations received sovereignty there would be peace, since everybody had got what they wanted. Granted, the Congress may have been relatively content with independence, but the citizens of Punjab were not so happy. The reason for this was that the people were not informed of the border placement; Pakistan and India celebrated their independence on August 14 and 15 respectively, but “the border between the two new states was not announced until [August 17]. [By] delaying the announcement the British managed to avoid responsibility for the worst fighting and mass migration that followed.” (Bates, 2011) Almost immediately people in the wrong religious majority moved across the border to the more friendly country; this totaled to nearly 15 million refugees. (Bharadwaj, 2008) With all this cross-border movement, violence erupted between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. According to BBC, during the summer of 1947 “a million people were slaughtered on both sides in the religious rioting,” and countless numbers of women were raped. (n.d.) The new governments were unable to deal with the tsunami of migrants; there was little to no organization to the mass resettlement. The people living in the Indian subcontinent had a much different point of view than that of the British. For instance, when India was a whole, all religions and races lived in peace, as they had learned to accept each other. The idea of independence and partition changed all of that, reigniting historic issues between Hindus and Muslims. Hindus resented the times of rule by the Muslim Mughal Empire and “Hindu revivalists deepened the chasm between the two [groups]” by calling for harsh laws that promoted Hindu culture and suppressed others. (Keen, 1998) Mohandas Gandhi helped spread the idea of non-violent protest in an ultimately successful venture to get rid of the British. (Zachariah, n.d.) His position was against partition, as he believed that all of the religions could and should live together in harmony. (Bush, 1985) His Quit India Movement, which resulted in over 60,000 members of the Indian National Congress being jailed, motivated the public to reject Britain’s war and embrace independence. (Bhavan, Marg, n.d.) This solidified the Indian position that the British must leave, and that they were willing to fight for it. While it may seem that the states of Punjab and Bengal wanted partition, due to the vote passing, there is a little bit more to the story. In general, Muslims wished for partition and Hindus/Sikhs were against it. However, in both of these states, the Muslims held a slim majority; Punjabi Muslims made up only 51.4% of the state’s population in 1941. (Krishan, n.d.) To summarize, the Indians thought much differently of the partition of India than the British. The majority of India did not wish to separate, but the vote only took place in the provinces with a Muslim majority, basically guaranteeing a victory and ensuring conflict. My maternal ancestors originate from what is now Pakistan, in what used to be West Punjab. Following partition, my great-grandparents, Sikhs, were stranded in hostile territory. They were killed during an anti-Sikh riot following the announcement of the Radcliffe Line, brutally murdered infront of my grandfather. Therefore, it is difficult for me to decide on a point of view to back without bias. Nevertheless, I must still take the objective opinion that the British are at fault for the disaster that was the Partition of India. The Muslims who did the rioting were not completely to blame for perpetuating the long-existing struggle between Muslims and Hindus/Sikhs into a riot. After all, the Hindus were doing the very same thing right on the other side of the border. The real responsibility lies with the British. Their hasty retreat from the colony was greatly irresponsible and directly related to the massacre that followed. The Crown wanted to cut its losses in India after WWII and the subsequent nationalist movements, and essentially left India to its own devices. I think that they had the responsibility and ability to ensure a smooth transition from colonial rule to independence. Furthermore, if you are going to split a country in two, it is necessary to do proper research. In the end, even the Muslims weren’t happy with partition; more were left behind in India than those who received sovereignty. Additionally, Pakistan got the worst areas of India, with the poorest quality farmland and no major industry or infrastructure. (The Contemporary Period, 2001) British planning committees were extremely fickle in their favors; they would support the interests of the Muslim League at one moment, then turn around and go with the opinions of the Congress the next. For instance, this occurred during the finalization of the Radcliffe Line, the headquarters of the Muslim League, in Uttar Pradesh, was not included in Pakistan due to pressure from the Congress. (Bates, 2011) Moreover, the British ignored the warning signs to an upcoming disaster, the often violent demonstrations in major Indian cities that preceded the British leaving. Dr. Crispin Bates stated that during all this civil unrest the “British colonial government remained aloof.” (2011) They were focused on leaving and protecting themselves and their reputations. Mahatma Gandhi once said, “Leave India to God. If that is too much, then leave her to anarchy.” Currently, the Indian subcontinent is still recovering from the anarchism. However, I believe that it all could have been prevented if the British were more organized and dedicated to giving its colony a solid foundation in independence. Instead, their actions devastated two nations. Indeed, the Partition of India marked the sun finally setting on the British Empire.