Was partition necessary?

[MD]

Was the partition of the Indian subcontinent necessary in 1947? Or could Hindus and Muslims at the time worked through their differences? Jinnah was anti partition almost until 1942, would he have been accepted as the first PM of India? Would preventing partition have saved Gandhi's life?

Would love to hear from RFs Indian and Pakistani members on this. And of course those from the UK are always welcome to share your opinion here since ya'll were in the whole process too.

Anyone else with an opinion or an interest in what happened please feel free to chip in.

 

[Nietzsche]

Politically there was little hope for a "Whole India" solution. The divide between the Hindu and Muslim portions were too great by this period. The Muslims feared(arguably with good reason) being dominated by the Hindu-majority. There's very little that could be done about that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Was the partition of the Indian subcontinent necessary in 1947? Or could Hindus and Muslims at the time worked through their differences? Jinnah was anti partition almost until 1942, would he have been accepted as the first PM of India? Would preventing partition have saved Gandhi's life?

It became necessary due to British machinations and pan-islamism, otherwise it was not. Hindus and Muslims lived peacefully together and still do. We have some 172 million Muslims in India and that is the third highest Muslim population in any country in the world. Less than 10% of the Muslims migrated from India. Gandhi's prime ministership offer to Jinnah was very late. By that time, the die was already cast. Jinnah could not have backed from his position, and he had a presidentship waiting in Pakistan. Nehru (for his own ambitions) and Patel (for his religious bent) would not have accepted it. But Muslim chief ministers in Hindu native states and Hindu chief ministers in Muslims native states were not a rarity.

However, what has happened has happened and it is no use looking back. I suppose whatever happened was not bad for Hindus. Otherwise with 450 million Muslims (who are now in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh) voting en-block, there would never have been a Hindu prime minister in India. Think of terrorism involving 450 million people instead of some 180 million people of Pakistan now (numbers approximate). A combined India would have had a population of 1,631 million. It would have been a more more serious problem for Hindus as well as for the whole world. Gandhi was a person, and persons come and go, just like Jinnah, Nehru and Patel. Not all that important.

 

[Laika]

Was the partition of the Indian subcontinent necessary in 1947? Or could Hindus and Muslims at the time worked through their differences? Jinnah was anti partition almost until 1942, would he have been accepted as the first PM of India? Would preventing partition have saved Gandhi's life?

Would love to hear from RFs Indian and Pakistani members on this. And of course those from the UK are always welcome to share your opinion here since ya'll were in the whole process too.

Anyone else with an opinion or an interest in what happened please feel free to chip in.

My opinion on this is worthless as I know virtually nothing about the Partition of India and Pakistan. But I will keep an eye on the thread and see how it develops.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Was the partition of the Indian subcontinent necessary in 1947? Or could Hindus and Muslims at the time worked through their differences? Jinnah was anti partition almost until 1942, would he have been accepted as the first PM of India? Would preventing partition have saved Gandhi's life?

Would love to hear from RFs Indian and Pakistani members on this. And of course those from the UK are always welcome to share your opinion here since ya'll were in the whole process too.

Anyone else with an opinion or an interest in what happened please feel free to chip in.

I don't really know much of anything about this so I don't have much to say.

 

[LuisDantas]

How could the partition be prevented? It is not like there was a lack of effort in making the attempt.

It seems to me that preventing it would be a consequence, and not a cause, of the benefits mentioned in the OP. I once read that Jinnah was in fact offered to be the PM of India at the last minute, but I can't source that right now.

I may easily be wrong, but my current impression is that the partition was ultimately a direct consequence of Muslim teachings, and could only be averted by, not to put it too mildly, washing away the Islamic influence in India, by education and mutual acceptance if at all possible.

What I have learned of Islam in recent years all but assures me that once Muslims become reasonably common in any one place they can't easily be convinced to live in peace with the wider community. There is simply way too much encouragement in the Qur'an for mistrust of "outsiders" and blind support for nationalism and isolationism for anyone's good.

 

[DawudTalut]

Was the partition of the Indian subcontinent necessary in 1947? Or could Hindus and Muslims at the time worked through their differences? Jinnah was anti partition almost until 1942, would he have been accepted as the first PM of India? Would preventing partition have saved Gandhi's life?

Would love to hear from RFs Indian and Pakistani members on this. And of course those from the UK are always welcome to share your opinion here since ya'll were in the whole process too.

Anyone else with an opinion or an interest in what happened please feel free to chip in.

Peace be on every human anywhere in the world.
You may find some related answers / views at
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Sir-Zafrulla-Khan-Interviews.pdf
(search for partition)

 

[Aupmanyav]

What I have learned of Islam in recent years all but assures me that once Muslims become reasonably common in any one place they can't easily be convinced to live in peace with the wider community. There is simply way too much encouragement in the Qur'an for mistrust of "outsiders" and blind support for nationalism and isolationism for anyone's good.

Not just Muslims but Christians as well. We had some experience of that in our North-East. Then, there was Timor and Sudan. Monotheists, 'my God is the only true God'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I once read that Jinnah was in fact offered to be the PM of India at the last minute, but I can't source that right now.

"A misconception exists that, in 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru reacted angrily to Gandhi's suggestion that Jinnah should be given the Prime Ministership of India and solely for this reason, this last ditch attempt to prevent the Partition of India failed. The implication of various historians has been that Nehru was power-hungry and hence forced Partition on India instead of generously handing the Prime Ministership to Jinnah in a grand gesture of sacrifice. However, the record shows that

1. According to the Viceroy's personal account in the Mountbatten papers, Nehru did not in fact react angrily or with 'shock' to the suggestion as for example, Stanley Wolpert writes in 'Jinnah of Pakistan'. He merely expressed doubt that Gandhi's suggestion would be accepted by Jinnah.
2. Both Nehru and V.P. Menon separately pointed out to Viceroy Mountbatten that Gandhi had made the offer of Prime Ministership to Jinnah on earlier occasions as well, and that Jinnah had not accepted it on those earlier occasions for his own reasons.
3. V.P. Menon and other British Indian officials pointed out to the Viceroy that Gandhi's suggestion of Jinnah's Prime Ministership posed difficulties for the Viceroy and British too.
4. Not only Nehru but many members of the Congress Working Committee also did not endorse Gandhi's suggestion, finally.

The factors in the failure of Gandhi's suggestion of offering the Prime Ministership to Jinnah were thus many, and Nehru alone can not be held responsible."
https://sites.google.com/site/cabinetmissionplan/offers-of-jinnah-pmship-1940-43
https://sites.google.com/site/cabinetmissionplan/gandhi-offer-of-jinnah-pm-ship-to-jinnah-1947

 

[ronki23]

Partition was only necessary because of Jinnah and the Muslim League. Although i'd like to know a bit more about this as I don't really understand how there were so few Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh BEFORE the partition. What i'm trying to say is that partition occured because there was majority Muslim community in both sides of India so why historically were Hindus in the Middle?

And why were Sikhs not given an independent country? Don't say because they were a minority in Punjab as Muslims were a minority in Hindu Punjab and Hindus a minority in Muslim Punjab so they could've made a third state if there was going to be a population exchange anyway

The British leaders had asked Sardar Baldev Singh to stay behind because the wanted to propose to him that if Sikhs were not ready to enter into the agreement with Muslims, then the Sikhs could be given an independent state which extended from Panipat to Nanakana Sahib with extended excess up-to the seashore. The Britishers were ready to station 25,000 British troops and war equipment for ten years and provide help in the administration provided the Sikhs agreed to provide 50,000 soldiers be stationed at Singapore and other colonies to help the Britishers for the next ten years. After ten years the agreement could be reconsidered. Through this agreement the administration and defense of independent Sikhland would have been ensured and there would have been no need to enter into an agreement with either India or Pakistan for the purposes of their administration and defense. Even Muslim League had agreed this proposal because it would give then strong buffer state between Pakistan and India. It was also in the interest British empire as they would still have their feet in this sub-continent. But was unfortunate that there was no leader among the Sikhs with political vision foresight who could see the benefits such an arrangement and demand independent Homeland for the Sikhs.

 

[sayak83]

Was the partition of the Indian subcontinent necessary in 1947? Or could Hindus and Muslims at the time worked through their differences? Jinnah was anti partition almost until 1942, would he have been accepted as the first PM of India? Would preventing partition have saved Gandhi's life?

Would love to hear from RFs Indian and Pakistani members on this. And of course those from the UK are always welcome to share your opinion here since ya'll were in the whole process too.

Anyone else with an opinion or an interest in what happened please feel free to chip in.

This like asking if the civil war, the French Revolution or the American independence war was necessary or not. What in history is actually necessary, and who can provide a neutral answer?

 

[Tiapan]

You are all indians, religion is getting a bit past its use by date and is therefore irrelevant, the modern Indian can surely decide whether or not they want a MacDonalds Big Mac for lunch or not and should be respected fore their decision. I think if MacDonalds came up with the goat burger it could solve many world problems.
Cheers