Set 2: Against Partition U5L7: Document D Source: Timeline. By the end of World War I in 1919, Indian leaders began fighting for independence from Great Britain. At this time, two major ethnic populations existed in India: Hindus, who were the great majority, and Muslims, who were a minority. The Hindus hoped that India would remain united once the British left, with Hindus and Muslims living together in harmony. But some Muslims, especially Muslim leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah, worried about being a minority in a Hindu state, where they would have had little power. When the British finally left India in 1947, they divided the Indian subcontinent, creating India for Hindus and a new state called Pakistan for Muslims. They called this division the Partition Plan. 1930s: The idea for a separate homeland for Muslims is introduced. 1935: Great Britain grants some independence and political participation to Indians. Muslims worry they will be a permanent minority in a fully independent India. 1940: Muslim leader Jinnah calls for the establishment of Pakistan as a separate state for Indian’s Muslims. 1944: Hindu leaders fail to convince Jinnah to keep India unified. August 1946: Hindus and Muslims clash in Calcutta over formation of interim government. Approximately 5,000 die. March 1947: The British Government sends Louis Mountbatten to India to determine an acceptable plan for transferring power to Indians before June 1948. June 3, 1947: Mountbatten announces Partition Plan and speeds up the transfer of power from Britain to India by ten months. August 14–15, 1947: Transfer of Power: India gains independence from Great Britain. August 16–17, 1947: Decision for partition boundaries is released and published. Migration and violence due to partition continues until the end of 1947. Approximately 15 million people migrated and between 300,000 and one million refugees lost their lives during partition.
©Success Academy Charter Schools World History III, Unit 5: Decolonization and Independence Movements U5L7: Document E Source: Jawarhalal Nehru, The Discovery of India, 1946. The passage below is an excerpt from the book The Discovery of India, by Jawarharlal Nehru published in 1946. Nehru was India’s first Prime Minister and a member of India’s Hindu Congress during pre-Independence. Nehru was actively involved in India’s Independence Movement and he wrote the book between 1942 and 1945 when he was in prison for civil disobedience. Any division of India on a religious basis between Hindus and Muslims, as proposed by the Muslim League today, cannot separate the followers of these two principal religions of India, for they are spread out all over the country. Even if the areas in which each group is in a majority are separated, huge minorities belonging to the other group remain in each area. Other religious groups, like the Sikhs, are split up unfairly against their will and placed in two different states. In giving freedom to separate to one group, other groups are denied that freedom . . . If the economic aspects of separation are considered, it is clear that India as a whole is a strong and more-or-less self-sufficient economic unit. If the division is made so as to separate the predominately Hindu and Muslim areas, the Hindu areas will not be so hard hit. The Muslim areas, on the other hand, will be economically backward. Thus, the odd fact emerges that those who today demand separation will suffer the most from it. The astonishing fact remains that those who propose ‘Pakistan’ or partition have consistently refused to define what they mean or to consider the implications of such a division. They move on the emotional plane only . . . It is difficult to imagine any free state emerging from such turmoil, and if something does emerge, it will be full of contradictions and insoluble [can’t be dissolved] problems. U5L7: Document F Source: Extracts from writings and words of Gandhi, “Mohandas Gandhi Against the Partition of India.” [The demand for Pakistan] as put forth by the Muslim League is un-Islamic and I have not hesitated to call it sinful. Islam stands for unity and the brotherhood of mankind, not for disrupting the oneness of the human family. Therefore, those who want to divide India into possibly warring groups are enemies alike of India and Islam. They may cut me to pieces but they cannot make me subscribe to something which I consider to be wrong. In actual life, it is impossible to separate us into two nations. We are not two nations. Every Muslim will have a Hindu name if he goes back far enough in his family history. Every Muslim is merely a Hindu who has accepted Islam. That does not create nationality. . . . We in India have a common culture. In the North, Hindi and Urdu are understood by both Hindus and Muslims. In Madras, Hindus and Muslims speak Tamil, and in Bengal, they both speak Bengali and neither Hindi nor Urdu. When communal riots take place, they are always provoked by incidents over cows and by religious processions. That means that it is our superstitions that create the trouble and not our separate nationalities. ...We must not cease to aspire, in spite of [the] wild talk, to befriend all Muslims and hold them fast as prisoners of our love. [If] India is divided she will be lost forever. Therefore . . . if India is to remain undivided, Hindus and Muslims must live together in brotherly love, not in hostile camps organized either for defensive action or retaliation...
©Success Academy Charter Schools World History III, Unit 5: Decolonization and Independence Movements Directions: Answer the prompt below in a short paragraph response. Be sure to use evidence from the sources to support your response. Prompt: Was India’s Partition Plan a good decision given what people knew at the time? Response: and then bullet points of cons and state back to the sources for each con
Response: Based on the sources, it can be argued that India's Partition Plan was not a good decision given what people knew at the time. Here are the cons supported by evidence from the sources:
- The Partition Plan created division and conflict between Hindus and Muslims. Document D states that clashes between Hindus and Muslims resulted in thousands of deaths, and the violence and migration continued even after the partition. This suggests that the partition exacerbated tensions and led to widespread suffering.
- The division on religious basis disregarded the diverse makeup of Indian society. Document E highlights that Hindus and Muslims were spread out all over the country, and even if majority areas were separated, significant minority populations would still remain. The partition also unfairly split up other religious groups, such as the Sikhs.
- Economically, the partition had negative implications. Document E argues that the Muslim areas would be economically disadvantaged compared to the Hindu areas, indicating that those who demanded separation would suffer the most from it. This suggests that the partition had detrimental economic consequences for the Muslim population.
- Lastly, Document F, featuring the writings of Mohandas Gandhi, emphasizes the importance of unity and brotherhood among Hindus and Muslims. Gandhi argues that dividing India into two nations goes against the principles of Islam and that it is our superstitions, not our separate nationalities, that create trouble. This suggests that the partition not only went against religious and cultural unity but was also founded on misguided beliefs.
In conclusion, the cons presented in the sources indicate that India's Partition Plan was not a good decision given what people knew at the time. The division created conflicts, disregarded the diverse makeup of Indian society, had negative economic implications, and went against the principles of unity and brotherhood.