Partition: An overview of Pakistan

The partition of India was, and still remains, the most controversial decision made by either the British government or the Indian government, depending on how you look at it. Based on religious differences, the division of India into ‘Hindustan’ and ‘Pakistan’ still has its not so benevolent repercussions. Why, then, was it created? And what if India remained unified? Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (1891 – 1956), India’s first law minister and the writer of the Indian Constitution, wrote a book on the issue in 1945, when India and Pakistan were merely ideas and not reality. Ambedkar, in his book, describes Pakistan as one of the worst ideas that the human race has come up with, but he also agrees that the alternatives to Pakistan are either just as worse or too uncertain to follow, and that the Indian National Congress (INC, or Congress for short) was faced with few options. 

The idea of the partition came from long-lasting tensions between the Hindus, the majority in India, and the Muslims, a sizable minority. Hindus are the native inhabitants of India for at least 3,000 years, if not more. Since the 1st millennium CE, Muslims started coming to India. Some came in the form of Arab merchants and preachers who converted many of the oppressed castes in the South, especially the state of Kerala. Others came in the form of ruthless conquerors starting with Mahmud of Ghazni, an Afghan who conquered Lahore in modern-day Punjab as well as ransacking most of the Hindu temples and universities in North India. Muhammad of Ghor was the first ruler to conquer most of North India, where he established the Ghurid dynasty after defeating the Hindu Rajput ruler Prithviraj Chauhan. 

After the Ghurids came the Mamluks, the Khaljis, the Tughlaqs, the Sayyids, and the Lodis, who were defeated by the Mughals. All of this was mainly restricted to the north, with certain forays into the south that produced the Nizamate of Hyderabad, Bahmani Sultanate, the Deccan Sultanates, the Carnatic Sultanate (under Hyderabad) and the short-lived Muslim junta rule (under Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan) of the Kingdom of Mysore. All in all, Islamic rule persisted in most of India for a good 800 years, after which the British gained complete control over much of India – barring the princely states of Travancore, Mysore, Hyderabad, Kashmir and other small states. 

That was a concise history of the last millennium of Indian history. We return, once again, to the problem of Pakistan. Even under British rule, Hindu-Muslim tensions continued to fester and the two groups regarded each other with a guarded weariness. In the beginning of the 20th century and the weakening of British rule starting the Swaraj (Independence) movement, Muslim leaders like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan started movements for the empowerment of Muslims and the protection of Muslim rights in the Hindu-majority pseudo-government that was the INC. In 1906 in Dhaka (modern-day Bangladesh) well-known Muslim leaders gathered to form the All-India Muslim League (AIML) that aimed for equal representation of Muslims in India. The AIML demanded separate electorates for Hindus and Muslims and more Muslims in high positions as compared to Hindus. It was also during this time that the Khilafat¹ movement promoted by Mahatma Gandhi brought all Indians together in “non-cooperation” with the British government. However, as soon as that failed, tensions rose again. 

V.D. Savarkar, a nationalist who advocated for independence through rebellion and was arrested by the British authorities, formed the Hindu Mahasabha, a Hindu right-wing group that emphasized the two-nation theory (partition) and promoted “Hindutva”, denoting the idea that Hinduism is the core idea of Indianness – while that includes religions like Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism to an extent, Christians, Parsis, Jews, and Muslims are seen as non-nationalistic. Mr. Savarkar had said that they wouldn’t be “second-class citizens” of India, so to speak, but the Hindu Mahasabha and its volunteer corps, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS for short) definitely had (and still has) anti-Muslim and pro-Hindu tones bordering on fascism. This led to tensions rising even higher. 

In 1905, the British government partitioned the state of Bengal into two – based on a Muslim majority population in the east. Hindus took offence and saw this as blatant favoritism. Riots broke out and the British reversed partition, but violence continued with nine riots in Bengal upto the 1930s. In 1921, the Muslims in Malabar (modern-day state of Kerala) rebelled against the British under the Khilafat Movement , destroying public offices and taking control over the region. Many Hindus were also killed under “suspicion of allying with the British”. In his book, Dr. Ambedkar complains that Gandhi and the Congress did not react at all to this massacre and that Gandhi even supported it, saying that they were merely following their faith. 

The idea of a separate Pakistan was supported by the Muslim League (who created it) and the Hindu Mahasabha, but it was vehemently opposed by the Indian Congress, who sought a unified India. Here’s the argument in favour of Pakistan: 1. The idea of Pakistan is actually very similar to an independent India. India wanted independence because the British were acting in their own interests and the Indians were oppressed. They did not share any cultural, ethnic, or religious values with the British and therefore like many other countries during the 19th and 20th centuries the Indians demanded independence from the Crown. The Muslim League argued that Muslims feel the same way about Hindus as Hindus feel about colonizers. They argue that Indian Muslims share more cultural values with each other than they do with other religious groups no matter who or what. They argued that Congress was being very hypocritical by demanding independence but not giving it to their own minorities.

 2. Muslims did not want to be part of a society where the caste system was institutionalized. The Hindu varna system divides society into five groups: Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (warriors, rulers, landowners), Vaishyas (merchants), Shudras (farmers, herders, servants) and lastly the Mlecchas and Dalits/Harijans (barbarians and untouchables, who were not be associated with as much as possible and were outside of accepted society). Muslims, as “foreigners” (most Muslims were native Indians who converted) and heretics, were barely accepted only because of their economic and political influence that came with the erstwhile invasions of India. Therefore, they wanted a nation to themselves where they could get fair representation. 

3. For the Hindus, they will always be wary of Muslims. For a Muslim, Islam is their true nation and his birth country always comes second to other Islamic nations. This is written in the Shariat (Islamic Law, based on the Quran) and is not an unwarranted fear. If Muslims are kept in India, they will have to be given fair representation in the army and other integral positions. However, in the event that Islamic states like Afghanistan or the Arab countries decide to invade India in the name of  jihad  (holy war), there is a chance that many Muslims may betray India in favour of their faith. While the Hindus didn’t speak for all Muslims, this was a chance that the Indian government, whatever its views, couldn’t afford to take. In the Mahasabha and Savarkar’s point of view, it’s better to keep your enemy outside rather than inside.

These are all seemingly valid points, and we know that the British government thought so, as shown by the fact that Pakistan exists as a very independent nation. Yet, there are many refutations to all of these arguments, which were all said by Dr. Ambedkar and indeed a majority of Indians back then and even now. What are the reasons for a unified India, or Akhand Bharat, as the nationalists like to say? 

1. It can be argued that the majority of Muslims do not, in fact, have any major differences from the Hindus or Christians, Jews, Parsis, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, or any other of the numerous religious groups of India in cultural values or ethnic homogeneity. People in favour of Pakistan have argued that the Muslim’s national language should be Urdu, yet out of less than a 100 million people in 1947, around 20 million people spoke Urdu as their mother tongue. Others spoke the same language as their non-Muslim brothers and sisters. In Bengal, the Muslims speak Bengali, in Kerala Malayalam, and in Hyderabad Telugu. In Punjab, the Muslim, the Sikh, and the Hindu all speak Punjabi. 

There is at most an insignificant amount of difference in dialect. Secondly, India is a very heterogeneous land with many ethnic and religious groups. Even among Hindus there are many differences and some are more unpleasant than others. A Vedic Vaishnava (Hindu sect classifications) from Gujarat will have ethnic, linguistic and religious differences with a Tantric Shaivite (Hindu sect classifications) just as they will have differences with a Muslim. However, there are many cultural values, stories, and a certain bond between all Indians regardless of faith, caste, creed, or race. Therefore it can be argued that there is no need for Pakistan. However, it is true that there is more tension between Muslims and Hindus than with any other group and it is equally likely that there will be less love lost. Now, this was all in the past. Today, we know that India is always at odds with Pakistan and that both countries are unfairly biased against each other. We also have seen a lot of religious violence against and from Muslims post-partition, and the fact that Hindutva nationalism is getting alarming levels of traction (the Indian government in the present is led by the BJP, a right-wing group associated with the erstwhile Hindu Mahasabha and the still-active R.S.S.) in India is not helping in the least. 

2. The Muslim League acted like Hindus are the only group in India to practice casteism. It is true that in the other religions of India the caste system is not espoused and Buddhism and Jainism especially emphasize equality between all people. However, while it cannot be correlated to the varnas of Hinduism, Islam in India also has a very rigidly structured society. At the top are the Ashrafs, who claim to be of foreign descent, then there are Ajlafs, who are Hindu converts, and then finally Arzals, or converted Dalits. Most Muslims follow the caste system as zealously as Hindus did and it makes no difference whether they have their own nation or not. Therefore,    we can refute that argument. Indeed, this is exactly what Dr. Ambedkar has said in his book.

3. It is true that today Pakistan is vehemently against India, and vice versa. However, we can look at modern times and say some of the previous generation’s fears were reasonable, yet unfounded. If Pakistan itself attacked India, it wouldn’t be a major problem. The problem lies in that if other Islamic countries count it as a jihad, they will be obliged to step in. Of course, the military of an independent India then and the military now are incomparable. India has spent a lot of effort in its military partly due to this fear. However, the Middle Eastern countries are equally on good terms with Pakistan and India, and since Indian/Pakistani immigrants provide good labor for the oil companies, they won’t be willing to let those relations go astray. Indeed, India and Pakistan have been in a permanent state of pseudo-war since tensions in Kashmir began right after independence in 1947. Ever since then, Kashmir has been repeatedly fought over and Bangladesh was liberated by India in the bloody Second Indo-Pakistani War or the Bangladeshi Independence War. In all of these conflicts, Muslim countries have not done much against India. However, it is true that it is better for Pakistan to attack India separately rather than from within. 

Even after all of these arguments, Dr. Ambedkar states, surprisingly, that if the Muslim League presses for Pakistan it should be given without any further word. The reason he states is that it is not viable for the Indian government to antagonize the Muslim community any further, which would lead to their worst fears inevitably happening: the Muslim nations waging war against India. To avoid that, it is still better to split the country.

The biggest argument in favor of Pakistan was that religion plays a much bigger role in nationalism than culture. However, in the present, we know that isn’t necessarily the case, as evidenced by the invasion of Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) by West Pakistan in 1971. Even though they were of the same religion, the Pashtuns and Punjabis of the West hated the Bengalis with a passion because of their cultural differences and their friendliness toward Bengali Hindus. The name of Islam did not stop the Pakistanis from looting and killing many Bengalis, both Hindu and Muslim. Even in other religions we can see that this is the case. Hindus have killed other Hindus, Christians other Christians, and Jews other Jews, even doing so in the name of their faith. Even among people of the same sect of the same religion of the same god, there will always be troubles. Religion, while definitely a unifying factor among people, does not guarantee peace or complete unity. Most countries founded solely on the name of religion are either autocratic – i.e. Afghanistan or Iran – or beset by extremists – like Pakistan, the country in question. 

As I said earlier, Dr. Ambedkar’s fears of a united Islamic coalition fighting against India, or Afghanistan and Pakistan working together to invade India, are partly unfounded. Ever since independence Pakistan has been in a permanent state of pseudo-aggression towards India and Afghanistan has not lifted a finger to help. Moreover, due to the circumstances I mentioned in the previous paragraph; i.e. religious violence, today the Indian government has supported the development of a lot of infrastructure in Afghanistan, and they will not so easily betray a country that has helped them so much. Even now with the takeover of the Taliban they haven’t done much to India. After World War II, the Arab countries were all also newly-independent countries without a lot of resources, and they wouldn’t spend all of what they had so unnecessarily. Once oil was discovered, hence the resources, then the Arab countries realized that Indian labor was cheap and effective, so that India is a valuable asset to them. 

Today India also has good diplomatic relations with other countries, like Russia and the U.S.A., and the likelihood of a lone India defending itself is lessening exponentially. Of course, at that time, no one could predict that India would rise to the top in the future. After all, Pakistan’s economy was far better than that of India for many decades since independence. We cannot fault Dr. Ambedkar, or for that matter the Indian civilian of the 1940s, for thinking that way. After all, India’s caution upto now hasn’t affected her badly, but rather for the better. The only thing that Indians should be careful about is to not fall into an arms race with Pakistan, which will lead to a Cold War type situation – especially if other countries get involved. 

Now we turn to the main problem between India and Pakistan: Kashmir. At present the state of Kashmir is divided into two parts de facto but both countries claim the whole territory as their own. The reason for this is thus: When India and Pakistan were divided, Kashmir was a princely state and was not a part of the Union. The Hindu raja of Kashmir joined the Indian Union after the partition was complete, making the Muslim majority outraged. (97% of Kashmir’s population follows Islam) It is on that basis that Pakistan has claimed it, as per the agreement of partition that allowed all Muslim-majority areas along the northwest and northeast of India to join Pakistan. However, the Indian government argues that since Kashmir joined after Pakistan was formed, the agreement is null and void and that they have no obligation to hand over the territory, which if gained provides a natural bulwark for any invading countries to cross through. This confusion is the cause of most tensions in that region. 

Another reason for Pakistan’s continued animosity towards India is the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971. I mentioned earlier that the Bengali Muslims of East Pakistan were looked down upon by the people of West Pakistan. This eventually led to the Bengalis demanding independence and an invasion of Bengal by the Pakistanis. 

In the end, was it a wise decision for India to be partitioned? Maybe. The results that we see today are caused by partition, and it is impossible to know what would have happened had Pakistan never existed. Perhaps the Indian economy would be far better than it is today, leading it to either become a superpower in the world or be squashed by the existing ones before India became a serious threat. Perhaps the extra Muslim population would have forged stronger bonds with other Islamic nations, but then again if they felt like they were being oppressed or denied power, then India would be completely overcome by the same nations. 

Today, there is no use worrying about the past. We can learn from the mistakes and experiences of our ancestors, but being stuck in the past just impedes future growth, and in my opinion, that’s the most important. Luckily, the conflict between India and Pakistan hasn’t strayed far from the sidelines, but we’re seeing now more than ever the effect of such a long-lasting conflict, with far more serious consequences. Between the wars breaking out in Ukraine and Gaza, everyone – not just India – can benefit from turning their heads back to the future. In my opinion, though, I think it would be better if people set aside their differences for the greater good.