Content deleted Content added
Boyinaroom (talk | contribs) m Reverted edits by 188.208.24.12 (talk) (HG) (3.4.12) |
per secondary source |
||
| (32 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|1947 division of British India}}
{{protection padlock|small= yes}}
{{Use Indian English|date=July 2015}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2024}}
{{Infobox historical event
| image = British Indian Empire 1909 Imperial Gazetteer of India.jpg
| image_size =
| caption = British Indian Empire in ''[[The Imperial Gazetteer of India]]'', 1909. [[British India]] is shaded pink, the [[princely state]]s yellow
| Location = [[British Raj]]
|
| Result = [[Partition (politics)|Partition]] of [[British Raj|British Indian Empire]] into independent dominions the [[Dominion of India|Union of India]] and the [[Dominion of Pakistan]] and [[Refugee crisis|refugee crises]]
| fatalities = 200,000 to 2 million,{{sfn|Talbot|Singh|2009|p=2}}{{efn|"The death toll remains disputed with figures ranging from 200,000 to 2 million."{{sfn|Talbot|Singh|2009|p=2}}}} 12 to 20 million displaced<ref name="Springer Science & Business Media">{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tGiSBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA6|title=Population Redistribution and Development in South Asia|last=|first=|publisher=Springer Science & Business Media|year=2012|isbn=978-9400953093|location=|page=6}}</ref>{{efn|name=Displacement}}
| URL =
}}
[[File:
The '''partition of India''' in 1947 was the division of [[British India]]{{efn|British India consisted of those regions of the [[British Raj]], or the [[British Indian Empire]], which were directly administered by Britain; other regions, of nominal sovereignty, which were indirectly ruled by Britain, were called [[princely state]]s.}} into two independent dominion states, the [[Dominion of India|Union of India]] and [[Dominion of Pakistan]].<ref>{{cite book |title=Partition (n), 7. b |publisher=Oxford English Dictionary |edition=3rd |year=2005 |quote=The division of British India into India and Pakistan, achieved in 1947.}}</ref> The Union of India is today the [[Republic of India]] and the Dominion of Pakistan, the [[Islamic Republic of Pakistan]], and the [[People's Republic of Bangladesh]]. The [[Partition (politics)|partition]] involved the division of two provinces, [[Bengal]] and the [[Punjab Province (British India)|Punjab]], based on district-wise [[Hindu]] or [[Muslim]] majorities. It also involved the division of the [[British Indian Army]], the [[Royal Indian Navy]], the [[Indian Civil Service]], the [[History of rail transport in India|railways]], and the central treasury, between the two new dominions. The partition was set forth in the [[Indian Independence Act 1947]] and resulted in the dissolution of the [[British Raj]], or [[Crown rule in India]]. The two self-governing countries of India and Pakistan legally came into existence at midnight on 14–15 August 1947.
The partition displaced between 12 and 20 million people along religious lines,{{efn|name=Displacement}} creating overwhelming refugee crises in the newly constituted dominions; there was large-scale violence, with estimates of loss of life accompanying or preceding the partition disputed and varying between several hundred thousand and two million.{{sfn|Talbot|Singh|2009|p=2}}{{efn|"The death toll remains disputed to this day with figures ranging from 200,000 to 2 million."{{sfn|Talbot|Singh|2009|p=2}}}} The violent nature of the partition created an atmosphere of hostility and suspicion between India and Pakistan that plagues [[Indo-Pakistani relations|their relationship]] to the present.
The term ''partition of India'' does not cover the [[Bangladesh Liberation War|secession of Bangladesh from Pakistan]] in 1971, nor the earlier separations of [[Burma]] (now [[Myanmar]]) and [[Ceylon]] (now [[Sri Lanka]]) from the administration of British India.{{efn|Coastal Ceylon, part of the [[Madras Presidency]] of British India from 1796, became the separate [[crown colony]] of [[British Ceylon]] in 1802. Burma, gradually annexed by the British during 1826–86 and governed as a part of the British Indian administration until 1937, was [[Separation of Burma|directly administered]] thereafter.<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,788006,00.html Sword For Pen], ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'', 12 April 1937</ref> Burma was granted independence on 4 January 1948 and Ceylon on 4 February 1948. (See [[History of Sri Lanka]] and [[History of Burma]].)}} The term also does not cover the [[Political integration of India|political integration]] of [[princely states]] into the two new dominions, nor the disputes of annexation or division arising in the princely states of [[Hyderabad State|Hyderabad]], [[Junagadh State|Junagadh]], and [[Jammu and Kashmir (princely state)|Jammu and Kashmir]], though violence along religious lines did break out in some princely states at the time of the partition. It does not cover the incorporation of the enclaves of [[French India]] into India during the period 1947–1954, nor the annexation of [[Goa]] and other districts of [[Portuguese India]] by India in 1961. Other contemporaneous political entities in the region in 1947, such as [[Sikkim]], [[Bhutan]], [[Nepal]], and the [[Maldives]], were unaffected by the partition.{{efn|The Himalayan kingdom of [[Sikkim]] was established as a [[princely state]] after the ''Anglo-Sikkimese Treaty'' of 1861, however, the issue of sovereignty was left undefined.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=Sikkim |encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica |url=http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-46212 |year=2008}}</ref> In 1947, Sikkim became an independent kingdom under the [[suzerainty]] of India and remained so until 1975 when it was absorbed into India as the 22nd state. Other Himalayan kingdoms, [[Nepal]] and [[Bhutan]], having signed treaties with the British designating them as ''independent states'', were not a part of British India.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-23632 Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. "Nepal."], [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-25008 Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. "Bhutan."]</ref> The Indian Ocean island of [[The Maldives]], became a [[protectorate]] of the [[British crown]] in 1887 and gained its independence in 1965.}}
==Background==
{{See also|Islam in South Asia}}
===Pre-World War II (1905–1938)===
Line 49 ⟶ 37:
In 1905, during his second term as [[Governor-General of India|viceroy of India]], [[Lord Curzon]] divided the [[Bengal Presidency]]—the largest [[Administrative division|administrative subdivision]] in British India—into the Muslim-majority province of [[Eastern Bengal and Assam]] and the Hindu-majority province of [[Bengal]] (present-day Indian states of [[West Bengal]], [[Bihar]], [[Jharkhand]], and [[Odisha]]).<ref name="spear176">{{harvnb|Spear|1990|p=176}}</ref> Curzon's act, the [[Partition of Bengal (1905)|partition of Bengal]]—which had been contemplated by various colonial administrations since the time of [[Lord William Bentinck]], though never acted upon—was to transform [[Nationalism|nationalist]] politics as nothing else before it.<ref name="spear176" />
The Hindu elite of Bengal, many of whom owned land that was leased out to Muslim [[peasant]]s in East Bengal, protested strongly. The large [[Bengali Hindus|Bengali-Hindu]] [[Indian middle class|middle-class]] (the ''[[Bhadralok]]''), upset at the prospect of Bengalis being outnumbered in the new Bengal province by [[Biharis]] and [[Oriyas]], felt that Curzon's act was punishment for their political
The overwhelming, predominantly-Hindu protest against the partition of Bengal, along with the fear of reforms favouring the Hindu majority, led the Muslim elite of India in 1906 to the new viceroy [[Lord Minto]], asking for separate electorates for Muslims. In conjunction, they demanded representation in proportion to their share of the total population, reflecting both their status as former rulers and their record of cooperating with the British. This would result{{citation needed|date=April 2024}} in the founding of the [[All-India Muslim League]] in [[Dhaka|Dacca]] in December 1906. Although Curzon by now had returned to England following his resignation over a dispute with his military chief, [[Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener|Lord Kitchener]], the League was in favor of his partition plan.<ref name="ludden199" /> The Muslim elite's position, which was reflected in the League's position, had crystallized gradually over the previous three decades, beginning with the [[1871 Census of India|1871 Census of British India]],{{citation needed|date=April 2024}} which had first estimated the populations in regions of Muslim majority.<ref name="ludden200">{{harvnb|Ludden|2002|p=200}}</ref> For his part, Curzon's desire to court the Muslims of East Bengal had arisen from British anxieties ever since the 1871 census, and in light of the history of Muslims fighting them in the [[Indian Rebellion of 1857|1857 Rebellion]] and the [[Second Anglo-Afghan War]].{{citation needed|date=April 2024}}
Line 64 ⟶ 52:
[[File:Jinnah lucknow pact1916.jpg|thumb|[[Muhammad Ali Jinnah]], seated, third from the left, was a supporter of the Lucknow Pact, which, in 1916, ended the three-way rift between the Extremists, the Moderates and the League]]
[[World War I]] would prove to be a watershed in the imperial relationship between Britain and India. 1.4 million Indian and British soldiers of the [[British Indian Army]] would take part in the war, and their participation would have a wider cultural fallout: news of Indian soldiers fighting and dying with British soldiers, as well as soldiers from [[dominion]]s like Canada and Australia, would travel to distant corners of the world both in newsprint and by the new medium of the radio.<ref name="brown-p197-198">{{harvnb|Brown|1994|pp=197–198}}</ref> India's international profile would thereby rise and would continue to rise during the 1920s.<ref name="brown-p197-198" /> It was to lead, among other things, to India, under its name, becoming a [[League of Nations members#1920: founder members|founding member]] of the [[League of Nations]] in 1920 and participating, under the name, "Les Indes Anglaises" (British India), in the [[1920 Summer Olympics]] in
The [[Lucknow Pact|1916 Lucknow Session]] of the Congress was also the venue of an unanticipated mutual effort by the Congress and the Muslim League, the occasion for which was provided by the wartime partnership between Germany and Turkey. Since the Ottoman Sultan, also held guardianship of the Islamic holy sites of [[Mecca]], [[Medina]], and [[Jerusalem]], and, since the British and their allies were now in conflict with the Ottoman Empire, doubts began to increase among some Indian Muslims about the "religious neutrality" of the British, doubts that had already surfaced as a result of the [[Partition of Bengal (1905)#Reunited Bengal (1911)|reunification of Bengal]] in 1911, a decision that was seen as ill-disposed to Muslims.<ref name="brown-p200-201">{{Harvnb|Brown|1994|pp=200–201}}</ref> In the Lucknow Pact, the League joined the Congress in the proposal for greater self-government that was campaigned for by Tilak and his supporters; in return, the Congress accepted separate electorates for Muslims in the provincial legislatures as well as the Imperial Legislative Council. In 1916, the Muslim League had anywhere between 500 and 800 members and did not yet have its wider following among Indian Muslims of later years; in the League itself, the pact did not have unanimous backing, having largely been negotiated by a group of "Young Party" Muslims from the [[United Provinces of Agra and Oudh|United Provinces]] (UP), most prominently, the brothers [[Mohammad Ali Jauhar|Mohammad]] and [[Maulana Shaukat Ali|Shaukat Ali]], who had embraced the Pan-Islamic cause.<ref name="brown-p200-201" /> It gained the support of a young lawyer from Bombay, [[Muhammad Ali Jinnah]], who later rose to leadership roles in the League and the Indian independence movement. In later years, as the full ramifications of the pact unfolded, it was seen as benefiting the Muslim minority elites of provinces like UP and Bihar more than the Muslim majorities of Punjab and Bengal. At the time, the "Lucknow Pact" was an important milestone in nationalistic agitation and was seen so by the British.<ref name="brown-p200-201" />
Line 71 ⟶ 59:
[[Secretary of State for India]] [[Edwin Samuel Montagu|Montagu]] and [[Governor-General of India|Viceroy]] [[Frederic John Napier Thesiger, 3rd Baron Chelmsford|Lord Chelmsford]] presented a report in July 1918 after a long fact-finding trip through India the previous winter.<ref name="brown-p205-207">{{Harvnb|Brown|1994|pp=205–207}}</ref> After more discussion by the government and parliament in Britain, and another tour by the Franchise and Functions Committee to identify who among the Indian population could vote in future elections, the [[Government of India Act of 1919]] (also known as the [[Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms]]) was passed in December 1919.<ref name="brown-p205-207" /> The new Act enlarged both the provincial and [[Imperial Legislative Council|Imperial]] legislative councils and repealed the Government of India's recourse to the "official majority" in unfavourable votes.<ref name="brown-p205-207" /> Although departments like defence, foreign affairs, criminal law, communications, and income-tax were retained by the [[Governor-General of India|viceroy]] and the central government in New Delhi, other departments like public health, education, land-revenue, local self-government were transferred to the provinces.<ref name="brown-p205-207" /> The provinces themselves were now to be administered under a new [[Diarchy|dyarchical]] system, whereby some areas like education, agriculture, infrastructure development, and local self-government became the preserve of Indian ministers and legislatures, and ultimately the Indian electorates, while others like irrigation, land-revenue, police, prisons, and control of media remained within the purview of the British governor and his executive council.<ref name="brown-p205-207" /> The new Act also made it easier for Indians to be admitted into the civil service and the army officer corps.
A greater number of Indians were now enfranchised, although, for voting at the national level, they constituted only 10% of the total adult male population, many of whom were still illiterate.<ref name="brown-p205-207" /> In the provincial legislatures, the British continued to exercise some control by setting aside seats for special interests they considered cooperative or useful. In particular, rural candidates, generally sympathetic to British rule and less confrontational, were assigned more seats than their urban counterparts.<ref name="brown-p205-207" /> Seats were also reserved for non-[[Brahmin]]s, landowners, businessmen, and college graduates. The principle of "communal representation
====Introduction of the two-nation theory: 1920s====
{{main|Two-nation theory}}
The ''two-nation theory'' is the assertion, based on the former Indian Muslim ruling class' sense of being culturally and historically distinct, that Indian [[Hindus]] and Muslims are two distinct
[[Theodore Beck]], who played a major role in founding of the [[All-India Muslim League]] in 1906, was supportive of two-nation theory. Another British official supportive of the theory includes [[Theodore Morison]]. Both Beck and Morison believed that parliamentary system of majority rule would be disadvantageous for the Muslims.<ref name="Ahmed 2020">{{cite book | last=Ahmed | first=I. | title=Jinnah: His Successes, Failures and Role in History | publisher=Penguin Random House India Private Limited | year=2020 | isbn=978-93-5305-664-3 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1hP9DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT118 | access-date=11 July 2023 | pages=117–118}}</ref>
Line 84 ⟶ 70:
[[Arya Samaj]] leader [[Lala Lajpat Rai]] laid out his own version of two-nation theory in 1924 to form "a clear partition of India into a Muslim India and a non-Muslim India". Lala believed in partition in response to the riots against Hindus in Kohat, [[North-West Frontier Province]] which diminished his faith in Hindu-Muslim unity.<ref name="Ahmed 2020"/><ref name="Hoodbhoy">{{cite book | last=Hoodbhoy | first=P. | title=Pakistan: Origins, Identity and Future | publisher=Taylor & Francis | year=2023 | isbn=978-1-000-85667-5 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MgSqEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT231 | access-date=11 July 2023 | page=231}}</ref><ref name="Bonney 2004">{{cite book | last=Bonney | first=R. | title=Three Giants of South Asia: Gandhi, Ambedkar, and Jinnah on Self-determination | publisher=Media House | series=South Asian history academic papers | year=2004 | isbn=978-81-7495-174-8 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SpmpK8hgbkkC&pg=PA7 | access-date=11 July 2023 | page=7}}</ref>
[[Hindu Mahasabha]] leader [[Vinayak Damodar Savarkar]]'s [[Hindutva]] ideology had embryonic form of a two-nation theory since the 1920s.<ref name="Bapu">{{cite book | last=Bapu | first=Prabhu | title=Hindu Mahasabha in Colonial North India, 1915-1930: Constructing Nation and History | publisher=Routledge | series=Online access with subscription: Proquest Ebook Central | year=2013 | isbn=978-0-415-67165-1 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iUFalxUFFWkC | page=77}}</ref> Savarkar in 1937 during the 19th session of the [[Hindu Mahasabha]] in Ahmedabad supported two-nation theory,
[[Muhammad Ali Jinnah]] undertook the ideology that religion is the determining factor in defining the nationality of Indian Muslims in 1940. He termed it as the awakening of Muslims for the creation of Pakistan.<ref>[[Conor Cruise O'Brien|Cruise O'Brien, Conor]]. August 1988. "[https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/88aug/obrien.htm Holy War Against India] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210128075043/https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/88aug/obrien.htm |date=28 January 2021 }}". ''[[The Atlantic Monthly]]'' 262(2):54–64. Retrieved 8 June 2020.</ref> However, Jinnah opposed Partition of Punjab and Bengal, and advocated for the integration of all Punjab and Bengal into Pakistan without the displacement of any of its inhabitants, whether they were Sikhs or Hindus.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1614173 |title=The Two-Nation Reality versus Theory: Opposition to Partition |author=
"[T]he Muslims are not Indians but foreigners or temporary guests—without any loyalty to the country or its cultural heritage—and should be driven out of the country ..."</ref><ref name="sankhdher1991">Sankhdher, M. M., and K. K. Wadhwa. 1991. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=bwGKAAAAMAAJ National unity and religious minorities]''. Gitanjali Publishing House. {{ISBN|978-81-85060-36-1}}.
Line 98 ⟶ 84:
[[File:Gandhi at Peshawar meeting.jpg|thumb|Gandhi and [[Abdul Ghaffar Khan]] at a pro-independence rally in [[Peshawar]], 1938]]
Opposition to the theory has come from two sources. The first is the concept of a [[Greater India|single Indian nation]], of which Hindus and Muslims are two intertwined communities.<ref name="zakaria2004">{{Citation | title=Indian Muslims: where have they gone wrong? | author=Rafiq Zakaria | year=2004 | isbn=978-81-7991-201-0 |publisher=Popular Prakashan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-aMlKSmWRQ8cC | quote="... As a Muslim, Hindus, and Muslims are one nation and not two ... two nations have no basis in history... they shall continue to live together for another thousand years in united India ..."}}</ref> This is a founding principle of the modern, officially
====Muslim homeland, provincial elections: 1930–1938====
Line 105 ⟶ 91:
[[File:Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman.jpg|thumb|[[Chaudhari Khaliquzzaman]] (left) seconding the 1940 Lahore Resolution of the [[All-India Muslim League]] with [[Muhammad Ali Jinnah|Jinnah]] (right) presiding, and [[Liaquat Ali Khan]] centre]]
In 1933, [[Choudhry Rahmat Ali]] had produced a pamphlet, entitled ''[[Pakistan Declaration|Now or Never]]'', in which the term ''[[Pakistan]]'', 'land of the pure
In 1932, British Prime Minister [[Ramsay MacDonald]] accepted [[B. R. Ambedkar|Ambedkar]]'s demand for the "[[Scheduled castes|Depressed Classes]]" to have separate representation in the central and provincial legislatures. The Muslim League favoured this "communal award" as it had the potential to weaken the Hindu caste leadership. [[Mahatma Gandhi]], who was seen as a leading advocate for [[Dalit]] rights, went on a fast to persuade the British to repeal these separate electorates. Ambedkar had to back down when it seemed Gandhi's life was threatened.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Ayoob |first=Mohammed |author-link=Mohammed Ayoob |url=http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-turning-point-in-1932/article23752117.ece|title=The turning point in 1932: on Dalit representation|date=3 May 2018|work=[[The Hindu]]|access-date=28 May 2018|archive-date=9 November 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201109111508/https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-turning-point-in-1932/article23752117.ece|url-status=live}}</ref>{{better source needed|date=July 2024|reason=Scholarly sources such as Menon 1957, Nugent 1979, Mehra 1985, or Tripathi 2012 would be better than a modern newspaper op-ed that isn't subject to peer review.}}
Line 118 ⟶ 104:
[[File:Indian Empire (1947).png|thumb|300px|[[Colonial India]] in 1947, before the partition, covering the territory of modern [[India]], [[Pakistan]] and [[Bangladesh]]]]
With the outbreak of [[World War II]] in 1939, [[Victor Hope, 2nd Marquess of Linlithgow|Lord Linlithgow]], [[Viceroy of India]], declared war on India's behalf without consulting Indian leaders, leading the Congress provincial ministries to resign in protest.{{Sfn|Talbot|Singh|2009|p=33}} By contrast the Muslim League, which functioned under state patronage,{{Sfn|Talbot|Singh|2009|p=34}} organized "Deliverance Day" celebrations (from Congress dominance) and supported Britain in the war effort.{{Sfn|Talbot|Singh|2009|p=33}} When Linlithgow met with nationalist leaders, he gave the same status to [[Muhammad Ali Jinnah|Jinnah]] as he did to [[Mahatma Gandhi|Gandhi]], and, a month later, described the Congress as a "Hindu organization
In March 1940, in the League's annual three-day session in [[Lahore]], Jinnah gave a two-hour speech in English, in which were laid out the arguments of the [[two-nation theory]], stating, in the words of historians Talbot and Singh, that "Muslims and Hindus...were irreconcilably opposed monolithic religious communities and as such, no settlement could be imposed that did not satisfy the aspirations of the former."{{Sfn|Talbot|Singh|2009|p=33}} On the last day of its session, the League passed what came to be known as the [[Lahore Resolution]], sometimes also "Pakistan Resolution
====August Offer, Cripps Mission: 1940–1942====
Line 140 ⟶ 126:
{{further|1945 Indian general election|1946 Indian provincial elections}}
Labour Prime Minister [[Clement Attlee]] had been deeply interested in Indian independence since the 1920s, being surrounded by Labour statesmen who were affiliated with [[V. K. Krishna Menon|Krishna Menon]] and the [[India League]], and for years had supported it. He now took charge of the government position and gave the issue the highest priority.{{citation needed|date=May 2018}} A [[1946 Cabinet Mission to India|Cabinet Mission]] was sent to India led by the Secretary of State for India, [[Frederick Pethick-Lawrence, 1st Baron Pethick-Lawrence|Lord Pethick Lawrence]], which also included [[Stafford Cripps|Sir Stafford Cripps]], who had visited India four years before. The objective of the mission was to arrange for an orderly transfer to independence.<ref name="judd-mutiny" /> In February 1946, [[Mutiny|mutinies]] broke out in the armed services, starting with RAF servicemen frustrated with their slow [[repatriation]] to Britain.<ref name="judd-mutiny">{{harvnb|Judd|2004|pp=172–173}}</ref> These mutinies failed to turn into revolutions as the mutineers surrendered after the Congress and the Muslim League convinced the mutineers that they won't get victimised.<ref name="Karsten 1998 p. 324">{{cite book | last=Karsten | first=P. | title=Motivating Soldiers: Morale Or Mutiny | publisher=Garland Pub. | series=Military and society : a collection of essays / ser. ed. Peter Karsten | year=1998 | isbn=978-0-8153-2977-0 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qGCI_QNHh20C&pg=PA324| page=324}}</ref>
In early 1946, new elections were held in India.<ref name="Metcalf2012">{{cite book|author=Barbara Metcalf|title=Husain Ahmad Madani: The Jihad for Islam and India's Freedom|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TQjrAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT107|date=2012|publisher=Oneworld Publications|isbn=978-1-78074-210-6|pages=107–|access-date=26 June 2017}}</ref> This coincided with the infamous [[Indian National Army trials#The first trial|trial of three senior officers]]
British rule had lost its legitimacy for most Hindus, and conclusive proof of this came in the form of the 1946 elections with the Congress winning 91 percent of the vote among non-Muslim constituencies, thereby gaining a majority in the Central Legislature and forming governments in eight provinces, and becoming the legitimate successor to the British government for most Hindus. If the British intended to stay in India the acquiescence of politically active Indians to British rule would have been in doubt after these election results, although many rural Indians may still have acquiesced to British rule at this time.<ref>{{Harvnb|Brown|1994|pp=328–329|ps=: "Yet these final years of the raj showed conclusively that British rule had lost legitimacy and that among the vast majority of Hindus Congress had become the raj's legitimate successor. Tangible proof came in the 1945–6 elections to the central and provincial legislatures. In the former, Congress won 91 percent of the votes cast in non-Muslim constituencies, and in the latter, gained an absolute majority and became the provincial raj in eight provinces. The acquiescence of the politically aware (though possibly not of many villagers even at this point) would have been seriously in doubt if the British had displayed any intention of staying in India."}}</ref> The Muslim League won the majority of the Muslim vote as well as most reserved Muslim seats in the provincial assemblies, and it also secured all the Muslim seats in the Central Assembly.
Line 149 ⟶ 135:
|width=180 |File:Cabinet mission to india1946.jpg|Members of the [[1946 Cabinet Mission to India]] meeting [[Muhammad Ali Jinnah]]. On the extreme left is [[Frederick Pethick-Lawrence, 1st Baron Pethick-Lawrence|Lord Pethick Lawrence]]; on the extreme right, [[Stafford Cripps|Sir Stafford Cripps]].
|File:Old-muslim-couple1947.jpg|An aged and abandoned Muslim couple and their grandchildren are sitting by the roadside on this arduous journey. "The old man is dying of exhaustion. The caravan has gone on," wrote Bourke-White.
|File:Old-sikh-man-carrying-wife1947.jpg|An
|File:Gandhi Badshah Khan in Bela Bihar 1947.jpg|Gandhi in Bela, Bihar, after attacks on Muslims, 28 March 1947.
}}
Line 175 ⟶ 161:
{{Main|Indian Independence Act 1947}}
When Lord Mountbatten formally proposed the plan on 3 June 1947, Patel gave his approval and lobbied Nehru and other Congress leaders to accept the proposal. Knowing Gandhi's deep anguish regarding proposals of partition, Patel engaged him in private meetings discussions over the perceived practical unworkability of any Congress-League [[Coalition government|coalition]], the rising violence, and the threat of civil war. At the All India Congress Committee meeting called to vote on the proposal, Patel said:<ref>{{cite book |last=Menon |first=V. P. |title=Transfer of Power in India |page=385}}</ref><blockquote>I fully appreciate the fears of our brothers from [the Muslim-majority areas]. Nobody likes the division of India, and my heart is heavy. But the choice is between one division and many divisions. We must face facts. We cannot give way to emotionalism and sentimentality. The [[Congress Working Committee|Working Committee]] has not acted out of fear. But I am afraid of one thing, that all our toil and hard work of these many years might go waste or prove unfruitful. My nine months in office have completely disillusioned me regarding the supposed merits of the [[1946 Cabinet Mission to India|Cabinet Mission]] Plan. Except for a few honourable exceptions, Muslim officials from the top down to the chaprasis ([[peon]]s or servants) are working for the League. The communal veto given to the League in the Mission Plan would have blocked India's progress at every stage. Whether we like it or not,
====Radcliffe Line====
Line 186 ⟶ 172:
[[File:Partition of India 1947 en.svg|thumb|200px|The partition of India: green regions were all part of Pakistan by 1948, and orange ones part of India. The darker-shaded regions represent the [[Punjab Province (British India)|Punjab]] and [[Bengal Presidency|Bengal]] provinces partitioned by the Radcliffe Line. The grey areas represent some of the key [[princely state]]s that were eventually integrated into India or Pakistan.]]
Mountbatten administered the independence oath to Jinnah on the 14th, before leaving for India where the oath was scheduled on the midnight of the 15th.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Farooqui |first1=Tashkeel Ahmed |last2=Sheikh |first2=Ismail |date=15 August 2016 |title=Was Pakistan created on August 14 or 15? |work=The Express Tribune |url=http://tribune.com.pk/story/1160291/pakistan-created-august-14-15/ |url-status=live |access-date=16 August 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160816113500/http://tribune.com.pk/story/1160291/pakistan-created-august-14-15/ |archive-date=16 August 2016}}</ref> On 14 August 1947, the new [[Dominion of Pakistan]] came into being, with [[Muhammad Ali Jinnah]] sworn in as its first Governor-General in [[Karachi]]. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now [[Dominion of India]], became an independent country, with official ceremonies taking place in
==Geographic partition, 1947==
Line 225 ⟶ 211:
Before the Boundary Commission began formal hearings, governments were set up for the East and the West Punjab regions. Their territories were provisionally divided by "notional division" based on simple district majorities. In both the Punjab and Bengal, the Boundary Commission consisted of two Muslim and two non-Muslim judges with Sir [[Cyril Radcliffe]] as a common chairman.<ref name="spate" /> The mission of the Punjab commission was worded generally as: "To [[Demarcation line|demarcate]] the boundaries of the two parts of Punjab, based on ascertaining the [[Contiguous distribution|contiguous]] majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims. In doing so, it will take into account other factors." Each side (the Muslims and the Congress/Sikhs) presented its claim through counsel with no liberty to bargain. The judges, too, had no mandate to compromise, and on all major issues they "divided two and two, leaving Sir Cyril Radcliffe the invidious task of making the actual decisions."<ref name="spate" />
==Independence, migration, and displacement
{{Gallery
|align=center
Line 248 ⟶ 234:
[[File:A refugee special train at Ambala Station during partition of India.jpg|thumb|A refugee special train at Ambala Station during the Partition of India]]
The Partition of India split the former [[Punjab Province (British India)|British province of Punjab]] between the [[Dominion of India]] and the [[Dominion of Pakistan]]. The mostly Muslim western part of the province became Pakistan's [[Punjab, Pakistan|Punjab province]]; the mostly Hindu and Sikh eastern part became India's [[East Punjab]] state (later divided into the new states of [[Punjab, India|Punjab]], [[Haryana]], and [[Himachal Pradesh]]). Many Hindus and Sikhs lived in the west, and many Muslims lived in the east, and the fears of all such minorities were so great that the partition saw many people displaced and much inter-communal violence. Some have described the violence in Punjab as a retributive genocide.<ref name="washedu">{{cite web|url=http://faculty.washington.edu/brass/Partition.pdf|title=The partition of India and retributive genocide in the Punjab, 1946–47: means, methods, and purposes|access-date=19 December 2006|archive-date=14 April 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414111514/http://faculty.washington.edu/brass/Partition.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> Total migration across Punjab during the partition is estimated at 12 million people;{{efn|name=Displacement|"Some 12 million people were displaced in the divided province of Punjab alone, and up to 20 million in the subcontinent as a whole."<ref name="Zamindar2013">{{cite book |chapter=India–Pakistan Partition 1947 and forced migration |author=Vazira Fazila-Yacoobali Zamindar |title=The Encyclopedia of Global Human Migration |chapter-url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781444351071.wbeghm285 |date=4 February 2013 |doi=10.1002/9781444351071.wbeghm285 |isbn=9781444334890 |access-date=16 January 2021 |archive-date=22 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210122014723/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781444351071.wbeghm285 |url-status=live }}</ref>}} around 6.5 million Muslims moved into West Punjab, and 4.7 million Hindus and Sikhs moved into East Punjab.
[[File:Refugees on train roof during Partition.ogv|thumb|Video of refugees on train roof during the Partition of India.]]
Line 256 ⟶ 242:
Lawrence James observed that "Sir Francis Mudie, the governor of West Punjab, estimated that 500,000 Muslims died trying to enter his province, while the British High Commissioner in Karachi put the full total at 800,000. This makes nonsense of the claim by Mountbatten and his partisans that only 200,000 were killed": [James 1998: 636].<ref name="EPW" />
During this period, many alleged that Sikh leader [[Tara Singh (activist)|Tara Singh]] was endorsing the killing of Muslims. On 3 March 1947, at [[Lahore]], Singh, along with about 500 Sikhs, declared from a
<blockquote>On March 3, radical Sikh leader Master Tara Singh famously flashed his [[kirpan]] (sword) outside the Punjab Assembly, calling for the destruction of the Pakistan idea prompting violent response by the Muslims mainly against Sikhs but also Hindus, in the Muslim-majority districts of northern Punjab. Yet, at the end of that year, more Muslims had been killed in East Punjab than Hindus and Sikhs together in West Punjab.</blockquote>
Line 309 ⟶ 295:
| {{Percentage | 512466 | 34309861 | 2 }}
|-
! [[Jainism]] [[File:
| 41,321
| {{Percentage | 41321 | 25101060 | 2 }}
Line 317 ⟶ 303:
| {{Percentage | 45475 | 34309861 | 2 }}
|-
! [[Buddhism]] [[File:
| 5,912
| {{Percentage | 5912 | 25101060 | 2 }}
Line 404 ⟶ 390:
|{{Percentage | 395311 | 17350103 | 2 }}
|-
! [[Jainism]] [[File:
| 5,930
|{{Percentage | 5930 | 11888985 | 2 }}
Line 420 ⟶ 406:
|{{Percentage | 312 | 17350103 | 3 }}
|-
! [[Buddhism]] [[File:
| 172
|{{Percentage | 172 | 11888985 | 3 }}
Line 428 ⟶ 414:
|{{Percentage | 87 | 17350103 | 3 }}
|-
! [[Judaism]] [[File:
| 16
|{{Percentage | 16 | 11888985 | 4 }}
Line 501 ⟶ 487:
|{{Percentage | 117155 | 16959758 | 2 }}
|-
! [[Jainism]] [[File:
| 35,391
|{{Percentage | 35391 | 13212075 | 2 }}
Line 509 ⟶ 495:
|{{Percentage | 35955 | 16959758 | 2 }}
|-
! [[Buddhism]] [[File:
| 5,740
|{{Percentage | 5740 | 13212075 | 2 }}
Line 525 ⟶ 511:
|{{Percentage | 4047 | 16959758 | 2 }}
|-
! [[Judaism]] [[File:
| 3
|{{Percentage | 3 | 13212075 | 4 }}
Line 558 ⟶ 544:
The districts of [[Murshidabad District|Murshidabad]] and [[Malda district|Malda]], located on the right bank of the Ganges, were given to India despite having Muslim majorities. The Hindu-majority [[Khulna District]], located on the mouths of the Ganges and surrounded by Muslim-majority districts, were given to Pakistan, as were the eastern-most [[Chittagong Hill Tracts]].<ref name="Spoils">{{cite book |last=Chatterji |first=Joya |author-link=Joya Chatterji |year=2007 |title=The Spoils of Partition: Bengal and India, 1947–1967 |pages=31, 58–60 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-87536-3}}</ref>
Thousands of Hindus, located in the districts of East Bengal, which were awarded to Pakistan, found themselves being attacked, and this religious persecution forced hundreds of thousands of Hindus from East Bengal to [[East Bengali refugees|seek refuge]] in India. The massive influx of Hindu refugees into Calcutta affected the demographics of the city. Many Muslims left the city for East Pakistan, and the refugee families occupied some of their homes and properties.
Total migration across Bengal during the partition is estimated at 3.3 million: 2.6 million Hindus moved from East Pakistan to India and 0.7 million Muslims moved from India to East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).
Line 575 ⟶ 561:
Despite the migration, a significant Sindhi Hindu population still resides in Pakistan's Sindh province, where they number at around 2.3 million as per Pakistan's 1998 census. Some districts in Sindh had a Hindu majority like [[Tharparkar District]], [[Umerkot]], [[Mirpurkhas]], [[Sanghar]] and [[Badin]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://pakistanhinducouncil.org/hindupopulation.asp |title=Population of Hindus in the World |website=Pakistan Hindu Council |url-status=usurped |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130518031747/http://www.pakistanhinducouncil.org/hindupopulation.asp |archive-date=18 May 2013}}</ref>
Due to the religious persecution of Hindus in Pakistan, Hindus from Sindh are still migrating to India.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/05/world/asia/pakistan-hindu-india-modi.html |title=Hard Times Have Pakistani Hindus Looking to India, Where Some Find Only Disappointment |first=Maria |last=Abi-Habib |date=5 October 2019 |work=The New York Times |access-date=10 July 2020 |archive-date=2 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210102204537/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/05/world/asia/pakistan-hindu-india-modi.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+ Religion in Sindh (1941 & 1951)
! rowspan="2" |[[Religion in Pakistan|Religious]]<br />group
! colspan="2" |1941<ref name="sindh1941">{{cite web |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/saoa.crl.28215545 |jstor=saoa.crl.28215545 |access-date=5 May 2024 |title=Census of India, 1941. Vol. 12, Sind |author1=India Census Commissioner |year=1941 |volume=12 |archive-date=29 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230129064845/https://www.jstor.org/stable/saoa.crl.28215545 |url-status=live }}</ref>{{rp|28}}{{efn|name=Sindh1941|1941 figure taken from [[Census in British India|census data]] by combining the total population of all [[Districts of British India|districts]] ([[Dadu District|Dadu]], [[Hyderabad District, Sindh|Hyderabad]], [[Karachi]], [[Larkana District|Larkana]], [[Nawabshah District|Nawabshah]], [[Sukkur District|Sukkur]], [[Tharparkar district|Tharparkar]], [[Upper Sind Frontier District|Upper Sind Frontier]]), and one [[princely state]] ([[Khairpur (princely state)|Khairpur]]), in Sindh Province, British India. See 1941 census data here:<ref name="sindh1941"/>}}
! colspan="2" |1951<ref name="sindh1951">{{cite web|url=https://censusindia.gov.in/nada/index.php/catalog/31311|title=CPopulation According to Religion, Tables-6, Pakistan - Census 1951|access-date=28 September 2024}}</ref>{{rp|22–26}}{{efn|name=Sindh1951|Including [[Federal Capital Territory (Karachi)]]}}
|-
![[Population|{{abbr|Pop.|Population}}]]
!{{Abbr|%|percentage}}
!{{abbr|Pop.|Population}}
!{{Abbr|%|percentage}}
|-
| [[Islam]] [[File:Star and Crescent.svg|15px]]
| 3,462,015
|{{Percentage | 3462015 | 4840795 | 2 }}
| 5,535,645
|{{Percentage | 5535645 | 6047748 | 2 }}
|-
| [[Hinduism]] [[File:Om.svg|15px]]
| 1,279,530
|{{Percentage | 1279530 | 4840795 | 2 }}
| 482,560
|{{Percentage | 482560 | 6047748 | 2 }}
|-
| [[Tribal religions in India|Tribal]]
| 37,598
|{{Percentage | 37598 | 4840795 | 2 }}
| {{N/a}}
| {{N/a}}
|-
| [[Sikhism]] [[File:Khanda.svg|15px]]
| 32,627
|{{Percentage | 32627 | 4840795 | 2 }}
| {{N/a}}
| {{N/a}}
|-
| [[Christianity]] [[File:Christian cross.svg|15px]]
| 20,304
|{{Percentage | 20304 | 4840795 | 2 }}
| 22,601
|{{Percentage | 22601 | 6047748 | 2 }}
|-
| [[Zoroastrianism]] [[File:Faravahar.svg|15px]]
| 3,841
|{{Percentage | 3841 | 4840795 | 2 }}
| 5,046
|{{Percentage | 5046 | 6047748 | 2 }}
|-
| [[Jainism]] [[File:Jain Prateek Chihna.svg|15px]]
| 3,687
|{{Percentage | 3687 | 4840795 | 2 }}
| {{N/a}}
| {{N/a}}
|-
| [[Judaism]] [[File:Star of David.svg|15px]]
| 1,082
|{{Percentage | 1082 | 4840795 | 2 }}
| {{N/a}}
| {{N/a}}
|-
| [[Buddhism]] [[File:Dharma Wheel (2).svg|15px]]
| 111
|{{Percentage | 111 | 4840795 | 3 }}
| 670
|{{Percentage | 670 | 6047748 | 2 }}
|-
| Others
| 0
|{{Percentage | 0 | 4840795 | 2 }}
| 1,226
|{{Percentage | 1226 | 6047748 | 2 }}
|-
! Total Population
! 4,840,795
!{{Percentage | 4840795 | 4840795 | 2 }}
! 6,047,748
!{{Percentage | 6047748 | 6047748 | 2 }}
|}
===Gujarat===
Line 630 ⟶ 694:
| {{Percentage | 137096 | 1744072 | 2 }}
|-
| [[Jainism]] [[File:
| 11,287
| {{Percentage | 11287 | 917939 | 2 }}
Line 642 ⟶ 706:
| {{Percentage | 164 | 1744072 | 2 }}
|-
| [[Buddhism]] [[File:
| 150
| {{Percentage | 150 | 917939 | 2 }}
Line 648 ⟶ 712:
| {{Percentage | 503 | 1744072 | 2 }}
|-
| [[Judaism]] [[File:
| 55
| {{Percentage | 55 | 917939 | 2 }}
Line 691 ⟶ 755:
According to the [[1951 Census of India]], 2% of India's population were refugees (1.3% from [[West Pakistan]] and 0.7% from [[East Pakistan]]).
The majority of Hindu and Sikh Punjabi refugees from [[West Punjab]] were settled in
Hindus [[East Bengali refugees|fleeing from East Pakistan]] (now [[Bangladesh]]) were settled across [[East India|Eastern]], [[Central India|Central]] and [[Northeast India|Northeastern India]], many ending up in neighbouring Indian states such as [[West Bengal]], [[Assam]], and [[Tripura]]. Substantial number of refugees were also settled in [[Madhya Pradesh]] (incl. [[Chhattisgarh]]) [[Bihar]] (incl. [[Jharkhand]]), [[Odisha]] and [[Andaman islands]] (where Bengalis today form the largest linguistic group)<ref>{{cite news |title=Meet the Bengali refugees who now dominate businesses, farms in Chhattisgarh's tribal belt |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/meet-the-bengali-refugees-who-now-dominate-businesses-farms-in-chhattisgarhs-tribal-belt/articleshow/73362371.cms |work=Economic Times |date=19 January 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/over-1cr-bengali-refugees-living-outside-bengal/articleshow/67348291.cms|title=Over 1 crore Bengali refugees living outside Benga|date=2 January 2019|work=The Times of India|access-date=1 August 2021|archive-date=5 June 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210605133643/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/over-1cr-bengali-refugees-living-outside-bengal/articleshow/67348291.cms|url-status=live}}</ref>
Sindhi Hindus settled predominantly in [[Gujarat]], [[Maharashtra]], and [[Rajasthan]]. Substantial numbers, however, were also settled in [[Madhya Pradesh]], A few also settled in
Substantial communities of Hindu Gujarati and Marathi Refugees who had lived in the cities of Sindh and [[Saraikistan|Southern Punjab]] were also resettled in
A small community of Pashtun Hindus from [[Loralai]], [[Balochistan]] was also settled
====Refugee camps====
Line 857 ⟶ 921:
In 1959, the [[International Labour Organization]] (ILO) published a report stating that from 1951 to 1956, a total of 650,000 Muslims from India relocated to West Pakistan.<ref name="Khalidi"/> However, Visaria (1969) raised doubts about the authenticity of the claims about Indian Muslim migration to Pakistan, since the 1961 Census of Pakistan did not corroborate these figures. However, the [[1961 Pakistan Census|1961 Census of Pakistan]] did incorporate a statement suggesting that there had been a migration of 800,000 people from India to Pakistan throughout the previous decade.<ref name="lse.ac.uk">{{Cite web |url=http://www.lse.ac.uk/asiaResearchCentre/_files/ARCWP04-Karim.pdf |title=Effects of Migration, Socioeconomic Status and Population Policy on Reproductive Behaviour |access-date=15 January 2016 |archive-date=27 January 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160127011533/http://www.lse.ac.uk/asiaResearchCentre/_files/ARCWP04-Karim.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> Of those who left for Pakistan, most never came back.{{citation needed|date=July 2023}}
Indian Muslim migration to Pakistan declined drastically in the 1970s, a trend noticed by the Pakistani authorities. In June 1995,
In the aftermath of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, 3,500 Muslim families migrated from the Indian part of the [[Thar Desert]] to the Pakistani section of the Thar Desert.<ref name="Hasan2009">Hasan, Arif; Mansoor, Raza (2009). ''Migration and Small Towns in Pakistan; Volume 15 of Rural-urban interactions and livelihood strategies are working paper''. IIED. p. 16. {{ISBN|978-1-84369-734-3}}.</ref> 400 families were settled in Nagar after the 1965 war and an additional 3000 settled in the [[Chachro Taluka|Chachro taluka]] in Sindh province of West Pakistan.<ref name="Hasan, Arif 1987 p. 25">Hasan, Arif (30 December 1987). "Comprehensive assessment of drought and famine in Sind arid ones leading to a realistic short and long-term emergency intervention plan" (PDF). p. 25. Retrieved 12 January 2016.</ref> The government of Pakistan provided each family with 12 acres of land. According to government records, this land totalled 42,000 acres.<ref name="Hasan, Arif 1987 p. 25"/>
Line 925 ⟶ 989:
[[File:Partition of India.PNG|thumb|upright=1.2|Four nations ([[Dominion of India]], [[Dominion of Pakistan]], [[Dominion of Ceylon]], and [[Union of Burma]]) that gained independence in 1947 and 1948]]
When the 2017 film [[Viceroy's House (film)|Viceroy's House]] was being made, pertaining to Partition, Britain's [[Charles III|then-Prince Charles]], who is a great-nephew of Mountbatten, recommended the book ''The Shadow of the Great Game: The Untold Story of India's Partition'' to the filmmaker. The book argues that Mountbatten had been used by the British establishment, which had long sought Partition to maintain a strategic base in northwestern South Asia that could guard British interests in the Middle East and check Soviet advances (see also [[Great Game#On India]]).<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thorpe |first=Vanessa |date=2017-01-16 |title=A British film with a Punjabi heart: director's personal take on partition |url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/jan/16/viceroys-house-tells-bloody-truth-of-partition |access-date=2024-09-13 |work=The Observer |language=en-GB |issn=0029-7712}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-09-01 |title=How Prince Charles influenced Gurinder Chadha's film on the Partition of India and Pakistan |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/how-prince-charles-influenced-gurinder-chadha-s-new-film-partition-n798216 |access-date=2024-09-13 |website=NBC News |language=en}}</ref>
Venkat Dhulipala rejects the idea that the British [[divide and rule]] policy was responsible for partition and elaborates on the perspective that Pakistan was popularly imagined as a sovereign Islamic state or a 'New Medina', as a potential successor to the defunct Turkish caliphate<ref name="The Express Tribune">{{Cite news|url=https://tribune.com.pk/story/943379/was-pakistan-sufficiently-imagined-before-independence/|title=Was Pakistan sufficiently imagined before independence?|date=23 August 2015|work=The Express Tribune|access-date=8 March 2017|archive-date=8 March 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170308145112/https://tribune.com.pk/story/943379/was-pakistan-sufficiently-imagined-before-independence/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="scroll28Jun2016" /> and as a leader and protector of the entire Islamic world. Islamic scholars debated over creating Pakistan and its potential to become a true Islamic state.<ref name="The Express Tribune" /><ref name="scroll28Jun2016">{{Cite news|url=https://scroll.in/article/810132/the-venkat-dhulipala-interview-on-the-partition-issue-jinnah-and-ambedkar-were-on-the-same-page|title=The Venkat Dhulipala interview: 'On the Partition issue, Jinnah and Ambedkar were on the same page'|last=Ashraf|first=Ajaz|work=Scroll.in|access-date=8 March 2017|archive-date=5 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161205112539/http://scroll.in/article/810132/the-venkat-dhulipala-interview-on-the-partition-issue-jinnah-and-ambedkar-were-on-the-same-page|url-status=live}}</ref> The majority of Barelvis supported the creation of Pakistan<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nzivCgAAQBAJ&q=barelvi+ulema+pakistan+movement&pg=PA167|title=State and Nation-Building in Pakistan: Beyond Islam and Security|last1=Long|first1=Roger D.|last2=Singh|first2=Gurharpal|last3=Samad|first3=Yunas|last4=Talbot|first4=Ian|publisher=Routledge|year=2015|isbn=978-1317448204|page=167|quote=In the 1940s a solid majority of the Barelvis were supporters of the Pakistan Movement and played a supporting role in its final phase (1940–7), mostly under the banner of the All-India Sunni Conference which had been founded in 1925.|access-date=18 November 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XfI-hEI8a9wC&q=Barelvi+ulama+1946+elections&pg=PA87|title=Pakistan: The Struggle Within|last=John|first=Wilson|publisher=Pearson Education India|year=2009|isbn=978-8131725047|page=87|quote=During the 1946 election, Barelvi Ulama issued fatwas in favour of the Muslim League.|access-date=18 November 2020|archive-date=24 April 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220424215714/https://books.google.com/books?id=XfI-hEI8a9wC&q=Barelvi+ulama+1946+elections&pg=PA87|url-status=live}}</ref> and believed that any co-operation with Hindus would be counterproductive.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WgFeAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA135|title=The Awakening of Muslim Democracy: Religion, Modernity, and the State|last=Cesari|first=Jocelyne|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2014|isbn=978-1107513297|page=135|quote=For example, the Barelvi ulama supported the formation of the state of Pakistan and thought that any alliance with Hindus (such as that between the Indian National Congress and the Jamiat ulama-I-Hind [JUH]) was counterproductive.|access-date=7 September 2017}}</ref> Most Deobandis, who were led by Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, [[Opposition to the partition of India|were opposed to the creation of Pakistan]] and the two-nation theory. According to them Muslims and Hindus could be a part of a single nation.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Q9sI_Y2CKAcC&pg=PA224|title=A History of Pakistan and Its Origins|last=Jaffrelot|first=Christophe|publisher=Anthem Press|year=2004|isbn=978-1843311492|page=224|quote=Believing that Islam was a universal religion, the Deobandi advocated a notion of a composite nationalism according to which Hindus and Muslims constituted one nation.|access-date=7 September 2017}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KPKoCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA26|title=Indian Muslims and Citizenship: Spaces for Jihād in Everyday Life|last=Abdelhalim|first=Julten|publisher=Routledge|year=2015|isbn=978-1317508755|page=26|quote=Madani...stressed the difference between ''qaum'', meaning a nation, hence a territorial concept, and ''millat'', meaning an Ummah and thus a religious concept.|access-date=7 September 2017}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7-tWCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA52|title=Living with Religious Diversity|last=Sikka|first=Sonia|publisher=Routledge|year=2015|isbn=978-1317370994|page=52|quote=Madani makes a crucial distinction between ''qaum'' and ''millat''. According to him, qaum connotes a territorial multi-religious entity, while millat refers to the cultural, social and religious unity of Muslims exclusively.|access-date=7 September 2017}}</ref>
In their authoritative study of the partition, Ian Talbot and Gurharpal Singh have said that the partition was not the inevitable end of the so-called British 'divide and rule policy' nor was it the inevitable end of Hindu-Muslim differences.<ref>Jayeeta Sharma (2010) A Review of "The Partition of India," History: Reviews of New Books, 39:1, 26–27, {{doi|10.1080/03612759.2011.520189}}</ref>
Line 932 ⟶ 998:
==Documentation efforts, oral history and legacy==
In 2010, a [[Berkeley, California]] and
In August 2017, The Arts and Cultural Heritage Trust (TAACHT) of United Kingdom set up what they describe as "the world's first [[Partition Museum]]" at Town Hall in [[Amritsar]], Punjab. The Museum, which is open from Tuesday to Sunday, offers [[multimedia]] exhibits and documents that describe both the political process that led to partition and carried it forward, and video and written narratives offered by survivors of the events.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/partition-museum-1029593-2017-08-15 |title=Worlds first Partition Museum to be inaugurated in Amritsar, Gulzar's book to be launched |date=15 August 2017 |access-date=4 July 2021 |archive-date=9 July 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210709185858/https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/partition-museum-1029593-2017-08-15 |url-status=live }}</ref>
Line 939 ⟶ 1,005:
On 14 August 2021, Indian Prime Minister [[Narendra Modi]] announced ''Partition Horrors Remembrance Day'' to remind the nation of the sufferings of the Indians during the partition. This move was criticised by the [[Indian National Congress|Congress]] with [[Jairam Ramesh]] saying that the day has been conceptualised with biased intent and its aim is to use traumatic events as "fodder" for Modi's current political fights.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/bjp-congress-cross-swords-on-horrors-of-partition-genesis-of-1947-tragedy/articleshow/93562916.cms | title=BJP & Congress cross swords on horrors of Partition, genesis of 1947 tragedy | newspaper=The Times of India | date=15 August 2022 }}</ref>
===Artistic depictions of the partition===
{{main|Artistic depictions of the Partition of India}}
Line 955 ⟶ 1,022:
* ''[[Cracking India|Ice-Candy Man]]'' (1988) by [[Bapsi Sidhwa]]
* What the Body Remembers (1999) by [[Shauna Singh Baldwin]]
* ''Forgotten Atrocities'' (2012),
[[Salman Rushdie]]'s novel ''[[Midnight's Children]]'' (1980), which won the [[Booker Prize]] and [[The Best of the Booker]], wove its narrative based on the children born with magical abilities on midnight between 14 and 15 August 1947.<ref name="Roy2011" /> ''[[Freedom at Midnight]]'' (1975) is a non-fiction work by [[Larry Collins (writer)|Larry Collins]] and [[Dominique Lapierre]] that chronicled the events surrounding the first [[Independence Day (India)|Independence Day]] celebrations in 1947.
Line 990 ⟶ 1,057:
The biographical films ''[[Gandhi (film)|Gandhi]]'' (1982), ''[[Jinnah (film)|Jinnah]]'' (1998), ''[[Sardar (1993 film)|Sardar]]'' (1993), and ''[[Bhaag Milkha Bhaag]]'' (2013) also feature independence and partition as significant events in their screenplay.
* The Pakistani drama ''[[Dastaan (2010 TV series)|Dastaan]]'', based on the novel ''[[Bano (novel)|Bano]]'', highlights the plight of Muslim girls who were abducted and raped during partition.
* The 2013
* The partition is also depicted in the
* "[[Demons of the Punjab]]", a 2018 episode of British sci-fi show ''[[Doctor Who]]'', depicts the events of the partition from the perspective of a family torn apart by their religious differences.
* The [[Disney+]] television series ''[[Ms. Marvel (miniseries)|Ms. Marvel]]'' (2022) depicts a fictional version of the partition, from the perspective of a Muslim family fleeing to Pakistan.
Line 998 ⟶ 1,065:
The early members of the [[Bombay Progressive Artists' Group|Bombay Progressive Artist's Group]] cited the partition as a key reason for its founding in December 1947. Those members included [[F. N. Souza]], [[M. F. Husain]], [[S. H. Raza]], [[Sadanand Bakre|S. K. Bakre]], [[H. A. Gade]], and [[K. H. Ara]], who went on to become some of the most important and influential Indian artists of the 20th century.<ref>{{cite web|date=12 May 2012|title=Progressive Artists Group of Bombay: An Overview|url=http://www.artnewsnviews.com/view-article.php?article=progressive-artists-group-of-bombay-an-overview&iid=29&articleid=800|url-status=usurped|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131214145023/http://www.artnewsnviews.com/view-article.php?article=progressive-artists-group-of-bombay-an-overview&iid=29&articleid=800|archive-date=14 December 2013|access-date=18 November 2017|publisher=Artnewsnviews.com}}</ref>
Contemporary Indian artists that have made significant artworks about the partition are [[Nalini Malani]], [[Anjolie Ela Menon]], [[Satish Gujral]], [[Nilima Sheikh]], [[Arpita Singh]], [[Krishen Khanna]], Pran Nath Mago, S. L. Parasher, [[Arpana Caur]], Tayeba Begum Lipi, Mahbubur Rahman, Promotesh D Pulak, and [[Pritika Chowdhry]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=Storey|first=Thomas|date=7 August 2013|title=Traversing Boundaries: Five Bangladeshi Artists Question the Legacy of Partition|url=https://theculturetrip.com/asia/bangladesh/articles/traversing-boundaries-five-bangladeshi-artists-question-the-legacy-of-partition/|access-date=8 January 2022|website=Culture Trip|archive-date=8 January 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220108042614/https://theculturetrip.com/asia/bangladesh/articles/traversing-boundaries-five-bangladeshi-artists-question-the-legacy-of-partition/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Micieli-Voutsinas|first=Jacque|date=2013|title="Subaltern" Remembrances: Mapping Affective Approaches to Partition Memory|journal=Social Transformations: Journal of the Global South|language=en|volume=1|issue=1|pages=27–58|doi=10.13185/ST2013.01103|doi-broken-date=
[[Project Dastaan]] is a peace-building initiative that reconnects displaced refugees of the partition in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh with their childhood communities and villages through [[virtual reality]] digital experiences.{{
Artist Bindu Mehra has made digital films depicting lived memories of the partition, including ''The Inaccessible Narrative.''<ref>{{Cite news |title=Artist Bindu Mehra on retelling stories in different voices |url=https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/features/artist-bindu-mehra-on-retelling-stories-in-different-voices-534590 |work=The Tribune}}</ref>
Line 1,125 ⟶ 1,192:
* {{citation | last1 = Talbot | first1 = Ian | year = 1994 | title = Planning for Pakistan: The Planning Committee of the All-India Muslim League, 1943–46| journal = Modern Asian Studies | volume = 28 | issue = 4| pages = 875–889 | doi=10.1017/s0026749x00012567| s2cid = 145250631 }}
* {{citation | last1 = Visaria | first1 = Pravin M | year = 1969 | title = Migration Between India and Pakistan, 1951–61| journal = Demography | volume = 6 | issue = 3| pages = 323–334 | doi=10.2307/2060400| pmid = 21331852 | jstor = 2060400 | s2cid = 23272586 | doi-access = free }}
; Primary sources
Line 1,163 ⟶ 1,229:
-->
{{
}}
* [http://www.1947partitionarchive.org 1947 Partition Archive]
* [https://www.britannica.com/event/Partition-of-Bengal Partition of Bengal] – [[Encyclopædia Britannica]]
| |||