The day the Indian nation was born. Although India has a rich pre-colonial history, no one quite knew how to transform it from an empire to a nation. Source: Wikimedia
As India’s independence became closer and surer, the issue was raised as to whether it could, in fact, function as a single nation. The then-colony was divided along religious lines, with a Hindu majority residing primarily in its southern and central regions and a Muslim minority concentrated in the north-west and north-east corners. While the possibility of partition had been discussed as early as 1933 (5), and was heavily advocated by the All-India Muslim League, it did not receive the full attention it deserved until near the end of WWII. As Indian independence became increasingly assured, the question of partition came to the forefront. It also became evident that the major political forces in India at the time differed strongly in their opinion regarding the idea of a partitioned India, and a consensus on the governance of post-British India seemed unlikely.

Religious majorities in colonial India Source: Wikimedia
By 1947, the planned transfer of power that would create Indian independence was less than six months away. Plans for independence with or without partition were hurriedly made and revised. In a letter dated 11 May 1947, Nehru replied to one such plan for partition presented by Viceroy Mountbatten. His strong opposition to the idea is evident in this letter. Nehru feared the balkanization of India, that partition would divide the country into many small, hostile states. This fear of hostility was well founded - the year before had seen the “Great Calcutta Killings,” three days of violent attacks between Hindus and Muslims that left 4,000 dead. Nehru, and much of Hindu India, wanted India to become independent as a single country, with talks of partition to occur afterward. This would theoretically create a more gradual transition and create greater unity between the separate resulting nations, were partition to occur. The Muslim League, on the other hand, sought to ensure that partition happened before independence. The opinions of both groups seemed reasonable given their position and perspective of the current situation. Ideally, it would have been great if the issue of partition could have been dealt with in not as rushed a manner, and more of a consensus could be reached by further agreements and negotiations between the Hindu and Muslim political groups, after India had gained its sovereignty. But at the same time, the fears of the Muslim groups was valid, in that the urgency of this issue might have been lost after independence and in a unified India self-determination of Muslims might be undermined.
Hindu and Muslim mobs fought throughout Calcutta in 1946. Source: Wikimedia
Sikhs migrating from Pakistan to India for protection in 1947. Soure; Wikipedia
Tensions and religious factions quickly escalated between the two groups and communal violence across the border took catastrophic forms. There were killings in thousands, and violent, gruesome acts like sending trains full of dead bodies across the border became disturbingly common. The repercussions of these widespread atrocities plagued the two nations for many years, and tensions simmered. The issue of Kashmir and its governance remained a point of contention, and even led to a full scale war between post-independence India and Pakistan. Having retrospect on our side now, one could argue that the partition of India led to disastrous and even unnecessary conflicts, death and destruction, and so, almost any other solution creating a unified India would have worked out better. But we need to keep in mind the situation as it was in 1947 and the years leading up to that, the mindset of the people, the general mood and the absolute want of complete freedom and self-determination coming out of an extended period of oppressive colonization. It is almost impossible to argue for possible alternatives, because even in a unified post-independence India, religious differences could have easily escalated and taken violent forms, leading to equally if not more, cataclysmic outcomes. It does not take away from the fact though, that hundreds of thousands of people died in the fire of the very independence that they fought for.
Sources:
1. Jeremy Adelman et al., World Together, Worlds Apart: A History of the World., ed. John Durbin (New York: Norton & Company, 2011).
2. "Lord Wavell's Letter to the Secretary of State for India concerning the breakdown of the Gandhi-Jinnah talks" (October 3, 1944) http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelpregion/asia/india/indianindependence/indiapakistan/partition2/index.html
3. "A Note by Nehru to Mountbatten on the partition of India" (May 11, 1947) http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelpregion/asia/india/indianindependence/indiapakistan/partition5/index.html
4. "Jinnah's Speech on the Partition" (June 3, 1947) http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelpregion/asia/india/indianindependence/indiapakistan/partition8/index.html
5. Choudhary Rahmat Ali, "Now or Never" (January 28, 1933) http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_rahmatali_1933.html
Image 1:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Brit_IndianEmpireReligions3.jpg
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder