Why did the Partition of India take place?

[Abhiman]

Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?

@MKF

Here is the catch in which wikipedia falls, there were no elections in 1940, They were held in 1937 & from 1937 -1939 Congressional governments were there in India in most of provinces and they took full vengeance from Muslims, books after books are written by scholars how badly Musalmaan’s of India were treated by those governments, how jobs were denied to them, education were systematicaly denied to children, Sudhi & shington type of movements were launched by fundamentalist Hindus.

I agree that I was mistaken previously and that elections were held in 1937. Well this is from a Pakistani site :
*
Congress, as the oldest, richest and best-organized political party, emerged as the single largest representative in the Legislative Assembles. Yet it failed to secure even 40 percent of the total number of seats. Out of the 1,771 total seats in the 11 provinces, Congress was only able to win slightly more then 750. Thus the results clearly disapproved Gandhi’s claim that his party represented 95 percent of the population of India. Its success, moreover, was mainly confined to the Hindu constituencies.

The Indian National Congress had a clear majority in Madras, U. P., C. P., Bihar and Orrisa. It was also able to form a coalition government in Bombay and N. W. F. P. Congress was also able to secure political importance in Sindh and Assam, where they joined the ruling coalition. Thus directly or indirectly, Congress was in power in nine out of eleven provinces

The Unionist Party of Sir Fazl-i-Hussain and Praja Krishak Party of Maulvi Fazl-i-Haq were able to form governments in Punjab and Bengal respectively, without the interference of Congress.
*
http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A042

So from this, Congress won in Hindu-majority provinces only and in Bengal and Punjab, there were fully Muslim coalition governments which did not include the ML.
Again, in the Hindu majority provinces like UP, ML won all the Muslim seats :

*The first elections held under the Government of India act 1935 saw Congress emerging as the majority party. It won 711 out of total of 1585 seats, and could form government in 5/11 provinces without the support of any party. Out of these 711 seats only 26 seats were Muslim seats, thereby increasing Congress`s reliance on local Hindu leaders, which allowed for their agenda to be imposed on the Congress.

Muslim League on the other hand did well on the Muslim seats in the Hindu Majority provinces winning 29 out of 35 seats in the UP. The league however couldn`t do well against the regional parties in Muslim Majority areas.*

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00002564&channel=civic%20center

Hence Muslim parties (though not ML) ruled Bengal and Punjab, and captured the muslim seats in UP.

So I don’t think there is any question of Hindu torture. Anyway, in his speeches, Jinnah did not mention about Muslim ill-treatment by Hindus; he simply re-iterated what Allama Iqbal said 10 years in 1930 that Hindus and Muslims are separate nations, they have separate ideologies, etc. and so forth. However now, he demanded a separate country called Pakistan and resolved to work towards it.

This won the ML almost all Muslim seats in the 1946 elections.

@MKF

Sorry, Wikipedia is wrong, i suggest that you open up Civil & Military Gazette of the times and also try to find Report sent to British Government by Viceroy Lord Wavell and you will realize that Muslims were massacred in those riots and hindus were solely responsible for them (like the train incident where they said that Muslims had burnt the train, now every one knows the fire came from Inside). It was ethnic cleansing and carnage nothing else.

Well any neutral source on the Noakhali massacres (now in Bangladesh) will tell that Hindus were ethnically cleansed from there.

About Calcutta, there were equal massacres, however, it was ruled by the ML and its Chief Minister was Suhrawardy.

Troubles started on the morning of the 16th August when League volunteers forced Hindu shopkeepers in North Calcutta to close their shops and Hindus retaliated by obstructing the passage of League’s processions. The League’s rally at Ochterloney Monument on that day was considered as the ‘largest ever Muslim assembly’. The Muslim League Chief Minister in his address reportedly assured the audience that the military and police had been ‘restrained’. This was interpreted by the gathering as an open invitation to commit violence on its rival community. The region most affected by the violence was the densely populated sector of the metropolis bounded by Bowbazar Street on the south, Upper Circular Road on the east, Vivekananda Road on the north and Strand Road on the west. Official estimate put the casualties at 4,000 dead and 100,000 injured in the riot. Only on the 22nd Calcutta became quiet except for some isolated killings.

Harun-or Rashid, The Foreshadowing of Bangladesh: Bengal Muslim League and Muslim Politics, 1936-1947, Dhaka, 1987; Suranjan Das, Communal Riots in Bengal 1905 - 1947, Delhi, 1991 & 1993.

http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/C_0019.htm

@MKF

Can you please quote from any authentic and neutral book, this is convoluted history.

That’s from P.N. Benjamin, “Prelude to Partition”, Deccan Herald. I got to know from this site (reference no. 4) :

Direct Action Day

Again, I don’t think Gandhiji ever said “Hindustan Chor do”, because he was against partition. He was assasinated just before he was about to leave for Pakistan to stop Hindu-Muslim riots.

If he did say that, you may cite a reference.

@MKF

This phrase means that Kashmir will be a part of Pakistan in future after settlement of dispute, positive thinking i may say, but you say Kashmir is India’s “Atoot Ung” in present tense before the dispute is settled and deny existence of any dispute while you accepted yourself in UN floor.

OK, it may well mean that. But Pakistan’s drafting of the AJK constitution does not imply that.

India too has offiially asked Pakistan on a number of times to consider the LoC as an international border. That was a deviation from the Atoot ang principle.

@MKF

Again Wikipedia probably Abhiman, please check some authentic source and let us know otherwise i will look for some neutral source and paste here. i wonder such a big thing is not known to such a well read Indian like you. Itr seems that Indian Government’s official history is extremely patchy & full of lies and half truths.

Actually that was not from wikipedia. I had a debate with another Pakistani member (I think it was roadrunner, but I’m not sure)on this very topic a few months ago. He produced 2 letters : One by the Dogra King Harisingh that was addressed to Mountbatten, and the second, which was Mountbatten’s reply. Harisingh had attached the Instrument of accession in his letter to Mountbatten. Then some 2 days later Mountbatten replied.