Why did the Partition of India take place?

[MKF]

Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?

@Abhiman

Well, as I have shown by refering Pakistani and Bangladeshi historical material earlier, the Muslim majority states were ruled by Muslim parties (not necessarily ML), whereas Congress ruled Hindu-majority states.

MKF, even if the Muslims in Congress-ruled states were badly treated (as you claim), then the Muslims in ML or Muslim ruled states were in a majority and were pretty-well treated. So why did only ML demand partition and the other muslim parties were silent ? The obvious answer is to wrest power from other muslim parties and gain lost ground. .

No. The other parties were congress collaborators for cheap bucks and maintaining their power. It was not idea of a muslim homeland that galvanized muslims under ML. It was general attitude of hindus in power that did so. you still cannot explain the sudden change of heart in favor of ML from regional power brokers.

@Abhiman

Also, I can also make the claim that Hindus were very badly treated in Muslim majority states considering the actions of Suhrawardy in Bengal during Direct Action Day (Noakhali, et. al). .

Abhiman, it is not tit for tat discussion, no where they were treated wrongly, if some riots errupted on direct action day, you cannot compare it with systematic ethnic supression policies of congressional governments.

@Abhiman

Anyways, the idea of Pakistan/separation was germinated long back in the 1920s and 1930s and widely circulated (Iqbal and Jinnah were pretty well-known even then). *Its got nothing to do with Congress ruled Hindu-majority states where muslims were treated "badly" *. .

Than go further behind, if you talk about ideas, Sir Syed said in 1867 on urdu-hindi riots that i do not feel that these nations will be able to live together from now on. Man idea is something else and mass popularity is something else. who says that Muslims were not wary of congress getting power in centre after departure of british. That is why all the political process went on from simon comission to cabinet mission. Muslims only wanted constitutional guarentees, which hindus in congress were never ready to give. so there was lack of trust. but the first governments under congress ensured that all the paranoia about hindu leadership being highly intolearnt to muslims is real and get the acts together before it is too late.

@Abhiman

But in 1940, ML took on the British to demand a sepatae country for the muslims which was radical and took the Muslim electorate by storm. This won ML, 99% of the Muslim seats. .

Yaar, it is not that easy to sell an idea like this that too by a person who was so unlike the ones who were following him. Ghandee jee was wearing a traditional attire, he seemed liek a common man, but Jinnah was simply a modern british styled person. if masses trusted him was because he was the only one who took congress by the horns, he has the guts to say something once people said that it is a dream of a mad man. He showed the world that if you do committed and principled politics, every thing is possible.

@Abhiman

Circumstantial evidence shows that it was more due to taste power rather than muslim emancipation, for it was very well-known that Jinnah was practically a non-practising Muslim. He has been recorded to consume foods prohibited in Islam, and married a non-Muslim. .

As i said earliler, why then muslims trusted such a non-muslim looking muslim over there abul kalam azad type people. because they trusted him that he will never sell them to congress like these azad and ghulam types. It is not that easy to develop such a trust. People were worried and he was the one who defined what is the solution to their problems. where is your circumstantial evidence and where has ML tasted power which went to its head?

@Abhiman

It is also a myth that the Congress was a party of only Hindus. It also had a number of prominent Muslims like Saifuddin Kitchlew, Asaf Ali and Aruna Ali (his Hindu wife), Maulana Abul Azad (President of the Congress several times till 1946) and Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan till the end, and a few others who passed away in the 1930s. .

Showmen as said by Jinnah about them, you still can find some naqvi's in BJP who is responsible for carnage in Gujrat. Money makes the mare go!!!

@Abhiman

In 1922, the Congress adopted Iqbal's "Sare Jahaan se achcha..." as the National Anthem while rejecting Vande Mataram because it would hurt muslim sentiments. As I pointed earlier, the 2 stanzas in which Hindu-goddesses were invoked were dropped in 1937 and has remained so ever since then. .

and i said that good job done

@Abhiman

The last minute U-turn from Congress as well as ML on the Cabinet mission Plan is not an indication that Congress partitioned the country. Congress opposed communal electorates of the CM Plan---something which it had been doing since Jinnah's 14-point plan in 1927..

It seems that you only read the official history, 1927 was the simon comission, 14 points were given in 1929 and no sir, congress had accepted separate electorates in 1916 in Lukhnow pact with 33% seats. It took a u-turn in Nehru report where it though accepted separate electorates but gave only 25% seats which were not acceptable. it was not against separate electorates but the debate was about percentage of representation

@Abhiman

Also, the mayhem of Direct Action Day (let's not debate who started first) convinced the Congress that a united but fractured dominion will lead to Civil-war for sure. It would not have been Hindu-sided because Muslims of present-day Pakistan and Bengal were a sizeable number though numerically inferior. .

Direct action day is mayhem than what were the carnage of urissa and bihar?

@Abhiman

As to why ML accepted it, I don't know given that a separate Islamic country of Pakistan was their core political ideology and because of which they had won all elections. .

here is the catch. you must understand that Pakistan could not have been solution to all the problems of Muslims but it was a partial solution because since Nehru report congress was not ready to accept Muslim demands and was hell bent on enforcing her will. Why ML accepted was because it was exact manifestation of its 14 points and would have given benefit to all the Muslims of India. You see congress was not ready to give even autonomy to muslims in the plan. there was nothing wrong in the plan. it was only giving autonomy to groups of provinces and congress was simply wanting to subjugate muslims.

@Abhiman

This is not to say that I condemn Jinnah. I appreciate that he was Bhagat Singh's lawyer (what was Congress doing ?). Finally I think that partition was necessary as civil-war would have erupted between the Muslims and Hindus.

Carnage erupted because of partition in haste prompted by congress as she thinked that tehy can bend Pakistan to its knees and make it a failed state. And it was not civil war but a delibrate attempt to punish muslims who succeeded in obtaining a separate homeland.

Abhiman, lets finish this debate here as i assumed that it is going no further. it was an intellectual excercise sans emotional attachment for me. i just quoted history and explained the events retrospectively. It is any body's choice to accept or not.