"Four opinions about the partition of India"
Sage Publications
Summary:
"Independence for India and Pakistan in
1947 marked a decisive turning point in
modem history, the first stage in the
decolonisation of Asia and Africa over the
next decades. Today. 38 years on,
historians, ex-civil servants and politicians
of the period are still vigorously debating
how and why partition of British India
came about. Independence is a highly
sensitive topic, rousing emotions of anger,
sorrow, patriotism, pride, guilt. The
interpretation of events preceding the
establishment of two separate Dominions of
India and Pakistan has often been strained
by special pleading, by the repetition of
fixed ideas, or attempts to justify or
condemn decisions and policies of the past.
Hindsight has sometimes been a substitute
for original enquiry.
Independence brought keen disappointment, as well as fulfilment for the political
leaders. Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal
Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India,
were typical of Congress leaders in
believing passionately in India's unity. For
them, partition was a bitter blow, a
tragedy. For Jinnah and other Muslim
League leaders, the creation of Pakistan
was hardly what had been envisaged when
they, demanded a state for the Muslims of
India. It was a 'moth-eaten' Pakistan
because the two major provinces, Bengal
and Punjab, were divided between Pakistan
and India on the basis of religion'{— instead
of falling to Pakistan. Moreover, tens of
millions of Muslims remained in India.
Dreadful massacres in the Punjab and
Bengal hastened the process of exchange of
population, of Hindus and Sikhs out of
Pakistan, and of Muslims out of India.
Partition left a legacy of bitterness and
hatred which goes far to explain the bad
relations between the successor states —
India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
"
Link - bit.ly/3IsdYFd
Language:
English