The Partition of India and Pakistan
Livvi Hatfield, Hawker College, 2011
This essay was written as part of the Liberators and Revolutionaries unit at Hawker College,
Semester 2, 2011. It is a response to the following task. “Now that Muslims and Hindus were actively
making plans for a future in which the British were expected to disappear from the seat of power, all
the antagonism between the two religious persuasions flared up.” (Mabbett 968, p.185). What were
some of the key factors that led to the creation of the separate independent states of India and
Pakistan?
The partition of India into the two independent states of India and Pakistan in 1947 was the result of
many years of religious antagonism, political conflict and evolving societal pressures. The ratio of
Hindus to Muslims in India had always been in favour of Hindus, which was often felt as a threat to
the Muslim minority. Indian National Congress foresaw the possible implications of this religious
divide, but each action made by Congress in an attempt to alleviate the situation seemed only to
exacerbate Muslim unrest. The Muslim population in India was not evenly spread throughout the
nation; there were heavy Islamic concentrations in particular regions, where Muslims were in fact the
majority. These regions, after much unrest, political dissatisfaction and fear of oppression, were the
areas which became known as West and East Pakistan following the partition.
Arguably the first step towards the formation of Pakistan was taken in the wake of Sayyid Ahmed
Khan; a Muslim of a Mughal family, who rose to an unofficial position as the leader of Indian Islam
in his lifetime (Spear 1965, p.225). The Sayyid, as he was known, championed ‘Muslim modernism’,
teaching young Muslims the importance of positive relations with the western world. This movement
steadily grew momentum until the formation of the Indian National Congress, which the Sayyid
opposed. The Congress was designed to unite all of India under independent rule, but the Sayyid
refused to join the cause as he was concerned by the fact that Muslims, as a minority to Hindus in
India, would be misrepresented, if at all, in an independent government.
“A democratic regime, said the Sayyid, means majority rule, and majority rule in India
would mean Hindu rule. Therefore the British cannot be dispensed with and Muslims should
concentrate on fitting themselves to take that place in the state which their numbers justified.”
(Spear 1965, p224)
The Sayyid was aware, and increased popular awareness, of the implications of an independent India.
The Muslim population, very much the minority in India, were faced with two main options; British
rule or Hindu rule. The Sayyid could not solve this problem for his people, but his role was integral to
the changing of Muslim values and objectives, and he influenced the design of the Muslim League.
The creation of the All Indian Muslim League would eventually lead to a third option for the Muslim
population; the partition. However, the League originally sought mainly to promote peace between
Muslims and the political leaders. The League was formed with three main objectives.
“1. To inculcate among Muslims a feeling of loyalty to the government and to disabuse their
minds of misunderstandings and misconceptions of its actions and intentions.
2. To protect and advance the political rights and interests of the Muslims of India and to
represent their needs and aspirations to the government from time to time.
3. To prevent the growth of ill will between Muslims and other nationalities without
compromising to its own purposes.” (‘Establishment of All India Muslim League’, 1906)
Livvi Hatfield, 0636396
1
These objectives demonstrated the Muslim League’s dedication to the well-being and adequate
representation of Muslims, but also a desire for peaceful relations and positive political affairs. These
goals seemed achievable through the Lucknow Pact of 1916, as the Muslim League and the Indian
National Congress met together for the first time, and agreed upon new legislation. The pact detailed
several clauses which called for a minimum of one third Muslim representation in the central
government, among other issues regarding electorates and fair representation (The Lucknow Pact,
1916). This was an attempt to dispel unrest and dissatisfaction among the Muslim population and to
unite India under self-government, which was the first clause of the pact. This political harmony
between Hindus and Muslims broke down after eight years, but the very fact that the National
Congress was willing to recognise the Muslim League and the need for some degree of separation
allowed the possibility of partition to grow.
As India moved towards independence, the issue of who would possess this independent power arose.
The British Secretary of State for India was gradually replaced by the Indian National Congress,
which sought a diplomatic solution to the benefit of all Indians (Mabbett, 1968, 177-178). Old issues
of religion sparked up immediately, however, and the divide between Hindus and Muslims was
enhanced. Leaders such as Mohandas Ghandi and Jawaharlal Nehru saw the necessity of peaceful
unity between the two religions, and it was under their influence that congress sought to soothe some
of the religious unrest.
“[...] it was made a rule that it [congress] should make pronouncements only on matters
about which most members agreed. This meant, for example, that nothing should be said
about matters on which Hindus and Muslims disagreed.” (Mabbett 1968, p179)
Although in the creation of this rule congress were attempting to avoid conflict and argument, by
providing no clear statements on such an important issue, the Muslim community saw the need to
form a system which could better represent them politically. The All India Muslim League, under the
leadership of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, was re-organised and grew increasingly popular amongst
Muslims. The revitalised League was Jinnah’s answer to Congress. They began making demands in
the interest of the minority; Muslims who had felt until then that they had no voice in politics (Spear,
1965, 228-289). Jinnah and the Muslim League campaigned for the Pakistan solution; the separation
of India into two separate, independently run states, allowing Hindu-dominated India to have Hindu
rule and the Muslim-dominated areas in the north of India to become Pakistan, under Muslim rule.
Partition was a solution which neither the Indian Congress nor the British Cabinet were originally
pleased with, as both sought a united India under single leadership. However, the British cabinet in
particular anticipated the potentially violent and destructive result which may have occurred if the
Muslim League’s proposal was answered with flat rejection.
“This feeling has become so strong and widespread amongst the Muslims that it cannot be
allayed by mere paper safeguards. If there is to be internal peace in India it must be secured
by measures which will assure to the Muslims a control in all matters vital to their culture,
religion, and economic or other interests. We therefore examined in the first instance the
question of a separate and fully independent sovereign state of Pakistan as claimed by the
Muslim League.” (Statement by the Cabinet Mission and his Excellency the Viceroy, 1946)
It was clear that the Muslim community wanted action; that they, as the minority, were concerned
over issues of political representation and that they were largely supportive of the Muslim League’s
proposal. This is not to say that all Muslims were in favour of the plan, but as demonstrated under the
Lucknow Pact and in later elections, there was great support for the League among the Muslim
population, who were willing to vote for League representation (Mabbett, p.208). As leader of the
Muslim League, Jinnah campaigned and negotiated until the British government saw no other
solution, and India gained independence and partition in 1947 (Mabbett, op. cit., 212). Upon the
creation of Pakistan, Jinnah was appointed Governor-General of the country, which although it was
divided into East and West, existed as one country.
Livvi Hatfield, 0636396
2
“We should have a state in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could
develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice
could find free play.” (Jinnah 1947 in Shamshad 2011)
This speech, made by Jinnah just months after the separation of Pakistan and India, reflects the
general Muslim opinion of the time and reveals how seemingly inevitable the separation was between
the two religions who shared such a controversial history.
The separate states of India and Pakistan were created after a long and complicated struggle between
Hindus, Muslims and the British. The partition was not solely a religious matter, nor solely political.
There was no one person who caused it, nor one single event. The Muslim population of India grew
concerned as the idea of Indian independence grew realistic, as the Hindu majority would almost
certainly gain control. Although steps were taken, particularly through the Lucknow Pact and the
attempted cooperation of the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, unity between the two
religions and political parties was unrealistic at the time. The separation of Pakistan and India was not
ideal from the British point-of-view, and was directly opposed by the Indian Congress, but while India
was in upheaval, a decision had to be made. The Muslim League was heavily in favour of forming
East and West Pakistan under Muslim rule and maintaining India under Hindu rule, and as this made
sense geographically, socially, religiously and politically, the decision was made.
Annotated Bibliography
'Establishment of All India Muslim League', 1906 in Enterprise Team (2003). Accessed on September
21, 2011 from http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A031&Pg=2.
This source was brief and very specific, but I found it very helpful in that respect. As it only dealt
with one specific topic, I was able to quickly assess how useful it would be and had easy access to the
information. The source seems potentially biased in favour of the Muslim cause, or at least the
separation of Pakistan. It does acknowledge theories of conspiracy against the Muslim League, but
deliberately cites these as coming from Hindu or British sources. However, I only required a small
point of information regarding the 3 main objectives of the League, so the rest of the source was only
useful for context.
The Lucknow Pact 1916. Accessed on September 21, 2011 from
http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A032&Pg=2.
I found this source very helpful to my research, as it was very specific and well set-out. From the
same website as the source above, it is to be expected that a similar bias is present, but also similarly
to the previous source, the bulk of my information was that of a list, which shows much less bias. This
source provided not only a list of the Lucknow Pact’s main clauses, but also a brief history of before
and after the pact was made, which provided great context and a greater understanding of the pact’s
strengths and weaknesses.
'Statement by the Cabinet Mission and his Excellency the Viceroy', 1946 in Halsall, Paul (ed.), Modern
History Sourcebook. Accessed on September 21, 2011 at
"http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1946-india-ukpolicy.html.
Livvi Hatfield, 0636396
3
This source was very helpful, as a primary source from the British perspective. As it was a copy of a
British government statement, the language used was at times quite formal and business-like, but the
message was clear and well-explained. As a primary source there is an obvious bias, but in this case
the bias is of particular importance and assistance in understanding the source. The bias provides great
insight into the British perspective on the topic of Indian independence and allows for greater
understanding of the situation which India was in.
Mabbet, Ian W. A Short History of India. North Melbourne: Cassell Australia Ltd., 1968.
The essay topic is formed around a quote, which can in fact be found in this book. This gave me the
chance to read the context within which the quote was written and to understand more of the author’s
opinion on the matter. Mabbett is clearly well-informed on the topic and expresses himself clearly.
The book, which is potentially overwhelming as a history of India as a whole, is divided into sections
and organised chronologically, which made it very easy to find related information.
Shamshad. Major Problems Facing Pakistan Today (part 7). 2011.
http://www.ilmkidunya.com/student_articles/major-problems-facing-pakistan-today-part-7.aspx
(accessed September 28, 2011).
I came across this source while searching for a specific quote of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, but the
source was very helpful as it was essentially a list of many quotes from Jinnah, arranged in a linear,
chronological fashion. Although I only quoted one of these in my essay, reading the other quotes
helped me gain a slightly broader understanding of Jinnah’s personality and values, particularly as I
read several quotes regarding women’s rights, which is an issue I had not previously known Jinnah
was involved in. This information was not directly useful for my assignment, but was appreciated
regardless. I was surprised by the lack of personal opinion expressed by the author of the website, as
there was virtually nothing said that was not a direct quote from Jinnah. However, the organisation of
the quotes made their meaning perfectly legible.
Spear, Percival. A History of India 2. Middlesex: Peguin Books Inc., 1965.
Spear’s work was highly useful to me, for quotes, specific understanding and also general context.
The precursor to this source, A History of India 1, also by Spear, was my original point of research,
although I found nothing of any relevance. It soon became clear that Spear had split his text into two
separate works, which allowed for greater detail in each volume. In this second volume I found an
entire chapter dedicated to the Pakistan Movement, which was the most useful of all my sources.
Spear detailed political and religious leaders who had impact on the issue well before the actual
division of India, and explained their involvement in a way that helped me see the flow-on effect
throughout the period.
Livvi Hatfield, 0636396
4