The partition of India was a deeply flawed process driven by perspectives that failed to consider the economic and cultural challenges that would inevitably arise from dividing a nation along religious lines. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, leader of the All Muslim League, advocated for the separation of two nations based on religion in his speech, “Two Nations”. His speech reflected his commitment to securing the best possible outcome for his people and how Muslims needed the separation to thrive. Jinnah discusses how the country will eventually fall apart as the two different religions living together will lead to destruction and problems (Document A). His perspective reflects a narrow focus on religious identity, ignoring the diverse cultural identities within India. Furthermore, the …show more content…
Specific factors Nehru discussed in his book to oppose Jinnah’s idea included how the Hindu economy would not be affected as much as the Muslim economy and how Jinnah needed to take into account what people would be affected the most (Document B). His critique extends beyond religious beliefs in his advocacy to address the economic problems and challenges associated with partition. The emphasis on the interconnectedness of India’s economy within the book underscores the flawed nature of partition and potential consequences that could arise from it. Mountbatten, as the British Viceroy of India, played an important role in overseeing the transfer of power and partition and was the one who approved of the idea. He reflected on the decision-making process from his own point of view. He further explains how if he knew Jinnah was dying, he wouldn’t have made partition happen and would have kept India unified, as Jinnah was the only one advocating for a separate nation so
What is pictured when someone thinks of India? Perhaps the manufactured goods, or diverse people. The truth is, however, that until India gained its independence in 1947, it was ruled entirely by British government. The British then proceeded to “improve” India, driving it into a deeper hole. Although British Imperialism in India had some positive effects, the overall political, economic, and social impacts were negative.
Thousands of years ago, Indian society developed into a complex system based on different classes. This system was known as the Caste System. It separated Indians into different castes based on what class were born into. As thousands of years went by, this system grew larger and became further complex (Wadley 189). This system caused frustration for the Indian citizens because they were receiving inequality. Not only did the inequality and separation of the Indian society frustrate the citizens of India, but the imperialism Britain had upon them as well. In the early 20th century, Indian nationalists wanted to take a stand against the British rule and make India independent. The British created unfair laws that created a nationalist movement
New York: St. Martin's, 1998. Print. The. Singh, Jaswant. Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence.
During the Cold War, many regional conflicts occurred and were noted as the significant battles which later led to decolonization. One of the regional conflicts were India and Pakistan fighting for their independence. In 1947, India was released under Great Britain’s control and gained its independence. However, the country was divided between Muslims and Hindus, which share different religions. Muslims wanted church and state to become unified while Hindus wanted a separation of these two establishments. Since these two ethnic groups disagreed, it was difficult to create a new government. Therefore, India was divided into two nations: India for the Hindus and Pakistan for the Muslims. Hindus and Muslims were racing to the border in order to get to their nation state which led to killing 500,000 people due to rioting. Although, Mohandas Gandhi, an Indian National Congressman, wanted to obtain peace between these two religions. Pakistan refused the H...
The Muslim league had strong sense of separatism, as well as religious conservative values which were reinforced by Muslim elitists including Jinnah
The Religious Conflict in South Asia It is a misconception to believe that there has always been conflict between Muslims and Hindu's. At one time, Muslims and Hindus would live together in peace even worshiping in the same building, a purely harmonious relationship. However the peace was not to last. In modern times the conflict it could be said is inevitable. In this essay I hope to look at the issues of conflict in South Asia focusing on India and in particular the continuing Hindu-Muslim tensions, and look at possible reasons for the continuing conflict which appears to have escalated since the withdrawal of British Rule from India.
India is the center of a very serious problem in the world today. It’s a very diverse place with people from many different religious backgrounds, who speak many different languages and come from many different regions. They are also separated economically. Two of the country’s religious sects, Muslims and Hindus, have been in conflict for hundreds of years. Their feelings of mistrust and hatred for each other are embedded in all those years and will not leave easily. What’s most disturbing is that there seems to be no plan for reconciliation available. There are numerous reasons for this conflict.
Within the context of the period 1847-1947 to what extent was Indian independence primarily the result of the growth of Indian nationalism?
Ruby Kaur May 10, 2014 Source 1 Ricardo Pollack is distinguished as a director because of the documentary, Partition: The Day India Burned (2007). The documentary itself discusses the detrimental consequences of the withdrawal of Britain's reign from India in 1947, which led to the forced relocation of men, women, and even children across newly defined border lines, along with violence, rape, and murder. The film makes its argument through dramatized reconstructions and witness testimonies, which offer personal insight into the horrors of the partition and conjure up feelings of sympathy and remorse. The film intends to make an educated public more aware of how an ethnically diverse nation was tragically divided and its effects on civilian lives. This is a secondary source with primary sources because it is based on witness testimonies and an actual historical event, but offers its own evaluation on the issue through dramatized reconstructions of the event.
Introduction In late 1947, the newly created states of India and Pakistan went to war over the valley of Kashmir. A United Nations brokered ceasefire divided the state into Indian and Pakistani controlled territories, and resolved that a referendum would be held in which the people of Kashmir would be able to choose to join either country. The referendum has not been held to date. India granted its portion of Kashmir a special status within its constitution, allowing for a great degree of self-autonomy.
"A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance." -Jawarhalal Nehru
The BJP insists India is a “Hindu Nation”, a principle leader of the party. BJP, L.K.Advani, goes so far as to suggest Sikh’s, Muslims and Christians. should be Mohammadi Hindus, Christian Hindus and Sikh Hindus. persisting and enhancing the Indian character of the state. Muslims find themselves accused of anti-Hindu acts whereby North India was.
...tween the Hindus and Muslims, Jinnah felt that Muslims had no future in India (Overfield 216). With the end of British rule in 1947, not only did India gain its independence but also along with it was born an other country, Pakistan where Jinnah served as the first governor (Overfield 216). With the gain of India’s independence, Gandhi was shot the following year in 1948 by a Hindu zealot who resented his commitment to Hindu – Muslim harmony (Overfield 212).
There are many different reasons why partition occurred. When the British oppressed India, they had a divide and conquer policy that exacerbated the religious and cultural rifts that already existed in the society. The Muslim League, believing in the ideology of “Pakistan” actively campaigned to gain more support from the Muslims in India, especially under the guidance of dynamic leaders like Jinnah. Pakistani leader and founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, believed that this partition was inevitable since, “‘[a] united India would never have worked’” (Komireddi 2009). He and others believed that a unified nation would only lead to marginalization of Muslims and, eventually, violence and civil war. The Indian National Congress also made many small decisions that convinced many members of the Muslim League that a unified India was not possible. In the end, there were several reasons for the birth of a separate Muslim homeland in the subcontinent, and all three parties — the British, Indian and Muslim elites played a major role.
We can start by recounting history, where the roots of the conflict lie. India was one massive nation made up of several states, ruled by the British. A long and difficult independence struggle culminated with the British choosing to leave India in August 1947. The Muslims of the land decided that instead of just a Free India, they would create a Free Pakistan for themselves as well. They were fearful that as a minority, the Hindu majority would trample their rights and religion. Both countries would be formed as soon as the British handed back control in August. The rulers of each individual state constituting India would chose which country to join, hopefully following the wishes of its people. This idea was fraught with problems. There were quite a few states that had a majority of one religion yet the ruler belonged to another faith. The states of Hyderabad and Junagarh were examples of this. Both had Hindu majorities and M...