Partition of India: Difference between revisions

{{Use Indian English|date=July 2015}}

{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2021}}

| image_size = 260

| caption    = Prevailing religions of the British Raj (1901), the basis for the partition

| Date = 14–15 August 1947

| cause = [[Indian Independence Act 1947]]

| displaced = 10–20 million

}}

====Partition of Bengal: 1905====

{{main|Partition of Bengal (1905)}}

File:Hindu percent 1909.jpg|1909 percentage of Hindus.

File:Muslim percent 1909.jpg|1909 percentage of Muslims.

In 1905, during his second term as [[Governor-General of India|viceroy of India]], [[Lord Curzon]] divided the [[Bengal Presidency]]—the largest [[Administrative division|administrative subdivision]] in British India—into the Muslim-majority province of [[Eastern Bengal and Assam]] and the Hindu-majority province of [[Bengal]] (present-day Indian states of [[West Bengal]], [[Bihar]], [[Jharkhand]], and [[Odisha]]).<ref name="spear176">{{harvnb|Spear|1990|p=176}}</ref> Curzon's act, the [[Partition of Bengal (1905)|partition of Bengal]]—which had been contemplated by various colonial administrations since the time of [[Lord William Bentinck]], though never acted upon—was to transform [[Nationalism|nationalist]] politics as nothing else before it.<ref name="spear176" />

{{Main|Lucknow Pact}}

[[World War I]] would prove to be a watershed in the imperial relationship between Britain and India. 1.4 million Indian and British soldiers of the [[British Indian Army]] would take part in the war, and their participation would have a wider cultural fallout: news of Indian soldiers fighting and dying with British soldiers, as well as soldiers from [[dominion]]s like Canada and Australia, would travel to distant corners of the world both in newsprint and by the new medium of the radio.<ref name="brown-p197-198">{{harvnb|Brown|1994|pp=197–198}}</ref> India's international profile would thereby rise and would continue to rise during the 1920s.<ref name="brown-p197-198" /> It was to lead, among other things, to India, under its name, becoming a [[League of Nations members#1920: founder members|founding member]] of the [[League of Nations]] in 1920 and participating, under the name, "Les Indes Anglaises" (British India), in the [[1920 Summer Olympics]] in [[Antwerp]].<ref>[http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1920/1920.pdf Olympic Games Antwerp 1920: Official Report] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110505163318/http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1920/1920.pdf |date=5 May 2011 }}, Nombre de bations representees, p. 168. Quote: "31 Nations avaient accepté l'invitation du Comité Olympique Belge: ... la Grèce – la Hollande Les Indes Anglaises – l'Italie – le Japon ..."</ref> Back in India, especially among the leaders of the [[Indian National Congress]], it would lead to calls for greater self-government for Indians.<ref name="brown-p197-198" />

====Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms: 1919====

A greater number of Indians were now enfranchised, although, for voting at the national level, they constituted only 10% of the total adult male population, many of whom were still illiterate.<ref name="brown-p205-207" /> In the provincial legislatures, the British continued to exercise some control by setting aside seats for special interests they considered cooperative or useful. In particular, rural candidates, generally sympathetic to British rule and less confrontational, were assigned more seats than their urban counterparts.<ref name="brown-p205-207" /> Seats were also reserved for non-[[Brahmin]]s, landowners, businessmen, and college graduates. The principle of "communal representation," an integral part of the [[Minto-Morley Reforms]], and more recently of the Congress-Muslim League Lucknow Pact, was reaffirmed, with seats being reserved for [[Muslims]], [[Sikhs]], [[Christianity in India|Indian Christians]], [[Anglo-Indians]], and domiciled Europeans, in both provincial and imperial legislative councils.<ref name="brown-p205-207" /> The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms offered Indians the most significant opportunity yet for exercising legislative power, especially at the provincial level, though restricted by the still limited number of eligible voters, by the small budgets available to provincial legislatures, and by the presence of rural and special interest seats that were seen as instruments of British control.<ref name="brown-p205-207" />

{{main|Two-nation theory}}

  |author= Cenap Çakmak |date= 2017 |publisher= ABC-CLIO |page= 866 |isbn= 9781610692175

"[T]he Muslims are not Indians but foreigners or temporary guests—without any loyalty to the country or its cultural heritage—and should be driven out of the country ..."</ref><ref name="sankhdher1991">Sankhdher, M. M., and K. K. Wadhwa. 1991. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=bwGKAAAAMAAJ National unity and religious minorities]''. Gitanjali Publishing House. {{ISBN|978-81-85060-36-1}}.

Opposition to the theory has come from two sources. The first is the concept of a [[Greater India|single Indian nation]], of which Hindus and Muslims are two intertwined communities.<ref name="zakaria2004">{{Citation | title=Indian Muslims: where have they gone wrong? | author=Rafiq Zakaria | year=2004 | isbn=978-81-7991-201-0 |publisher=Popular Prakashan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-aMlKSmWRQ8cC | quote="... As a Muslim, Hindus, and Muslims are one nation and not two ... two nations have no basis in history... they shall continue to live together for another thousand years in united India ..."}}</ref> This is a founding principle of the modern, officially-[[Secularity|secular]] [[Republic of India]]. Even after the formation of Pakistan, debates on whether Muslims and Hindus are distinct nationalities or not continued in that country as well.<ref name="gop1953">[[Pakistan Constituent Assembly]]. 1953. "[https://books.google.com/books?id=AmIKAAAAIAAJ Debates: Official report, Volume 1; Volume 16]." [[Government of Pakistan|Government of Pakistan Press]]."[S]ay that Hindus and Muslims are one, single nation. It is a very peculiar attitude on the part of the leader of the opposition. If his point of view were accepted, then the very justification for the existence of Pakistan would disappear ..."</ref> The second source of opposition is the concept that while Indians are not one nation, neither are the Muslims or Hindus of the subcontinent, and it is instead the relatively [[Homogeneity and heterogeneity|homogeneous]] provincial units of the subcontinent which are true nations and deserving of [[sovereignty]]; the [[Baloch people|Baloch]] have presented this view,<ref name="janmahmad1989">{{Citation | title=Essays on Baloch national struggle in Pakistan: emergence, dimensions, repercussions | author=Janmahmad | year=1989 | publisher=Gosha-e-Adab | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mRErAAAAMAAJ | quote="... would be completely extinct as a people without any identity. This proposition is the crux of the matter, shaping the Baloch attitude towards Pakistani politics. For Baloch to accept the British-conceived two-nation theory for the Indian Muslims would mean losing their Baloch identity in the process ..." | access-date=6 April 2016}}</ref> [[Sindhis|Sindhi]],<ref>{{Citation | title=The idea of Pakistan | author=Stephen P. Cohen | author-link=Stephen P. Cohen | year=2004 | isbn=978-0-8157-1502-3 | publisher=Brookings Institution Press | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-78yjVybQfkC | page=212 | quote="[In the view of G. M. Sayed,] the two-nation theory became a trap for Sindhis—instead of liberating Sindh, it fell under Punjabi-Mohajir domination, and until his death in 1995 he called for a separate Sindhi 'nation', implying a separate Sindhi country." | access-date=6 April 2016}}</ref> and [[Pashtuns|Pashtun]]<ref name="salim1991">{{Citation | title=Pashtun and Baloch history: Punjabi view | author=Ahmad Salim | year=1991 |publisher=Fiction House |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-yvxtAAAAMAAJ | quote="... Attacking the 'two-nation theory' in Lower House on December 14, 1947, Ghaus Bux Bizenjo said: "We have a distinct culture like Afghanistan and Iran, and if the mere fact that we are Muslim requires us to amalgamate with Pakistan, then Afghanistan and Iran should also be amalgamated with Pakistan ..."}}</ref> sub-nationalities of Pakistan and the [[Assamese people|Assamese]]<ref name="SinghSingh20082">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lQpswqcdDLIC&pg=PA137|title=Federalism, Nationalism and Development: India and the Punjab Economy|author1=Principal Lecturer in Economics Pritam Singh|author2=Pritam Singh|year=2008|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-134-04946-2|pages=137–|access-date=1 August 2017}}</ref> and [[Punjabis|Punjabi]]<ref name="Singh2008">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PzZ8AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT173|title=Federalism, Nationalism and Development: India and the Punjab Economy|author=Pritam Singh|date=2008|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-134-04945-5|pages=173–|access-date=1 August 2017}}</ref> sub-nationalities of India.

[[File:Nehru bajaj sarojini khan azad1940a.jpg|thumb|[[Jawaharlal Nehru]], [[Sarojini Naidu]], [[Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan]], and [[Maulana Azad]] at the 1940 Ramgarh session of the Congress in which Azad was elected president for the second time]]

The Muslim League conducted its investigation into the conditions of Muslims under Congress-governed provinces.{{Sfn|Talbot|Singh|2009|p=33}} The findings of such investigations increased fear among the Muslim masses of future Hindu domination.{{Sfn|Talbot|Singh|2009|p=33}} The view that Muslims would be unfairly treated in an independent India dominated by the Congress was now a part of the public discourse of Muslims.{{Sfn|Talbot|Singh|2009|p=33}}

[[File:Indian Empire (1947).png|thumb|300px|[[Colonial India]] in 1947, before the partition, covering the territory of modern [[India]], [[Pakistan]] and [[Bangladesh]]]]

In March 1940, in the League's annual three-day session in [[Lahore]], Jinnah gave a two-hour speech in English, in which were laid out the arguments of the [[two-nation theory]], stating, in the words of historians Talbot and Singh, that "Muslims and Hindus...were irreconcilably opposed monolithic religious communities and as such, no settlement could be imposed that did not satisfy the aspirations of the former."{{Sfn|Talbot|Singh|2009|p=33}} On the last day of its session, the League passed what came to be known as the [[Lahore Resolution]], sometimes also "Pakistan Resolution," {{Sfn|Talbot|Singh|2009|p=33}} demanding that "the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in the majority as in the north-western and eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign." Though it had been founded more than three decades earlier, the League would gather support among South Asian Muslims only during the Second World War.<ref>{{cite book|author=Yasmin Khan|title=The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan, New Edition|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_PEpDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA18|date=2017|publisher=Yale University Press|isbn=978-0-300-23364-3|pages=18–|quote=Although it was founded in 1909 the League had only caught on among South Asian Muslims during the Second World War. The party had expanded astonishingly rapidly and was claiming over two million members by the early 1940s, an unimaginable result for what had been previously thought of as just one of the numerous pressure groups and small but insignificant parties.|access-date=27 April 2018}}</ref>

{{Main|August Offer|Cripps Mission}}

In March 1942, with the Japanese fast moving up the [[Malayan Peninsula]] after the [[Fall of Singapore]],{{Sfn|Talbot|Singh|2009|p=34}} and with the Americans supporting independence for India,{{Sfn|Talbot|Singh|2009|pp=34–35}} [[Winston Churchill]], then Britain's prime minister, sent Sir [[Stafford Cripps]], leader of the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]], with an offer of dominion status to India at the end of the war in return for the Congress's support for the war effort.{{Sfn|Talbot|Singh|2009|p=35}} Not wishing to lose the support of the allies they had already secured—the Muslim League, Unionists of Punjab, and the princes—Cripps's offer included a clause stating that no part of the British Indian Empire would be forced to join the post-war dominion. The League rejected the offer, seeing this clause as insufficient in meeting the principle of Pakistan.<ref>{{cite book|author=Ayesha Jalal|title=The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1_0LBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT81|date=1994|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-139-93570-8|page=81|quote=Provincial option, he argued, was insufficient security. Explicit acceptance of the principle of Pakistan offered the only safeguard for Muslim interests throughout India and had to be the precondition for any advance at the center. So he exhorted all Indian Muslims to unite under his leadership to force the British and the Congress to concede 'Pakistan.' If the real reasons for Jinnah's rejection of the offer were rather different, it was not Jinnah but his rivals who had failed to make the point publicly.|access-date=27 April 2018}}</ref> As a result of that proviso, the proposals were also rejected by the Congress, which, since its founding as a polite group of lawyers in 1885,{{Sfn|Khan|2007|p=18}} saw itself as the representative of all Indians of all faiths.{{Sfn|Talbot|Singh|2009|p=35}} After the arrival in 1920 of Gandhi, the pre-eminent strategist of Indian nationalism,{{Sfn|Stein|Arnold|2010|p=289|ps=: Quote: "Gandhi was the leading genius of the later, and ultimately successful, campaign for India's independence"}} the Congress had been transformed into a mass nationalist movement of millions.{{Sfn|Khan|2007|p=18}}

{{Main|Quit India Movement}}

====Labour victory in the British elections, decision to decolonize: 1945====

In January 1946, [[Mutiny|mutinies]] broke out in the armed services, starting with RAF servicemen frustrated with their slow [[repatriation]] to Britain.<ref name="judd-mutiny">{{harvnb|Judd|2004|pp=172–173}}</ref> The insurgencies came to a head in February 1946 with the [[Royal Indian Navy mutiny|mutiny of the Royal Indian Navy]] in [[Mumbai|Bombay]], followed by others in [[Kolkata|Calcutta]], [[Madras]], and [[Karachi]]. Although the mutinies were rapidly suppressed, they had the effect of spurring the [[Attlee ministry|Attlee government]] to action. Labour Prime Minister [[Clement Attlee]] had been deeply interested in Indian independence since the 1920s, and for years had supported it. He now took charge of the government position and gave the issue the highest priority.{{citation needed|date=May 2018}} A [[Cabinet Mission]] was sent to India led by the Secretary of State for India, [[Frederick Pethick-Lawrence, 1st Baron Pethick-Lawrence|Lord Pethick Lawrence]], which also included [[Stafford Cripps|Sir Stafford Cripps]], who had visited India four years before. The objective of the mission was to arrange for an orderly transfer to independence.<ref name="judd-mutiny" />

In early 1946, new elections were held in India. Muslim voters could choose between a united Indian State or partition.<ref name="Metcalf2012">{{cite book|author=Barbara Metcalf|title=Husain Ahmad Madani: The Jihad for Islam and India's Freedom|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TQjrAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT107|date=2012|publisher=Oneworld Publications|isbn=978-1-78074-210-6|pages=107–|access-date=26 June 2017}}</ref> This coincided with the infamous [[Indian National Army trials#The first trial|trial of three senior officers]] − [[Shah Nawaz Khan (general)|Shah Nawaz Khan]], [[Prem Sahgal]], and Gurubaksh Singh Dhillon − of [[Subhas Chandra Bose]]'s defeated [[Indian National Army]] (INA) who stood accused of [[treason]]. Now as the trials began, the Congress leadership, although having never supported the INA, chose to defend the accused officers.<ref>{{harvnb|Judd|2004|pp=170–171}}</ref> The officers' subsequent convictions, the public outcry against the beliefs{{clarify|date=December 2021}}, and the eventual remission of the sentences created positive [[propaganda]] for the Congress, which enabled it to win the party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces.<ref>{{harvnb|Judd|2004|p=172}}</ref>

{{Gallery

|align=center

}}

{{Main|1946 Cabinet Mission to India}}

The British, while not approving of a separate Muslim homeland, appreciated the simplicity of a single voice to speak on behalf of India's Muslims.<ref>{{cite book|author=Burton Stein|title=A History of India|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QY4zdTDwMAQC&pg=PA347|date=2010|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=978-1-4443-2351-1|page=347|quote=His standing with the British remained high, however, for even though they no more agreed with the idea of a separate Muslim state than the Congress did, government officials appreciated the simplicity of a single negotiating voice for all of India's Muslims.|access-date=1 May 2017}}</ref> Britain had wanted India and its army to remain united to keep India in its system of 'imperial defence'.<ref name="Roberts2003">{{cite book|author=Jeffery J. Roberts|title=The Origins of Conflict in Afghanistan|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Pj8DIT_bva0C&pg=PA85|year=2003|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|isbn=978-0-275-97878-5|pages=85–|quote=Virtually every Briton wanted to keep India united. Many expressed moral or sentimental obligations to leave India intact, either for the inhabitants' sake or simply as a lasting testament to the Empire. The Cabinet Defense Committee and Chiefs of Staff stressed the maintenance of a united India as vital to the defense (and economy) of the region. A unified India, an orderly transfer of power, and a bilateral alliance would, they argued, leave Britain's strategic position undamaged. India's military assets, including its seemingly limitless manpower, naval and air bases, and expanding production capabilities, would remain accessible to London. India would thus remain of crucial importance as a base, training ground, and staging area for operations from Egypt to the Far East.|access-date=13 September 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Britain, the Commonwealth and the End of Empire|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/endofempire_overview_01.shtml|first=John|last=Darwin|date=3 March 2011|work=BBC|access-date=10 April 2017|quote=But the British still hoped that a self-governing India would remain part of their system of 'imperial defense'. For this reason, Britain was desperate to keep India (and its army) united.|archive-date=12 November 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201112030518/http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/endofempire_overview_01.shtml|url-status=live}}</ref> With India's two political parties unable to agree, Britain devised the ''Cabinet Mission Plan''. Through this mission, Britain hoped to preserve the united India which they and the Congress desired, while concurrently securing the essence of Jinnah's demand for a Pakistan through 'groupings.'<ref name="MetcalfMetcalf2002">{{cite book|author1=Barbara D. Metcalf|author2=Thomas R. Metcalf|title=A Concise History of India|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jGCBNTDv7acC&pg=PA212|year=2002|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-63974-3|pages=212–|quote=By this scheme, the British hoped they could at once preserve united India desired by the Congress, and by themselves, and at the same time, through the groups, secure the essence of Jinnah's demand for a 'Pakistan'.|access-date=10 April 2017}}</ref> The Cabinet mission scheme encapsulated a federal arrangement consisting of three groups of provinces. Two of these groupings would consist of predominantly Muslim provinces, while the third grouping would be made up of the predominantly Hindu regions. The provinces would be autonomous, but the centre would retain control over the defence, foreign affairs, and communications. Though the proposals did not offer independent Pakistan, the Muslim League accepted the proposals. Even though the unity of India would have been preserved, the Congress leaders, especially Nehru, believed it would leave the Center weak. On 10 July 1946, [[Jawaharlal Nehru|Nehru]] gave a "provocative speech," rejected the idea of grouping the provinces and "effectively torpedoed" both the [[Cabinet mission plan]] and the prospect of a United India.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Barbara D. Metcalf|author2=Thomas R. Metcalf|title=A Concise History of India|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jGCBNTDv7acC&pg=PA213|year=2002|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-63974-3|pages=211–213|quote=Its proposal for an independent India involved a complex, three-tiered federation, whose central feature was the creation of groups of provinces. Two of these groups would comprise the Muslim majority provinces of east and west; a third would include the Hindu majority regions of the center and south. These groups, given responsibility for most of the functions of government, would be subordinated to a Union government, would be subordinated to a Union government controlling defense, foreign affairs, and communications. Nevertheless, the Muslim League accepted the Cabinet mission's proposals. The ball was now in Congress's court. Although the grouping scheme preserved a united India, the Congress leadership, above all Jawaharlal Nehru, now slated to be Gandhi's successor, increasingly concluded that under the Cabinet mission proposals the Center would be too weak to achieve the goals of the Congress, which envisioned itself as the successor to the Raj. Looking ahead to the future, the Congress, especially its socialist wing headed by Nehru, wanted a central government that could direct and plan for an India, free of colonialism, that might eradicate its people's poverty and grow into an industrial power. India's business community also supported the idea of a strong central government In a provocative speech on 10 July 1946, Nehru repudiated the notion of compulsory grouping or provinces, the key to Jinnah's Pakistan. Provinces, he said, must be free to join any group. With this speech, Nehru effectively torpedoed the Cabinet mission scheme, and with it, any hope for a united India.|access-date=18 March 2020}}</ref>

The communal violence spread [[1946 Bihar riots|to Bihar]] (where Hindus attacked Muslims), to [[Noakhali riots|Noakhali in Bengal]] (where Muslims targeted Hindus), to [[Garhmukteshwar]] in the [[United Provinces of Agra and Oudh|United Provinces]] (where Hindus attacked Muslims), and on to [[Rawalpindi]] in March 1947 in which Hindus and Sikhs were [[1947 Rawalpindi massacres|attacked or driven out]] by Muslims.<ref>{{harvnb|Talbot|Singh|2009|p=67}} Quote: "(Signs of 'ethnic cleansing') were also present in the wave of violence that rippled out from Calcutta to Bihar, where there were high Muslim casualty figures, and to Noakhali deep in the Ganges-Brahmaputra delta of Bengal. Concerning the Noakhali riots, one British officer spoke of a 'determined and organized' Muslim effort to drive out all the Hindus, who accounted for around a fifth of the total population. Similarly, the Punjab counterparts to this transition of violence were the Rawalpindi massacres of March 1947. The level of death and destruction in such West Punjab villages as Thoa Khalsa was such that communities couldn't live together in its wake."</ref>

{{Main|Indian Independence Act 1947}}

When Lord Mountbatten formally proposed the plan on 3 June 1947, Patel gave his approval and lobbied Nehru and other Congress leaders to accept the proposal. Knowing Gandhi's deep anguish regarding proposals of partition, Patel engaged him in private meetings discussions over the perceived practical unworkability of any Congress-League [[Coalition government|coalition]], the rising violence, and the threat of civil war. At the All India Congress Committee meeting called to vote on the proposal, Patel said:<ref>{{cite book|last=Menon|first=V. P.|title=Transfer of Power in India|page=385}}</ref><blockquote>I fully appreciate the fears of our brothers from [the Muslim-majority areas]. Nobody likes the division of India, and my heart is heavy. But the choice is between one division and many divisions. We must face facts. We cannot give way to emotionalism and sentimentality. The [[Congress Working Committee|Working Committee]] has not acted out of fear. But I am afraid of one thing, that all our toil and hard work of these many years might go waste or prove unfruitful. My nine months in office have completely disillusioned me regarding the supposed merits of the [[1946 Cabinet Mission to India|Cabinet Mission Plan]]. Except for a few honourable exceptions, Muslim officials from the top down to the chaprasis ([[peon]]s or servants) are working for the League. The communal veto given to the League in the Mission Plan would have blocked India's progress at every stage. Whether we like it or not, [[de facto]] Pakistan already exists in the Punjab and Bengal. Under the circumstances, I would prefer a de jure Pakistan, which may make the League more responsible. Freedom is coming. We have 75 to 80 percent of India, which we can make strong with our genius. The League can develop the rest of the country.</blockquote>Following Gandhi's denial<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NurqxSttqjoC&pg=PA38|title=Gandhi, the Forgotten Mahatma|first=Jagdish Chandra|last=Jain|date=1 January 1987|publisher=Mittal Publications|isbn=9788170990376|access-date=22 May 2020}}</ref> and Congress' approval of the plan, Patel, Rajendra Prasad, C. Rajagopalachari represented Congress on the Partition Council, with Jinnah, Liaqat Ali Khan and Abdur Rab Nishtar representing the Muslim League. Late in 1946, the [[Attlee ministry|Labour government in Britain]], its [[exchequer]] exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, decided to end British rule of India, with power being transferred no later than June 1948. With the British army unprepared for the potential for increased violence, the new viceroy, [[Louis Mountbatten]], advanced the date, allowing less than six months for a mutually agreed plan for independence.

{{Main|Radcliffe Line}}

[[File:How India be split up (1947).jpg|thumb|Map speculating on a possible division of India from the Daily Herald newspaper, 4th June 1947.]]

==Geographic partition, 1947==

===Mountbatten Plan===

At a press conference on 3 June 1947, Lord Mountbatten announced the date of independence – 14 August 1947 – and also outlined the actual division of British India between the two new dominions in what became known as the "Mountbatten Plan" or the "3 June Plan".  The plan's main points were:

* [[Sindh|Sind]] and [[Balochistan|Baluchistan]] were to make their own decision.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Transfer of Power in India|last=Menon|first=V.P|publisher=Orient Blackswan|year=1957|isbn=978-8125008842|page=512}}</ref>

* The fate of [[North-West Frontier Province]] and [[Sylhet District|Sylhet]] district of [[Assam]] was to be decided by a [[referendum]].

Before the Boundary Commission began formal hearings, governments were set up for the East and the West Punjab regions. Their territories were provisionally divided by "notional division" based on simple district majorities. In both the Punjab and Bengal, the Boundary Commission consisted of two Muslim and two non-Muslim judges with Sir [[Cyril Radcliffe]] as a common chairman.<ref name="spate" />  The mission of the Punjab commission was worded generally as: "To [[Demarcation line|demarcate]] the boundaries of the two parts of Punjab, based on ascertaining the [[Contiguous distribution|contiguous]] majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims. In doing so, it will take into account other factors." Each side (the Muslims and the Congress/Sikhs) presented its claim through counsel with no liberty to bargain. The judges, too, had no mandate to compromise, and on all major issues they "divided two and two, leaving Sir Cyril Radcliffe the invidious task of making the actual decisions."<ref name="spate" />

{{Main|Violence against women during the partition of India}}

{{Gallery

|File:Refugeetrain1.jpg|A refugee train on its way to Punjab, Pakistan

}}

[[Population transfer|Massive population exchanges]] occurred between the two newly formed states in the months immediately following the partition. There was no conception that population transfers would be necessary because of the partitioning. Religious minorities were expected to stay put in the states they found themselves residing. An exception was made for Punjab, where the transfer of populations was organized because of the communal violence affecting the province; this did not apply to other provinces.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=n5c9ta97GeoC&pg=PA40|title=The Long Partition and the Making of Modern South Asia: Refugees, Boundaries, Histories|author=Vazira Fazila-Yacoobali Zamindar|publisher=Columbia University Press|year=2010|isbn=978-0-231-13847-5|pages=40–|quote=Second, it was feared that if an exchange of populations was agreed to in principle in Punjab, ' there was likelihood of trouble breaking out in other parts of the subcontinent to force Muslims in the Indian Dominion to move to Pakistan. If that happened, we would find ourselves with inadequate land and other resources to support the influx.' Punjab could set a very dangerous precedent for the rest of the subcontinent. Given that Muslims in the rest of India, some 42 million, formed a population larger than the entire population of West Pakistan at the time, economic rationality eschewed such a forced migration. In divided Punjab, millions of people were already on the move, and the two governments had to respond to this mass movement. Thus, despite these important reservations, the establishment of the MEO led to an acceptance of a 'transfer of populations' in divided Punjab, too, 'to give a sense of security' to ravaged communities on both sides. A statement of the Indian government's position of such a transfer across divided Punjab was made in the legislature by Neogy on November 18, 1947. He stated that although the Indian government's policy was 'to discourage mass migration from one province to another.' Punjab was to be an exception. In the rest of the subcontinent migrations were not to be on a planned basis, but a matter of individual choice. This exceptional character of movements across divided Punjab needs to be emphasized, for the agreed and 'planned evacuations' by the two governments formed the context of those displacements.|access-date=24 April 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UAkarK3gLDgC&pg=PA149|title=The Making of the Modern Refugee|author=Peter Gatrell|date=2013|publisher=OUP Oxford|isbn=978-0-19-967416-9|pages=149–|quote=Notwithstanding the accumulated evidence of inter-communal tension, the signatories to the agreement that divided the Raj did not expect the transfer of power and the partition of India to be accompanied by a mass movement of population. Partition was conceived as a means of preventing migration on a large scale because the borders would be adjusted instead. Minorities need not be troubled by the new configuration. As Pakistan's first Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, affirmed, 'the division of India into Pakistan and India Dominions was based on the principle that minorities will stay where they were and that the two states will afford all protection to them as citizens of the respective states'.|access-date=24 April 2018}}</ref>

The newly formed governments had not anticipated, and were completely unequipped for, a two-way migration of such staggering magnitude. Massive violence and slaughter occurred on both sides of the new India-Pakistan border. Estimates of the number of deaths vary, with low estimates at 200,000 and high estimates at 2,000,000. The worst case of violence among all regions is concluded to have taken place in Punjab.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Talbot |first1=Ian |title=Partition of India: The Human Dimension |journal=Cultural and Social History |year=2009 |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=403–410 |quote=The number of casualties remains a matter of dispute, with figures being claimed that range from 200,000 to 2 million victims. |doi=10.2752/147800409X466254 |s2cid=147110854}}</ref><ref name="Butalia 2000">{{Cite book |url=https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/b/butalia-silence.html|title=The Other Side of Silence: Voices From the Partition of India |last=Butalia |first=Urvashi |author-link=Urvashi Butalia |publisher=Duke University Press |year=2000 |page=3 |isbn=0-8223-2494-6 |quote=Never before or since have so many people exchanged their homes and countries so quickly ... people moved between the new, truncated India and the two wings, East and West, of the newly created Pakistan ... Slaughter sometimes accompanied and sometimes prompted their movement; many others died from malnutrition and contagious diseases. Estimates of the dead vary from 200,000 (the contemporary British figure) to two million (a later Indian estimate) ... despite many warnings, the new governments of India and Pakistan were unprepared for the convulsion: they had not anticipated ... |access-date=25 March 2016 |archive-date=25 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160325043612/https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/b/butalia-silence.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Sikand |first=Yoginder |author-link=Yoginder Sikand |year=2004 |title=Muslims in India Since 1947: Islamic Perspectives on Inter-Faith Relations |publisher=Routledge |page=5 |isbn=978-1-134-37825-8 |quote=Partition wrought in its wake the greatest forced migration in the history of humankind ... between 1 and 2 million people, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Dalits, were killed.}}</ref>

===Punjab===

Virtually no Muslim survived in East Punjab (except in [[Malerkotla]] and [[Nuh district|Nuh]]) and virtually no Hindu or Sikh survived in West Punjab (except in [[Rahim Yar Khan District|Rahim Yar Khan]] and [[Bahawalpur District|Bahawalpur]]).<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/a-heritage-all-but-erased/|title=A heritage all but erased|date=25 December 2015|work=The Friday Times|access-date=26 June 2017|archive-date=24 April 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220424215718/https://www.thefridaytimes.com/2015/12/25/a-heritage-all-but-erased/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Lawrence James observed that "Sir Francis Mudie, the governor of West Punjab, estimated that 500,000 Muslims died trying to enter his province, while the British High Commissioner in Karachi put the full total at 800,000. This makes nonsense of the claim by Mountbatten and his partisans that only 200,000 were killed": [James 1998: 636].<ref name="EPW" />

Nehru wrote to Gandhi on 22 August that, up to that point, twice as many Muslims had been killed in [[East Punjab]] than Hindus and Sikhs in [[West Punjab]].<ref>{{cite book|author=Nisid Hajari|title=Midnight's Furies: The Deadly Legacy of India's Partition|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bO5zCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA139|year=2015|publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt|isbn=978-0-547-66921-2|pages=139–|access-date=18 December 2017}}</ref>

{{clear}}

{{Col-break|width=33%}}

{| class="wikitable sortable"

|-

! Religion

{{Col-break|width=33%}}

{| class="wikitable sortable"

|-

! Religion

===Bengal===

{{Main|Partition of Bengal (1947)}}

Thousands of Hindus, located in the districts of East Bengal, which were awarded to Pakistan, found themselves being attacked, and this religious persecution forced hundreds of thousands of Hindus from East Bengal to seek refuge in India. The massive influx of Hindu refugees into Calcutta affected the demographics of the city. Many Muslims left the city for East Pakistan, and the refugee families occupied some of their homes and properties.

===Sindh===

At the time of partition, the majority of [[Sindh]]'s prosperous upper and middle class was Hindu. The Hindus were mostly concentrated in cities and formed the majority of the population in cities including [[Hyderabad, Sindh|Hyderabad]], [[Karachi]], [[Shikarpur, Pakistan|Shikarpur]], and [[Sukkur]]. During the initial months after partition, only some Hindus migrated. In late 1947, the situation began to change. Large numbers of Muslims refugees from India started arriving in Sindh and began to live in crowded refugee camps.<ref name="Sindhi Voices from the Partition">{{Cite web|url=https://www.theheritagelab.in/sindhi-voices-partition/|title=Sindhi Voices from the Partition|publisher=The HeritageLab.in|date=16 August 2020|access-date=8 June 2020|archive-date=8 June 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200608110538/https://www.theheritagelab.in/sindhi-voices-partition/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Despite the migration, a significant Sindhi Hindu population still resides in Pakistan's Sindh province, where they number at around 2.3&nbsp;million as per Pakistan's 1998 census. Some districts in Sindh had a Hindu majority like [[Tharparkar District]], [[Umerkot]], [[Mirpurkhas]], [[Sanghar]] and [[Badin]], but these have decreased drastically due to persecution.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://pakistanhinducouncil.org/hindupopulation.asp |title=Population of Hindus in the World |website=Pakistan Hindu Council |url-status=usurped |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130518031747/http://www.pakistanhinducouncil.org/hindupopulation.asp |archive-date=18 May 2013}}</ref>

An estimated 642,000 Muslims migrated to Pakistan, of which 75% went to Karachi largely due to business interests. The [[1951 Census of India|1951 Census]] registered a drop of the Muslim population in the state from 13% in 1941 to 7% in 1951.<ref name="YājñikaSheth2005"/>

These Hindu refugees were largely Sindhi and Gujarati.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|title=Partition and Gujarat: The Tangled Web of Religious, Caste, Community and Gender Identities|year=2011|publisher=tandfonline|doi=10.1080/00856401.2011.620556|last1=Balasubrahmanyan|first1=Suchitra|journal=South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies|volume=34|issue=3|pages=460–484|s2cid=145404336}}</ref>

[[File:Muslim refugees in the Tomb of Humayun.png|thumb|Muslim refugees in the Tomb of Humayun, 1947]]

[[File:Manchester guardian purana-qila1947.jpg|thumb|upright|A crowd of Muslims at the Old Fort (Purana Qila) in Delhi, which had been converted into a vast camp for Muslim refugees waiting to be transported to Pakistan. ''[[The Guardian|Manchester Guardian]]'', 27 September 1947.]]

Tens of thousands of Muslims were driven to refugee camps regardless of their political affiliations, and numerous historical sites in Delhi such as the [[Purana Qila]], Idgah, and Nizamuddin were transformed into [[refugee camp]]s. In fact, many Hindu and Sikh refugees eventually occupied the abandoned houses of Delhi's Muslim inhabitants.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kumari |first=Amita |year=2013 |title=Delhi as Refuge: Resettlement and Assimilation of Partition Refugees |journal=Economic and Political Weekly |pages=60–67}}</ref>

At the culmination of the tensions, total migration in Delhi during the partition is estimated at 830,000 people; around 330,000 Muslims had migrated to Pakistan and around 500,000 Hindus & Sikhs migrated from Pakistan to Delhi.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/capital-gains-how-1947-gave-birth-to-a-new-identity-a-new-ambition-a-new-delhi/story-e0GfoFrhwStTU2910v5DrJ_amp.html|title=Capital gains: How 1947 gave birth to a new identity, a new ambition, a new Delhi|date=24 April 2018|publisher=Hindustan Times|access-date=13 May 2021|archive-date=13 May 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210513122824/https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/capital-gains-how-1947-gave-birth-to-a-new-identity-a-new-ambition-a-new-delhi/story-e0GfoFrhwStTU2910v5DrJ_amp.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The [[1951 Census of India|1951 Census]] registered a drop of the Muslim population in the city from 33.2% in 1941 to 5.3% in 1951.<ref>{{cite book |title=Muslims In Indian Cities |last=Sharma |first=Bulbul |publisher=HarperCollins Publishers India |year=2013 |isbn=978-93-5029-555-7}}</ref>

{{Blockquote|What is the use now, of the Maharaja of Patiala, when all the Muslims have been eliminated, standing up as the champion of peace and order?<ref>{{cite book |last1=Copland |first1=Ian |title=State, Community and Neighbourhood in Princely North India, c. 1900–1950 |date=2005 |page=159}}</ref>}}

In [[Alwar State|Alwar]] and [[Bahawalpur (princely state)|Bahawalpur]] communal sentiments extended to higher echelons of government, and the prime ministers of these States were said to have been involved in planning and directly overseeing the cleansing. In [[Bikaner]], by contrast, the organisation occurred at much lower levels.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Copland |first1=Ian |title=State, Community and Neighbourhood in Princely North India, c. 1900–1950 |date=2005 |page=157}}</ref>

In [[Alwar]] and [[Bharatpur, Rajasthan|Bharatpur]], princely states of Rajputana (modern-day Rajasthan), there were bloody confrontations between the dominant, Hindu land-holding community and the Muslim cultivating community.<ref name=":1">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZdLhnFet4w4C&pg=PA39|title=Remembering Partition: Violence, Nationalism and History in India|last=Pandey|first=Gyanendra|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2001|isbn=978-0-521-00250-9|page=39|access-date=7 September 2017}}</ref> Well-organised bands of [[Hindu Jats]], [[Ahir]]s and [[Gurjar]]s, started attacking [[Meo (ethnic group)|Muslim Meos]] in April 1947. By June, more than fifty Muslim villages had been destroyed. The Muslim League was outraged and demanded that the Viceroy provide Muslim troops. Accusations emerged in June of the involvement of Indian State Forces from Alwar and Bharatpur in the destruction of Muslim villages both inside their states and in British India.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EwJeAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA306|title=The Indian Army and the End of the Raj|last=Marston|first=Daniel|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2014|isbn=978-1139915762|page=306|access-date=7 September 2017}}</ref>

In the wake of unprecedented violent attacks unleashed against them in 1947, 100,000 Muslim Meos from Alwar and Bharatpur were forced to flee their homes, and an estimated 30,000 are said to have been massacred.<ref>{{harvnb|Khan|2007|p=135}}</ref> On 17 November, a column of 80,000 Meo refugees went to Pakistan. However, 10,000 stopped travelling due to the risks.<ref name=":1" />

According to the [[1951 Census of India]], 2% of India's population were refugees (1.3% from [[West Pakistan]] and 0.7% from [[East Pakistan]]).

Substantial communities of Hindu Gujarati and Marathi Refugees who had lived in cities of Sindh and [[Saraikistan|Southern Punjab]] were also resettled in Cities of Modern-day Gujarat and Maharashtra.<ref name=":4" /><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-why-create-problems-when-we-live-in-peace-marathi-speaking-community-from-karachi-to-shiv-sena-2137208|title=Why create problems when we live in peace: Marathi-speaking community from Karachi to Shiv Sena|date=22 October 2015|work=DNA|access-date=26 July 2021|archive-date=26 July 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210726223609/https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-why-create-problems-when-we-live-in-peace-marathi-speaking-community-from-karachi-to-shiv-sena-2137208|url-status=live}}</ref>

The 1951 Census of Pakistan recorded that the most significant number of Muslim refugees came from the [[East Punjab]] and nearby [[Rajputana|Rajputana states]] ([[Alwar]] and [[Bharatpur, Rajasthan|Bharatpur]]). They numbered 5,783,100 and constituted 80.1% of Pakistan's total refugee population.<ref name="Chitkara">{{cite book |title=Converts Do Not Make A Nation |last=Chitkara |first=G.M. |publisher=APH Publishing |year=1998 |isbn=978-81-7024-982-5 |page=216}}</ref> This was the effect of the retributive ethnic cleansing on both sides of the Punjab where the Muslim population of East Punjab was forcibly expelled like the Hindu/Sikh population in [[West Punjab]].

So far as their settlement in Pakistan is concerned, 97.4% of the refugees from East Punjab and its contiguous areas went to West Punjab; 95.9% from Bihar, West Bengal and Orissa to the erstwhile East Pakistan; 95.5% from UP and Delhi to West Pakistan, mainly in [[Karachi Division]] of [[Sindh]]; 97.2% from Bhopal and Hyderabad to [[West Pakistan]], mainly [[Karachi]]; and 98.9% from Bombay and Gujarat to West Pakistan, largely to Karachi; and 98.9% from Madras and Mysore went to West Pakistan, mainly Karachi.<ref name="Chitkara" />

NWFP and Baluchistan received the lowest number of migrants. NWFP received 51,100 migrants (0.7% of the migrant population) while Baluchistan received 28,000 (0.4% of the migrant population).

{{Col-begin}}

{{Col-break|width=33%}}

== Missing people ==

A study of the total population inflows and outflows in the districts of Punjab, using the data provided by the [[1931 Census of India|1931]] and [[1951 Census of India|1951 Census]] has led to an estimate of 1.3 million missing Muslims who left western India but did not reach Pakistan.<ref name="EPW">{{Cite journal |last1 = Bharadwaj |first1 = Prasant |first2 = Asim |last2 = Khwaja |first3 = Atif |last3 = Mian |date = 30 August 2008 |title = The Big March: Migratory Flows after the Partition of India |url = http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/akhwaja/papers/Big%20March%20EPW%20Publish08.pdf |journal = Economic & Political Weekly |page = 43 |access-date = 16 January 2016 |archive-date = 3 December 2012 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20121203132100/http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/akhwaja/papers/Big%20March%20EPW%20Publish08.pdf |url-status = dead }}</ref> The corresponding number of missing [[Hindus]]/[[Sikhs]] along the western border is estimated to be approximately 0.8 million.<ref name="Bharadwaj, Prasant 2008">Bharadwaj, Prasant; Khwaja, Asim; Mian, Atif (30 August 2008). "The Big March: Migratory Flows after the Partition of India" (PDF). ''Economic & Political Weekly'': 43. Retrieved 16 January 2016</ref> This puts the total of missing people, due to partition-related migration along the Punjab border, to around 2.2 million.<ref name="Bharadwaj, Prasant 2008"/>

Another study of the demographic consequences of partition in the Punjab region using the 1931, 1941 and 1951 censuses concluded that between 2.3 and 3.2 million people went missing in the Punjab.<ref>Hill, K., Selzer, W., Leaning, J., Malik, S., & Russell, S. (2008). The Demographic Impact of Partition in Punjab in 1947. Population Studies, 62(2), 155–170.</ref>

==Rehabilitation of women==

Both sides promised each other that they would try to restore women abducted and raped during the riots. The Indian government claimed that 33,000 Hindu and Sikh women were abducted, and the Pakistani government claimed that 50,000 Muslim women were abducted during riots. By 1949, there were legal claims that 12,000 women had been recovered in India and 6,000 in Pakistan.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=m-EYXNnvMugC&q=12000&pg=PA125 Perspectives on Modern South Asia: A Reader in Culture, History, and ... – Kamala Visweswara] (16 May 2011)</ref> By 1954, there were 20,728 Muslim women recovered from India, and 9,032 Hindu and Sikh women recovered from Pakistan.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=yNN4SE7cL60C&dq=muslim+hindu+women+recovered+1947+riots&pg=PA99 Borders & boundaries: women in India's partition – Ritu Menon, Kamla Bhasi] (24 April 1993).</ref> Most of the Hindu and Sikh women refused to go back to India, fearing that their families would never accept them, a fear mirrored by Muslim women.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781856494489|url-access=registration|title=Embodied violence: Communalising women's sexuality in South Asia|last2=de Alwi|first2=Malathi|publisher=Zed Books|year=1996|isbn=978-1-85649-448-9|last1=Jayawardena|first1=Kumari}}</ref>

Even after the [[1951 Census of India|1951 Census]], many Muslim families from India continued migrating to Pakistan throughout the 1950s and the early 1960s. According to historian [[Omar Khalidi]], the Indian Muslim migration to [[West Pakistan]] between December 1947 and December 1971 was from [[Uttar Pradesh]], [[Delhi]], [[Gujarat]], [[Rajasthan]], [[Maharashtra]], [[Madhya Pradesh]], [[Karnataka]], [[Andhra Pradesh]], [[Tamil Nadu]], and [[Kerala]]. The next stage of migration was between 1973 and the 1990s, and the primary destination for these migrants was Karachi and other urban centres in Sindh.<ref name="Khalidi">{{cite journal|last=Khalidi|first=Omar|date=Autumn 1998|title=From Torrent to Trickle: Indian Muslim Migration to Pakistan, 1947–97|journal=Islamic Studies|volume=37|pages=339–352|jstor=20837002|number=3}}</ref>

Indian Muslim migration to Pakistan declined drastically in the 1970s, a trend noticed by the Pakistani authorities. In June 1995, [[Ministry of Interior (Pakistan)|Pakistan's interior minister]], [[Naseerullah Babar]], informed the National Assembly that between the period of 1973–1994, as many as 800,000 visitors came from India on valid travel documents. Of these only 3,393 stayed.<ref name="Khalidi" /> In a related trend, intermarriages between Indian and Pakistani Muslims have declined sharply. According to a November 1995 statement of Riaz Khokhar, the [[High Commissioner of Pakistan|Pakistani High Commissioner]] in New Delhi, the number of cross-border marriages has dropped from 40,000 a year in the 1950s and 1960s to barely 300 annually.<ref name="Khalidi" />

===India===

Due to [[Persecution of Hindus#Pakistan|religious persecution in Pakistan]], Hindus continue to flee to India. Most of them tend to settle in the state of Rajasthan in India.<ref name=":3">{{Cite news|url=http://www.dawn.com/news/1206092|title=Hindu refugees from Pakistan encounter suspicion and indifference in India|last=Rizvi|first=Uzair Hasan|date=10 September 2015|work=Dawn|access-date=15 January 2016|archive-date=14 February 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170214025324/http://www.dawn.com/news/1206092|url-status=live}}</ref> According to data of the [[Human Rights Commission of Pakistan]], just around 1,000 Hindu families fled to India in 2013.<ref name=":3"/> In May 2014, a member of the ruling [[Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz|Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz]] (PML-N), Dr. [[Ramesh Kumar Vankwani]], revealed in the [[National Assembly of Pakistan]] that around 5,000 Hindus are migrating from Pakistan to India every year.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.dawn.com/news/1105830|title=5,000 Hindus migrating to India every year, NA told|last=Haider|first=Irfan|date=13 May 2014|work=Dawn|access-date=15 January 2016|archive-date=29 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161229174650/http://www.dawn.com/news/1105830|url-status=live}}</ref> Since India is not a signatory to the [[Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees|1951 United Nations Refugee Convention]],&nbsp;it refuses to recognise Pakistani Hindu migrants as refugees.<ref name=":3" />

==Documentation efforts and oral history==

In 2010, a [[Berkeley, California]] and [[Delhi, India]]-based non-profit organization, [[The 1947 Partition Archive]], began documenting [[Oral history|oral histories]] from those who lived through the partition and consolidated the interviews into an archive.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Sengupta |first=Somini |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/arts/potent-memories-from-a-divided-india.html |title=Potent Memories From a Divided India |date=13 August 2013 |work=The New York Times |access-date=22 February 2020 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=13 December 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191213173415/https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/arts/potent-memories-from-a-divided-india.html |url-status=live }}</ref> As of June 2021, nearly 9,700 interviews are preserved from 18 countries and are being released in collaboration with five university libraries in India and Pakistan, including [[Ashoka University]], [[Habib University]], [[Lahore University of Management Sciences]], [[Guru Nanak Dev University]] and [[Delhi University]] in collaboration with [[Tata Trusts]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Kamal |first=Neel |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/1947-partition-archive-releases-university-access-points-in-india-and-pakistan-universities-for-researchers/articleshow/83422027.cms |title=1947 Partition Archive releases University Access Points in India and Pakistan Universities for Researchers |date=11 June 2021 |work=The Times of India |access-date=4 July 2021 |language=en-IN |archive-date=9 July 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210709091632/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/1947-partition-archive-releases-university-access-points-in-india-and-pakistan-universities-for-researchers/articleshow/83422027.cms |url-status=live }}</ref>

In August 2017, The Arts and Cultural Heritage Trust (TAACHT) of United Kingdom set up what they describe as "the world's first [[Partition Museum]]" at Town Hall in [[Amritsar]], Punjab. The Museum, which is open from Tuesday to Sunday, offers [[multimedia]] exhibits and documents that describe both the political process that led to partition and carried it forward, and video and written narratives offered by survivors of the events.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/partition-museum-1029593-2017-08-15 |title=Worlds first Partition Museum to be inaugurated in Amritsar, Gulzar's book to be launched |access-date=4 July 2021 |archive-date=9 July 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210709185858/https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/partition-museum-1029593-2017-08-15 |url-status=live }}</ref>

==Perspectives==

[[File:Refugees on train roof during Partition.ogv|thumb|Refugees on train roof during partition]]

Venkat Dhulipala rejects the idea that the British [[divide and rule]] policy was responsible for partition and elaborates on the perspective that Pakistan was popularly imagined as a sovereign Islamic state or a 'New Medina', as a potential successor to the defunct Turkish caliphate<ref name="The Express Tribune">{{Cite news|url=https://tribune.com.pk/story/943379/was-pakistan-sufficiently-imagined-before-independence/|title=Was Pakistan sufficiently imagined before independence?|date=23 August 2015|work=The Express Tribune|access-date=8 March 2017|archive-date=8 March 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170308145112/https://tribune.com.pk/story/943379/was-pakistan-sufficiently-imagined-before-independence/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":12"/> and as a leader and protector of the entire Islamic world. Islamic scholars debated over creating Pakistan and its potential to become a true Islamic state.<ref name="The Express Tribune"/><ref name=":12">{{Cite news|url=https://scroll.in/article/810132/the-venkat-dhulipala-interview-on-the-partition-issue-jinnah-and-ambedkar-were-on-the-same-page|title=The Venkat Dhulipala interview: 'On the Partition issue, Jinnah and Ambedkar were on the same page'|last=Ashraf|first=Ajaz|work=Scroll.in|access-date=8 March 2017|archive-date=5 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161205112539/http://scroll.in/article/810132/the-venkat-dhulipala-interview-on-the-partition-issue-jinnah-and-ambedkar-were-on-the-same-page|url-status=live}}</ref> The majority of Barelvis supported the creation of Pakistan<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nzivCgAAQBAJ&q=barelvi+ulema+pakistan+movement&pg=PA167|title=State and Nation-Building in Pakistan: Beyond Islam and Security|last1=Long|first1=Roger D.|last2=Singh|first2=Gurharpal|last3=Samad|first3=Yunas|last4=Talbot|first4=Ian|publisher=Routledge|year=2015|isbn=978-1317448204|page=167|quote=In the 1940s a solid majority of the Barelvis were supporters of the Pakistan Movement and played a supporting role in its final phase (1940–7), mostly under the banner of the All-India Sunni Conference which had been founded in 1925.|access-date=18 November 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XfI-hEI8a9wC&q=Barelvi+ulama+1946+elections&pg=PA87|title=Pakistan: The Struggle Within|last=John|first=Wilson|publisher=Pearson Education India|year=2009|isbn=978-8131725047|page=87|quote=During the 1946 election, Barelvi Ulama issued fatwas in favour of the Muslim League.|access-date=18 November 2020|archive-date=24 April 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220424215714/https://books.google.com/books?id=XfI-hEI8a9wC&q=Barelvi+ulama+1946+elections&pg=PA87|url-status=live}}</ref> and believed that any co-operation with Hindus would be counter productive.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WgFeAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA135|title=The Awakening of Muslim Democracy: Religion, Modernity, and the State|last=Cesari|first=Jocelyne|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2014|isbn=978-1107513297|page=135|quote=For example, the Barelvi ulama supported the formation of the state of Pakistan and thought that any alliance with Hindus (such as that between the Indian National Congress and the Jamiat ulama-I-Hind [JUH]) was counterproductive.|access-date=7 September 2017}}</ref> Most Deobandis, who were led by Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, [[Opposition to the partition of India|were opposed to the creation of Pakistan]] and the two-nation theory. According to them Muslims and Hindus could be a part of a single nation.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Q9sI_Y2CKAcC&pg=PA224|title=A History of Pakistan and Its Origins|last=Jaffrelot|first=Christophe|publisher=Anthem Press|year=2004|isbn=978-1843311492|page=224|quote=Believing that Islam was a universal religion, the Deobandi advocated a notion of a composite nationalism according to which Hindus and Muslims constituted one nation.|access-date=7 September 2017}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KPKoCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA26|title=Indian Muslims and Citizenship: Spaces for Jihād in Everyday Life|last=Abdelhalim|first=Julten|publisher=Routledge|year=2015|isbn=978-1317508755|page=26|quote=Madani...stressed the difference between ''qaum'', meaning a nation, hence a territorial concept, and ''millat'', meaning an Ummah and thus a religious concept.|access-date=7 September 2017}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7-tWCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA52|title=Living with Religious Diversity|last=Sikka|first=Sonia|publisher=Routledge|year=2015|isbn=978-1317370994|page=52|quote=Madani makes a crucial distinction between ''qaum'' and ''millat''. According to him, qaum connotes a territorial multi-religious entity, while millat refers to the cultural, social and religious unity of Muslims exclusively.|access-date=7 September 2017}}</ref>

==Artistic depictions of the partition==

Literature describing the human cost of independence and partition includes, among others:<ref name="Natarajan1996">{{cite book|last=Bhatia|first=Nandi|title=Handbook of Twentieth-Century Literatures of India|publisher=[[Greenwood Publishing Group]]|year=1996|isbn=978-0-313-28778-7|editor-last=Natarajan|editor-first=Nalini|pages=146–147|chapter=Twentieth Century Hindi Literature|access-date=27 July 2012|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1lTnv6o-d_oC}}</ref><ref name="Roy2011">{{cite book|last=Roy|first=Rituparna|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HCQfRFr6iMgC|title=South Asian Partition Fiction in English: From Khushwant Singh to Amitav Ghosh|date=2011|publisher=[[Amsterdam University Press]]|isbn=978-90-8964-245-5|pages=24–29|access-date=27 July 2012}}</ref>

* "Terhi Lakir" (The Crooked Line; 1943) by [[Ismat Chughtai]]

The novel ''Lost Generations'' (2013) by Manjit Sachdeva describes the March 1947 massacre in rural areas of [[Rawalpindi]] by the [[Muslim League (Opposition)|Muslim League]], followed by massacres on both sides of the new border in August 1947 seen through the eyes of an escaping [[Sikhs|Sikh]] family, their settlement and partial rehabilitation in Delhi, and ending in ruin (including death), for the second time in 1984, at the hands of mobs after a Sikh assassinated the prime minister.

The partition has been a frequent topic in film.<ref name="Bhatia2008">{{cite book |last=Mandal |first=Somdatta |editor1-last=Bhatia |editor1-first=Nandi |editor2-last=Roy |editor2-first=Anjali Gera |title=Partitioned Lives: Narratives of Home, Displacement, and Resettlement |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YWB0GmmoOSMC |access-date=27 July 2012 |year=2008 |publisher=Pearson Education India |isbn=978-81-317-1416-4 |pages=66–69 |chapter=Constructing Post-partition Bengali Cultural Identity through Films}}</ref><ref name="hindi guide">{{cite journal |last1=Dwyer |first1=R. |title=Bollywood's India: Hindi Cinema as a Guide to Modern India |doi=10.1080/03068374.2010.508231 |journal=Asian Affairs |volume=41 |issue=3 |pages=381–398 |year=2010 |s2cid=70892666 }} {{subscription required}}</ref><ref name="Sarkar2009">{{cite book |last=Sarkar |first=Bhaskar |title=Mourning the Nation: Indian Cinema in the Wake of Partition |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wghFNlpM3PIC |access-date=27 July 2012 |date=2009 |publisher=[[Duke University Press]] |isbn=978-0-8223-4411-7 |page=121}}</ref> Early films relating to the circumstances of the independence, partition and the aftermath include:

* ''Lahore'' (1948)

* ''[[Garm Hava]]'' (1973)

* ''[[Tamas (film)|Tamas]]'' (1987)<ref name="vishwanath 2009">{{cite journal |last1=Vishwanath |first1=Gita |last2=Malik |first2=Salma |year=2009 |title=Revisiting 1947 through Popular Cinema: a Comparative Study of India and Pakistan |journal=[[Economic and Political Weekly]] |volume=XLIV |issue=36 |pages=61–69 |url=http://www.careerlauncher.com/lstcontent/plansuppliments/attachments/40/62/REVISITING%201947%20THROUGH%20popular%20cinema.pdf |access-date=27 July 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130921053940/http://www.careerlauncher.com/lstcontent/plansuppliments/attachments/40/62/REVISITING%201947%20THROUGH%20popular%20cinema.pdf |archive-date=21 September 2013}}</ref>

From the late 1990s onwards, more films on the theme of partition were made, including several mainstream ones, such as:

* ''[[Begum Jaan]]'' (2017)

* ''[[Viceroy's House (film)|Viceroy's House]]'' (2017)

* The Pakistani drama ''[[Dastaan (2010 TV series)|Dastaan]]'', based on the novel ''[[Bano (novel)|Bano]]'', highlights the plight of Muslim girls who were abducted and raped during partition.

* The partition is also depicted in the [[History|historical]] [[sports drama]] film ''[[Gold (2018 film)|Gold]]'' (2018), based on events which impacted the [[India men's national field hockey team|Indian national field hockey team]] at the time.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/bollywood/story/gold-fact-check-truth-vs-fiction-akshay-kumar-film-1321509-2018-08-23 |title=Gold fact check: Truth vs fiction in Akshay Kumar film |last1=Bhattacharya |first1=Ananya |date=23 August 2018 |website=India Today |access-date=22 January 2021 |archive-date=6 August 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210806073756/https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/bollywood/story/gold-fact-check-truth-vs-fiction-akshay-kumar-film-1321509-2018-08-23 |url-status=live|quote=In 1947, when Kishan Lal walked next to Dhyan Chand in East Africa in the Indian colours, the legendary field hockey team from 1936 had all but emptied. With 1947 came the Partition and most of the talented players were partitioned too with many moving to Pakistan}}</ref>

* "[[Demons of the Punjab]]", a 2018 episode of British sci-fi show ''[[Doctor Who]]'', depicts the events of the partition from the perspective of a family torn apart by their religious differences.

The early members of the [[Bombay Progressive Artists' Group|Bombay Progressive Artist's Group]] cited the partition as a key reason for its founding in December 1947. Those members included [[F. N. Souza]], [[M. F. Husain]], [[S. H. Raza]], [[Sadanand Bakre|S. K. Bakre]], [[H. A. Gade]], and [[K. H. Ara]], who went on to become some of the most important and influential Indian artists of the 20th century.<ref>{{cite web|date=12 May 2012|title=Progressive Artists Group of Bombay: An Overview|url=http://www.artnewsnviews.com/view-article.php?article=progressive-artists-group-of-bombay-an-overview&iid=29&articleid=800|url-status=usurped|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131214145023/http://www.artnewsnviews.com/view-article.php?article=progressive-artists-group-of-bombay-an-overview&iid=29&articleid=800|archive-date=14 December 2013|access-date=18 November 2017|publisher=Artnewsnviews.com}}</ref>

Contemporary Indian artists that have made significant artworks about the partition are [[Nalini Malani]], [[Anjolie Ela Menon]], [[Satish Gujral]], [[Nilima Sheikh]], [[Arpita Singh]], [[Krishen Khanna]], Pran Nath Mago, S. L. Parasher, [[Arpana Caur]], Tayeba Begum Lipi, Mahbubur Rahman, Promotesh D Pulak, and [[Pritika Chowdhry]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=Storey|first=Thomas|date=2013-08-07|title=Traversing Boundaries: Five Bangladeshi Artists Question the Legacy of Partition|url=https://theculturetrip.com/asia/bangladesh/articles/traversing-boundaries-five-bangladeshi-artists-question-the-legacy-of-partition/|access-date=2022-01-08|website=Culture Trip|archive-date=8 January 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220108042614/https://theculturetrip.com/asia/bangladesh/articles/traversing-boundaries-five-bangladeshi-artists-question-the-legacy-of-partition/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Micieli-Voutsinas|first=Jacque|date=2013|title="Subaltern" Remembrances: Mapping Affective Approaches to Partition Memory|journal=Social Transformations: Journal of the Global South|language=en|volume=1|issue=1|pages=27–58|doi=10.13185/ST2013.01103|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Micieli-Voutsinas|first=Jacque|date=2015-07-03|title=What the Nation Re-members: Resisting Victim Nationalism in Partition Memorial Project|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/2373566X.2015.1103196|journal=GeoHumanities|volume=1|issue=2|pages=398–413|doi=10.1080/2373566X.2015.1103196|s2cid=147050563|issn=2373-566X|access-date=29 October 2021}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Partition Art - Pritika Chowdhry's art installations about Partition|url=https://www.pritikachowdhry.com/partition-art|access-date=2022-01-08|website=Pritika Chowdhry Art|language=en|archive-date=8 January 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220108042618/https://www.pritikachowdhry.com/partition-art|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2017-12-14|title=A Visual History of the Partition of India : A Story in Art • The Heritage Lab|url=https://www.theheritagelab.in/india-partition-art/|access-date=2021-10-29|website=The Heritage Lab|language=en-GB|archive-date=29 October 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211029052819/https://www.theheritagelab.in/india-partition-art/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Sharma|first=Ekatmata|date=2019-08-17|title=Revisiting Partition through art|url=https://www.artculturefestival.in/revisiting-partition-through-art/|access-date=2021-10-29|website=Art Culture Festival|language=en-US|archive-date=29 October 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211029052819/https://www.artculturefestival.in/revisiting-partition-through-art/|url-status=live}}</ref>

==See also==

* [[Violence against women during the partition of India]]

* [[History of Bangladesh]]

* [[The 1947 Partition Archive]]

* [[Partition Horrors Remembrance Day]]

==Notes==

;Textbook histories:

{{Refbegin|30em}}

* {{citation |last=Brown |first=Judith Margaret |title=Modern India: the origins of an Asian democracy |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Eq7tAAAAMAAJ |year=1994 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-873112-2 |access-date=15 November 2015 |archive-date=15 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200815113830/https://books.google.com/books?id=Eq7tAAAAMAAJ |url-status=live }}

* {{citation|last=Dyson|first=Tim|title=A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3TRtDwAAQBAJ|year=2018|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-882905-8|access-date=24 April 2022|archive-date=18 October 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191018184311/https://books.google.com/books?id=3TRtDwAAQBAJ|url-status=live}}

* {{citation|last=Talbot|first=Ian|title=A History of Modern South Asia: Politics, States, Diasporas|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eNg_CwAAQBAJ|year=2016|publisher=Yale University Press|isbn=978-0-300-19694-8|access-date=24 April 2022|archive-date=11 April 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210411230326/https://books.google.com/books?id=eNg_CwAAQBAJ|url-status=live}}

* {{citation|last=Talbot|first=Ian|title=Pakistan: A New History|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fLf2ngEACAAJ|year=2015|publisher=Hurst|isbn=978-1-84904-370-0|access-date=24 April 2022|archive-date=12 February 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200212194517/https://books.google.com/books?id=fLf2ngEACAAJ|url-status=live}}

* {{citation |last=Wolpert |first=Stanley |title=A new history of India |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JT0wAQAAIAAJ |year=2008 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-533756-3 |access-date=15 November 2015 |archive-date=1 May 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160501083356/https://books.google.com/books?id=JT0wAQAAIAAJ |url-status=live }}

;Monographs:

;Articles:

* Brass, Paul. 2003. [http://faculty.washington.edu/brass/Partition.pdf The partition of India and retributive genocide in the Punjab,1946–47: means, methods, and purposes] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414111514/http://faculty.washington.edu/brass/Partition.pdf |date=14 April 2021 }} ''Journal of Genocide Research'' (2003), 5#1, 71–101

* {{citation | last1 = Gilmartin | first1 = David | year = 1998 | title = A Magnificent Gift: Muslim Nationalism and the Election Process in Colonial Punjab | journal = Comparative Studies in Society and History | volume = 40 | issue = 3| pages = 415–436 | jstor=179270| doi = 10.1017/S0010417598001352 | s2cid = 144603264 }}

* Gupta, Bal K. "Death of Mahatma Gandhi and Alibeg Prisoners" www.dailyexcelsior.com

* {{citation |last1=Khan |first1=Lal |title=Partition – Can it be undone? |publisher=Wellred Publications |year=2003 |page=228 |isbn=978-1-900007-15-3}}

* {{citation | last1 = Mookerjea-Leonard | first1 = Debali | year = 2005 | title = Divided Homelands, Hostile Homes: Partition, Women and Homelessness | journal = Journal of Commonwealth Literature | volume = 40 | issue = 2| pages = 141–154 | doi=10.1177/0021989405054314| s2cid = 162056117 }}

* {{citation | last1 = Morris-Jones | year = 1983 | title = Thirty-Six Years Later: The Mixed Legacies of Mountbatten's Transfer of Power | journal = International Affairs | volume = 59 | issue = 4| pages = 621–628 | doi=10.2307/2619473| jstor =  2619473}}

* {{citation |title=The Partition of India |journal=[[Frontline (magazine)|Frontline]] |date=22 December 2001 |first=A. G. |last=Noorani |volume=18 |issue=26 |url=http://hindu.com/fline/fl1826/18260810.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080402193634/http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl1826/18260810.htm |url-status=dead |archive-date=2 April 2008 |access-date=12 October 2011 }}

Please be cautious about adding more external links.

Excessive or inappropriate links will be removed.

If there are already suitable links, propose additions or replacements on

-->

* [http://www.1947partitionarchive.org 1947 Partition Archive]

* [https://www.britannica.com/event/Partition-of-Bengal Partition of Bengal] – [[Encyclopædia Britannica]]

* [http://www.indianmemoryproject.com/category/battle-and-conflict/1947-partition/ India Memory Project – 1947 India Pakistan Partition]

* [http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/the-road-to-partition/ The Road to Partition 1939–1947 – The National Archives]

* [http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5ymvad India's Partition: The Forgotten Story British film-maker Gurinder Chadha, directors of Bend It Like Beckham and Viceroy's House, travels from Southall to Delhi and Shimla to find out about the Partition of India – one of the most seismic events of the 20th century. Partition saw India divided into two new nations – Independent India and Pakistan. The split led to violence, disruption, and death.]

* [https://www.andrewwhitehead.net/partition-voices-sir-ian-scott.html Sir Ian Scott, Mountbatten's deputy private secretary in 1947, talking about the run up to Partition]

{{Indo-Pakistani relations}}

{{Secession in Countries}}

[[Category:Bangladesh and the Commonwealth of Nations]]

[[Category:India and the Commonwealth of Nations]]

[[Category:Pakistan and the Commonwealth of Nations]]

[[Category:Dissolutions of countries|India]]

[[Category:British Empire]]

[[Category:Commonwealth of Nations]]

[[Category:Ethnic cleansing in Asia]]

[[Category:Forced migration]]

[[Category:1947 in British India]]

[[Category:1940s in Islam]]