Partition of India: Difference between revisions

[[File:British Indian Empire 1909 Imperial Gazetteer of India.jpg|thumb|262px|British Indian Empire in ''[[The Imperial Gazetteer of India]]'', 1909. [[British Raj|British India]] is shaded pink, the [[princely state]]s yellow.]]

The term ''partition of India'' does not cover:

[[Kingdom of Nepal|Nepal]] and [[Bhutan]] signed treaties with the British designating them as ''independent states'' and were not a part of British-ruled India.<ref>[https://www.britannica.com/eb/article-23632 Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008.  "Nepal."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060318100442/https://www.britannica.com/eb/article-23632 |date=18 March 2006 }}, [https://www.britannica.com/eb/article-25008 Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008.  "Bhutan."]</ref> The Himalayan [[Kingdom of Sikkim]] was established as a [[princely state]] after the ''Anglo-Sikkimese Treaty'' of 1861, but its sovereignty had been left undefined.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|title=Sikkim|encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica|url=https://www.britannica.com/eb/article-46212|year=2008|access-date=23 February 2017|archive-date=12 December 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071212232228/https://www.britannica.com/eb/article-46212|url-status=live}}</ref> In 1947, Sikkim became an independent kingdom under the [[suzerainty]] of India. The [[Maldives]] became a [[protectorate]] of the [[British crown]] in 1887 and gained its independence in 1965.

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" />

The overwhelming, predominantly-Hindu protest against the partition of Bengal, along with the fear of reforms favouring the Hindu majority, led the Muslim elite of India in 1906 to the new viceroy [[Lord Minto]], asking for separate electorates for Muslims. In conjunction, they demanded representation in proportion to their share of the total population, reflecting both their status as former rulers and their record of cooperating with the British. This would result in the founding of the [[All-India Muslim League]] in [[Dhaka|Dacca]] in December 1906. Although Curzon by now had returned to England following his resignation over a dispute with his military chief, [[Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener|Lord Kitchener]], the League was in favor of his partition plan. The Muslim elite's position, which was reflected in the League's position, had crystallized gradually over the previous three decades, beginning with the [[1871 Census of India|1871 Census of British India]], which had first estimated the populations in regions of Muslim majority.<ref name="ludden200">{{harvnb|Ludden|2002|p=200}}</ref> For his part, Curzon's desire to court the Muslims of East Bengal had arisen from British anxieties ever since the 1871 census, and in light of the history of Muslims fighting them in the [[Indian Rebellion of 1857|1857 Rebellion]] and the [[Second Anglo-Afghan War]].<ref name="ludden200" />

[[File:Gandhi back in india1915.gif|thumb|[[Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi]] (seated in the carriage, on the right, eyes downcast, with black flat-top hat) receives a big welcome in Karachi in 1916 after his return to India from South Africa]]

[[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====

{{main|Two-nation theory}}

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

  }}</ref> While some professional Muslim Indian politicians used it to secure or safeguard a large share of political spoils for the Indian Muslims with the withdrawal of British rule, others believed the main political objective was the preservation of the cultural entity of Muslim India.<ref>{{cite book |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=APLmIxRyEjEC&dq=barani+two+nation+theory&pg=PA16 |title= Two Nations: The Philosophy of Muslim Nationalism |author=Anil Chandra Banerjee |date=1981 |publisher= Concept }}</ref> The two-nation theory was a founding principle of the [[Pakistan Movement]] (i.e., the ideology of [[Pakistan]] as a Muslim [[nation-state]] in South Asia), and the partition of India in 1947.<ref name="Two-Nation Theory Exists">{{cite news|title=Two-Nation Theory Exists |newspaper=Pakistan Times |url=http://www.pakistantimes.net/2007/04/03/oped2.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071111023629/http://www.pakistantimes.net/2007/04/03/oped2.htm |archive-date=11 November 2007 }}</ref>

[[Arya Samaj]] leader [[Lala Lajpat Rai]] laid out his own version of two-nation theory in 1924 to form "a clear partition of India into a Muslim India and a non-Muslim India". Lala believed in partition in response to the riots against Hindus in Kohat, [[North-West Frontier Province]] which diminished his faith in Hindu-Muslim unity.<ref name="Ahmed 2020"/><ref name="Hoodbhoy">{{cite book | last=Hoodbhoy | first=P. | title=Pakistan: Origins, Identity and Future | publisher=Taylor & Francis | year=2023 | isbn=978-1-000-85667-5 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MgSqEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT231 | access-date=2023-07-11 | page=231}}</ref><ref name="Bonney 2004">{{cite book | last=Bonney | first=R. | title=Three Giants of South Asia: Gandhi, Ambedkar, and Jinnah on Self-determination | publisher=Media House | series=South Asian history academic papers | year=2004 | isbn=978-81-7495-174-8 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SpmpK8hgbkkC&pg=PA7 | access-date=2023-07-11 | page=7}}</ref>

[[Muhammad Ali Jinnah]] undertook the ideology that religion is the determining factor in defining the nationality of Indian Muslims in 1940. He termed it as the awakening of Muslims for the creation of Pakistan.<ref>[[Conor Cruise O'Brien|Cruise O'Brien, Conor]]. August 1988. "[https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/88aug/obrien.htm Holy War Against India] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210128075043/https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/88aug/obrien.htm |date=28 January 2021 }}". ''[[The Atlantic Monthly]]'' 262(2):54–64. Retrieved 8 June 2020.</ref> However, Jinnah opposed Partition of Punjab and Bengal, and advocated for the integration of all Punjab and Bengal into Pakistan without the displacement of any of its inhabitants, whether they were Sikhs or Hindus.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1614173 |title=The Two-Nation Reality versus Theory: Opposition to Partition |author= Javed Jabbar |date=2021-03-21 |work=Dawn |access-date=2023-03-27 }}</ref> The theory is also a source of inspiration to several [[Hindu nationalism|Hindu nationalist]] organizations, with causes as varied as the redefinition of Indian Muslims as non-Indian foreigners and second-class citizens in India, the expulsion of all Muslims from [[India]], the establishment of a legally Hindu state in India, prohibition of conversions to [[Islam]], and the promotion of [[Shuddhi (Hinduism)|conversions or reconversions]] of Indian Muslims to Hinduism.<ref name="epw1979r">Shakir, Moin. 1979. "Review: Always in the Mainstream." ''[[Economic and Political Weekly]]'' 14(33):1424. {{JSTOR|4367847}}

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>

After the Cabinet Mission broke down, in July 1946, Jinnah held a press conference at his home in Bombay. He proclaimed that the Muslim league was "preparing to launch a struggle" and that they "have chalked out a plan". He said that if the Muslims were not granted a separate Pakistan then they would launch "direct action". When asked to be specific, Jinnah retorted: "Go to the Congress and ask them their plans. When they take you into their confidence I will take you into mine. Why do you expect me alone to sit with folded hands? I also am going to make trouble."<ref name="Bourke-White, Margaret 1949 p. 15">Bourke-White, Margaret (1949). Halfway to Freedom: A Report on the New India in the Words and Photographs of Margaret Bourke-White. Simon and Schuster. p. 15.</ref>

On that morning, armed Muslim gangs gathered at the [[Ochterlony Monument]] in Calcutta to hear [[Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy]], the League's Chief Minister of Bengal, who, in the words of historian Yasmin Khan, "if he did not explicitly incite violence certainly gave the crowd the impression that they could act with impunity, that neither the police nor the military would be called out and that the ministry would turn a blind eye to any action they unleashed in the city."{{Sfn|Khan|2007|pp=64–65}} That very evening, in Calcutta, Hindus were attacked by returning Muslim celebrants, who carried pamphlets distributed earlier which showed a clear connection between violence and the demand for Pakistan, and directly implicated the celebration of Direct Action Day with the outbreak of the cycle of violence that would later be called the "Great Calcutta Killing of August 1946".{{Sfn|Talbot|Singh|2009|p=69|ps=: Quote: "Despite the Muslim League's denials, the outbreak was linked with the celebration of Direction Action Day. Muslim procession that had gone to the staging ground of the 150-foot [[Ochterlony Monument]] on the maidan to hear the Muslim League Prime Minister Suhrawardy attacked Hindus on their way back. They were heard shouting slogans as 'Larke Lenge Pakistan' (We shall win Pakistan by force). Violence spread to North Calcutta when Muslim crowds tried to force Hindu shopkeepers to observe the day's strike (''hartal'') call. The circulation of pamphlets in advance of Direct Action Day demonstrated a clear connection between the use of violence and the demand for Pakistan."}} The next day, Hindus struck back, and the violence continued for three days in which approximately 4,000 people died (according to official accounts), both Hindus and Muslims. Although India had had outbreaks of religious violence between Hindus and Muslims before, the [[Calcutta]] killings were the first to display elements of "[[ethnic cleansing]]".<ref>{{harvnb|Talbot|Singh|2009|p=67}} Quote: "The signs of 'ethnic cleansing' are first evident in the Great Calcutta Killing of 16–19 August 1946."</ref> Violence was not confined to the public sphere, but homes were entered and destroyed, and women and children were attacked.{{Sfn|Talbot|Singh|2009|p=68}} Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with [[Jawaharlal Nehru]] as united India's prime minister.

The British Prime Minister Attlee appointed [[Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma|Lord Louis Mountbatten]] as [[Governor-General of India|India's last viceroy]], giving him the task to oversee British India's independence by 30 June 1948, with the instruction to avoid partition and preserve a united India, but with adaptable authority to ensure a British withdrawal with minimal setbacks. Mountbatten hoped to revive the Cabinet Mission scheme for a federal arrangement for India. But despite his initial keenness for preserving the centre, the tense communal situation caused him to conclude that partition had become necessary for a quicker transfer of power.<ref>{{cite book |last= Ziegler |first= Philip |title= Mountbatten: The Official Biography |location= London |publisher= HarperCollins |year= 1985 |isbn= 978-0002165433 |page= [https://archive.org/details/mountbattenoffic00phil/page/359 359] |url= https://archive.org/details/mountbattenoffic00phil/page/359 }}.</ref><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=D63KMRN1SJ8C&pg=PA251|date=1994|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-45850-4|page=250|quote=These instructions were to avoid partition and obtain a unitary government for British India and the Indian States and at the same time observe the pledges to the princes and the Muslims; to secure agreement to the Cabinet Mission plan without coercing any of the parties; somehow to keep the Indian army undivided, and to retain India within the Commonwealth. (Attlee to Mountbatten, 18 March 1947, ibid, 972–974)|access-date=25 April 2018}}</ref><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=D63KMRN1SJ8C&pg=PA251|date=1994|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-45850-4|page=251|quote=When Mountbatten arrived, it was not wholly inconceivable that a settlement on the Cabinet Mission's terms might still be secured limited bloodshed called for a united Indian army under effective control. But keeping the army intact was now inextricably linked with keeping India united, this is why Mountbatten started by being vehemently opposed to 'abolishing the center'.|access-date=25 April 2018}}</ref><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=Mountbatten had intended to resurrect the Cabinet Mission proposals for a federal India. British officials were unanimously pessimistic about a Pakistan state's future economic prospects. The agreement to an Indian Union contained in the Cabinet Mission proposals had been initially accepted by the Muslim League as the grouping proposals gave considerable autonomy in the Muslim majority areas. Moreover, there was the possibility of withdrawal and thus acquiring Pakistan by the backdoor after a ten year interval. The worsening communal situation and extensive soundings with Indian political figures convinced Mountbatten within a month of his arrival that partition was the only way to quickly and smoothly transfer power.|doi=10.2752/147800409X466254|s2cid=147110854}}</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.]]

===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>

===Gujarat===

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"/>

For centuries Delhi had been the capital of the [[Mughal Empire]] from Babur to the successors of Aurangzeb and previous Turkic Muslim rulers of North India. The series of Islamic rulers keeping Delhi as a stronghold of their empires left a vast array of Islamic architecture in Delhi, and a strong Islamic culture permeated the city. In 1911, when the British Raj shifted their colonial capital from Calcutta to Delhi, the nature of the city began changing. The core of the city was called 'Lutyens' Delhi,' named after the British architect Sir [[Edwin Lutyens]], and was designed to service the needs of the small but growing population of the British elite. Nevertheless, the 1941 census listed Delhi's population as being 33.2% Muslim.

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>

{{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>

A small community of Pashtun Hindus from [[Loralai]], [[Balochistan]] was also settled City of [[Jaipur]]. Today they number around 1,000.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.arabnews.pk/node/1697086/pakistan|title=70 years on, one Pashtun town still safeguards its old Hindu-Muslim brotherhood|work=Arab News|date=30 June 2020|access-date=1 August 2021|archive-date=1 August 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210801203052/https://www.arabnews.pk/node/1697086/pakistan|url-status=live}}</ref>

====Refugee camps====

{|class="Wikipedia sortable"

|+Number of relief camps in East Punjab

!No. of camps

!No. of persons

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>

==Post-partition migration==

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==

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>

A cross-border student initiative, ''The History Project'', was launched in 2014 to explore the differences in perception of the events leading up to the partition. The project resulted in a book that explains both interpretations of the shared history in Pakistan and India.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/ |title=The News International: Latest News Breaking, Pakistan News |work=The News International |access-date=22 May 2020 |archive-date=2 February 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170202012815/http://tns.thenews.com.pk/marshall-plan-pakistan/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://thehistory-project.org/ |title=The History Project |publisher=The History Project |access-date=18 November 2017 |archive-date=1 March 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180301055805/http://www.thehistory-project.org/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

* ''[[Gandhi Godse – Ek Yudh]]'' (2023)

* 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.

===Art===

==See also==

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

* [[History of Bangladesh]]

;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

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:British Empire]]

[[Category:Commonwealth of Nations]]

[[Category:Ethnic cleansing in Asia]]

[[Category:Forced migration]]

[[Category:1947 in British India]]

[[Category:1940s in Islam]]