HOME
The Info List - Partition Of India


--- Advertisement ---



The Partition of India
India
was the division of British India[a] in 1947 which accompanied the creation of two independent dominions, India
India
and Pakistan.[1] The Dominion
Dominion
of India
India
is today the Republic of India, and the Dominion
Dominion
of Pakistan
Pakistan
is today the Islamic Republic
Islamic Republic
of Pakistan
Pakistan
and the People's Republic of Bangladesh. The partition involved the division of three provinces, Assam, Bengal
Bengal
and the Punjab, based on district-wide Hindu
Hindu
or Muslim
Muslim
majorities. The boundary demarcating India
India
and Pakistan
Pakistan
became known as the Radcliffe Line. It also involved the division of the British Indian Army, the Royal Indian Navy, the Indian Civil Service, the railways, and the central treasury, between the two new dominions. The partition was set forth in the Indian Independence Act 1947
Indian Independence Act 1947
and resulted in the dissolution of the British Raj, as the British government there was called. The two self-governing countries of Pakistan
Pakistan
and India
India
legally came into existence at midnight on 14–15 August 1947.[2] The partition displaced over 14 million people along religious lines, creating overwhelming refugee crises in the newly constituted dominions; there was large-scale violence, with estimates of loss of life accompanying or preceding the partition disputed and varying between several hundred thousand and two million.[3][b] The violent nature of the partition created an atmosphere of hostility and suspicion between India
India
and Pakistan
Pakistan
that plagues their relationship to the present. The term partition of India
India
does not cover the secession of Bangladesh from Pakistan
Pakistan
in 1971, nor the earlier separations of Burma
Burma
(now Myanmar) and Ceylon
Ceylon
(now Sri Lanka) from the administration of British India.[c] The term also does not cover the political integration of princely states into the two new dominions, nor the disputes of annexation or division arising in the princely states of Hyderabad, Junagadh, and Jammu
Jammu
and Kashmir, though violence along religious lines did break out in some princely states at the time of the partition. It does not cover the incorporation of the enclaves of French India
India
into India
India
during the period 1947–1954, nor the annexation of Goa
Goa
and other districts of Portuguese India
India
by India
India
in 1961. Other contemporaneous political entities in the region in 1947, Sikkim, Bhutan, Nepal, and the Maldives
Maldives
were unaffected by the partition.[d]

Contents

1 Background

1.1 Partition of Bengal
Bengal
(1905) 1.2 World War I, Lucknow Pact: 1914–1918 1.3 Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms: 1919 1.4 Two nation theory 1.5 Muslim
Muslim
homeland, provincial elections, World War II, Lahore Resolution: 1930–1945 1.6 1946 Election, Cabinet Mission, Direct Action Day, Plan for Partition, Independence: 1946–1947

2 Geographic partition, 1947

2.1 Mountbatten Plan 2.2 Radcliffe Line

3 Independence, population transfer, and violence

3.1 Punjab 3.2 Bengal 3.3 Sindh 3.4 Delhi 3.5 Alwar and Bharatpur 3.6 Jammu
Jammu
and Kashmir

4 Resettlement of refugees in India: 1947–1957 5 Resettlement of refugees in Pakistan: 1947–1957 6 Missing persons 7 Rehabilitation of women 8 Post-Partition migration

8.1 Pakistan 8.2 India

9 Perspectives 10 Artistic depictions of the Partition 11 See also 12 Notes 13 References 14 Further reading 15 External links

Background[edit] Partition of Bengal
Bengal
(1905)[edit] Main article: Partition of Bengal
Bengal
(1905)

1909 Percentage of Hindus.

1909 Percentage of Muslims.

1909 Percentage of Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains.

In 1905, the viceroy, Lord Curzon, in his second term, divided the largest administrative subdivision in British India, the Bengal Presidency, into the Muslim-majority province of East Bengal
East Bengal
and Assam and the Hindu-majority province of Bengal
Bengal
(present-day Indian states of West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand and Odisha).[7] Curzon's act, the Partition of Bengal—which some considered administratively felicitous[by whom?], and, which had been contemplated by various colonial administrations since the time of Lord William Bentinck, but never acted upon—was to transform nationalist politics as nothing else before it.[7] The Hindu
Hindu
elite of Bengal, among them many who owned land in East Bengal
East Bengal
that was leased out to Muslim
Muslim
peasants, protested fervidly. The large Bengali Hindu
Hindu
middle-class (the Bhadralok), upset at the prospect of Bengalis being outnumbered in the new Bengal
Bengal
province by Biharis and Oriyas, felt that Curzon's act was punishment for their political assertiveness.[7] The pervasive protests against Curzon's decision took the form predominantly of the Swadeshi
Swadeshi
("buy Indian") campaign and involved a boycott of British goods. Sporadically—but flagrantly—the protesters also took to political violence that involved attacks on civilians.[8] The violence, however, was not effective, as most planned attacks were either preempted by the British or failed.[9] The rallying cry for both types of protest was the slogan Bande Mataram
Bande Mataram
(Bengali, lit: "Hail to the Mother"), the title of a song by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, which invoked a mother goddess, who stood variously for Bengal, India, and the Hindu
Hindu
goddess Kali.[10] The unrest spread from Calcutta
Calcutta
to the surrounding regions of Bengal
Bengal
when Calcutta's English-educated students returned home to their villages and towns.[11] The religious stirrings of the slogan and the political outrage over the partition were combined as young men, in groups such as Jugantar, took to bombing public buildings, staging armed robberies,[9] and assassinating British officials.[10] Since Calcutta was the imperial capital, both the outrage and the slogan soon became nationally known.[10] The overwhelming, but predominantly Hindu, protest against the partition of Bengal
Bengal
and the fear, in its wake, of reforms favouring the Hindu
Hindu
majority, now led the Muslim
Muslim
elite in India, in 1906, to meet with the new viceroy, Lord Minto, and to ask for separate electorates for Muslims. In conjunction, they demanded proportional legislative representation reflecting both their status as former rulers and their record of cooperating with the British. This led, in December 1906, to the founding of the All- India
India
Muslim
Muslim
League in Dacca. Although Curzon, by now, had resigned his position over a dispute with his military chief Lord Kitchener and returned to England, the League was in favour 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 British India, which had first estimated the populations in regions of Muslim
Muslim
majority.[12] (For his part, Curzon's desire to court the Muslims
Muslims
of East Bengal
East Bengal
had arisen from British anxieties ever since the 1871 census, the first comprehensive census there—and in light of the history of Muslims
Muslims
fighting them in the 1857 Mutiny and the Second Anglo-Afghan War—about Indian Muslims rebelling against the Crown.[12]) In the three decades since that census, Muslim
Muslim
leaders across northern India, had intermittently experienced public animosity from some of the new Hindu
Hindu
political and social groups.[12] The Arya Samaj, for example, had not only supported Cow Protection Societies in their agitation,[13] but also—distraught at the 1871 Census's Muslim
Muslim
numbers—organized "reconversion" events for the purpose of welcoming Muslims
Muslims
back to the Hindu
Hindu
fold.[12] In the United Provinces, Muslims
Muslims
became anxious when, in the late 19th century, political representation increased, giving more power to Hindus, and Hindus
Hindus
were politically mobilized in the Hindi-Urdu controversy and the anti-cow-killing riots of 1893.[14] In 1905, when Tilak and Lajpat Rai attempted to rise to leadership positions in the Congress, and the Congress itself rallied around symbolism of Kali, Muslim
Muslim
fears increased.[12] It was not lost on many Muslims, for example, that the rallying cry, "Bande Mataram", had first appeared in the novel Anand Math
Anand Math
in which Hindus
Hindus
had battled their Muslim oppressors.[15] Lastly, the Muslim
Muslim
elite, and among it Dacca Nawab, Khwaja Salimullah, who hosted the League's first meeting in his mansion in Shahbag, was aware that a new province with a Muslim majority would directly benefit Muslims
Muslims
aspiring to political power.[15] World War I, Lucknow Pact: 1914–1918[edit]

Indian medical orderlies attending to wounded soldiers with the Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force in Mesopotamia
Mesopotamia
during World War I.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
(seated in carriage, on the right, eyes downcast, with black flat-top hat) receives a big welcome in Karachi in 1916 after his return to India
India
from South Africa.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, seated, third from the left, was a supporter of the Lucknow Pact, which, in 1916, ended the three-way rift between the Extremists, the Moderates and the League.

World War I
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
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 dominions like Canada and Australia, would travel to distant corners of the world both in newsprint and by the new medium of the radio.[16] India's international profile would thereby rise and would continue to rise during the 1920s.[16] It was to lead, among other things, to India, under its own name, becoming a founding member of the League of Nations
League of Nations
in 1920 and participating, under the name, "Les Indes Anglaises" (British India), in the 1920 Summer Olympics
1920 Summer Olympics
in Antwerp.[17] Back in India, especially among the leaders of the Indian National Congress, it would lead to calls for greater self-government for Indians.[16] The 1916 Lucknow Session of the Congress was also the venue of an unanticipated mutual effort by the Congress and the Muslim
Muslim
League, the occasion for which was provided by the wartime partnership between Germany and Turkey. Since the Turkish Sultan, or Khalifah, had also sporadically claimed guardianship of the Islamic holy sites of Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem, and since the British and their allies were now in conflict with Turkey, doubts began to increase among some Indian Muslims
Muslims
about the "religious neutrality" of the British, doubts that had already surfaced as a result of the reunification of Bengal
Bengal
in 1911, a decision that was seen as ill-disposed to Muslims.[18] In the Lucknow Pact, the League joined the Congress in the proposal for greater self-government that was campaigned for by Tilak and his supporters; in return, the Congress accepted separate electorates for Muslims
Muslims
in the provincial legislatures as well as the Imperial Legislative Council. In 1916, the Muslim
Muslim
League had anywhere between 500 and 800 members and did not yet have its wider following among Indian Muslims
Muslims
of later years; in the League itself, the pact did not have unanimous backing, having largely been negotiated by a group of "Young Party" Muslims
Muslims
from the United Provinces (UP), most prominently, two brothers Mohammad and Shaukat Ali, who had embraced the Pan-Islamic cause;[18] however, it did have the support of a young lawyer from Bombay, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who was later to rise to leadership roles in both the League and the Indian independence movement. In later years, as the full ramifications of the pact unfolded, it was seen as benefiting the Muslim
Muslim
minority élites of provinces like UP and Bihar
Bihar
more than the Muslim
Muslim
majorities of Punjab and Bengal; nonetheless, at the time, the "Lucknow Pact", was an important milestone in nationalistic agitation and was seen so by the British.[18] Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms: 1919[edit] Secretary of State for India, Montagu and Viceroy
Viceroy
Lord Chelmsford presented a report in July 1918 after a long fact-finding trip through India
India
the previous winter.[19] After more discussion by the government and parliament in Britain, and another tour by the Franchise and Functions Committee for the purpose of identifying who among the Indian population could vote in future elections, the Government of India
India
Act of 1919 (also known as the Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms) was passed in December 1919.[19] The new Act enlarged both the provincial and Imperial legislative councils and repealed the Government of India's recourse to the "official majority" in unfavorable votes.[19] Although departments like defence, foreign affairs, criminal law, communications, and income-tax were retained by the Viceroy
Viceroy
and the central government in New Delhi, other departments like public health, education, land-revenue, local self-government were transferred to the provinces.[19] The provinces themselves were now to be administered under a new dyarchical system, whereby some areas like education, agriculture, infrastructure development, and local self-government became the preserve of Indian ministers and legislatures, and ultimately the Indian electorates, while others like irrigation, land-revenue, police, prisons, and control of media remained within the purview of the British governor and his executive council.[19] The new Act also made it easier for Indians to be admitted into the civil service and the army officer corps. 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.[19] 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.[19] Seats were also reserved for non-Brahmins, 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
Muslim
League Lucknow Pact, was reaffirmed, with seats being reserved for Muslims, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, and domiciled Europeans, in both provincial and Imperial legislative councils.[19] The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms offered Indians the most significant opportunity yet for exercising legislative power, especially at the provincial level; however, that opportunity was also 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.[19] Two nation theory[edit] Main article: Two-nation theory The two-nation is the ideology that the primary identity and unifying denominator of Muslims
Muslims
in the Indian subcontinent
Indian subcontinent
is their religion, rather than their language or ethnicity, and therefore Indian Hindus and Muslims
Muslims
are two distinct nations, regardless of ethnic or other commonalities.[20][21] The two-nation theory was a founding principle of the Pakistan
Pakistan
Movement (i.e. the ideology of Pakistan
Pakistan
as a Muslim nation-state in South Asia), and the partition of India
India
in 1947.[22] The ideology that religion is the determining factor in defining the nationality of Indian Muslims
Muslims
was undertaken by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who termed it as the awakening of Muslims
Muslims
for the creation of Pakistan.[23] It is also a source of inspiration to several Hindu nationalist organizations, with causes as varied as the redefinition of Indian Muslims
Muslims
as non-Indian foreigners and second-class citizens in India, the expulsion of all Muslims
Muslims
from India, establishment of a legally Hindu
Hindu
state in India, prohibition of conversions to Islam, and the promotion of conversions or reconversions of Indian Muslims
Muslims
to Hinduism.[24][25][26][27] The Hindu
Hindu
Mahasabha leader Lala Lajpat Rai
Lala Lajpat Rai
was one of the first persons to demand to bifurcate India
India
by Muslim
Muslim
and Non-Muslim population. He wrote in The Tribune of December 14, 1924:

Under my scheme the Muslims
Muslims
will have four Muslim
Muslim
States: (1) The Pathan
Pathan
Province or the North-West Frontier; (2) Western Punjab
Western Punjab
(3) Sindh
Sindh
and (4) Eastern Bengal. If there are compact Muslim
Muslim
communities in any other part of India, sufficiently large to form a province, they should be similarly constituted. But it should be distinctly understood that this is not a united India. It means a clear partition of India
India
into a Muslim
Muslim
India
India
and a non- Muslim
Muslim
India.[28]

There are varying interpretations of the two-nation theory, based on whether the two postulated nationalities can coexist in one territory or not, with radically different implications. One interpretation argued for sovereign autonomy, including the right to secede, for Muslim-majority areas of the Indian subcontinent, but without any transfer of populations (i.e. Hindus
Hindus
and Muslims
Muslims
would continue to live together). A different interpretation contends that Hindus
Hindus
and Muslims
Muslims
constitute "two distinct, and frequently antagonistic ways of life, and that therefore they cannot coexist in one nation."[29] In this version, a transfer of populations (i.e. the total removal of Hindus
Hindus
from Muslim-majority areas and the total removal of Muslims from Hindu-majority areas) is a desirable step towards a complete separation of two incompatible nations that "cannot coexist in a harmonious relationship".[30][31] Opposition to the theory has come from two sources. The first is the concept of a single Indian nation, of which Hindus
Hindus
and Muslims
Muslims
are two intertwined communities.[32] This is a founding principle of the modern, officially secular, Republic of India. Even after the formation of Pakistan, debates on whether Muslims
Muslims
and Hindus
Hindus
are distinct nationalities or not continued in that country as well.[33] The second source of opposition is the concept that while Indians are not one nation, neither are the Muslims
Muslims
or Hindus
Hindus
of the subcontinent, and it is instead the relatively homogeneous provincial units of the subcontinent which are true nations and deserving of sovereignty; this view has been presented by the Baloch,[34] Sindhi,[35] and Pashtun[36] sub-nationalities of Pakistan
Pakistan
and the Assamese[37] and Punjabi[38] sub-nationalities of India. Muslim
Muslim
homeland, provincial elections, World War II, Lahore Resolution: 1930–1945[edit]

Allama Muhammad Iqbal, fifth from left, arriving at the 1930 session of the All India
India
Muslim
Muslim
League, where he delivered his presidential address outlining his plan for a homeland for the Muslims
Muslims
of British India.

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.

Chaudhari Khaliquzzaman
Chaudhari Khaliquzzaman
(left) seconding the 1940 Lahore
Lahore
Resolution of the All- India
India
Muslim
Muslim
League with Jinnah
Jinnah
(right) presiding, and Liaquat Ali Khan centre.

Although Choudhry Rahmat Ali
Choudhry Rahmat Ali
had in 1933 produced a pamphlet, Now or never, in which the term "Pakistan", "the land of the pure", comprising the Punjab, North West Frontier Province (Afghania), Kashmir, Sindh, and Balochistan, was coined for the first time, the pamphlet did not attract political attention.[39] A little later, a Muslim
Muslim
delegation to the Parliamentary Committee on Indian Constitutional Reforms gave short shrift to the Pakistan
Pakistan
idea, calling it "chimerical and impracticable".[39] Two years later, the Government of India
India
Act 1935 introduced provincial autonomy, increasing the number of voters in India
India
to 35 million.[40] More significantly, law and order issues were for the first time devolved from British authority to provincial governments headed by Indians.[40] This increased Muslim
Muslim
anxieties about eventual Hindu
Hindu
domination.[40] In the Indian provincial elections, 1937, the Muslim
Muslim
League turned out its best performance in Muslim-minority provinces such as the United Provinces, where it won 29 of the 64 reserved Muslim
Muslim
seats.[40] However, in the Muslim-majority regions of the Punjab and Bengal
Bengal
regional parties outperformed the League.[40] In the Punjab, the Unionist Part of Sikandar Hayat Khan, won the elections and formed a government, with the support of the Indian National Congress and the Shiromani Akali Dal, which lasted five years.[40] In Bengal, the League had to share power in a coalition headed by A. K. Fazlul Huq, the leader of the Krishak Praja Party.[40] The Congress, on the other hand, with 716 wins in the total of 1585 provincial assemblies seats, was able to form governments in 7 out of the 11 provinces of British India.[40] In its manifesto the Congress maintained that religious issues were of lesser importance to the masses than economic and social issues, however, the election revealed that the Congress had contested just 58 out of the total 482 Muslim seats, and of these, it won in only 26.[40] In UP, where the Congress won, it offered to share power with the League on condition that the League stop functioning as a representative only of Muslims, which the League refused.[40] This proved to be a mistake as it alienated the Congress further from the Muslim
Muslim
masses. In addition, the new UP provincial administration promulgated cow protection and the use of Hindi.[40] The Muslim
Muslim
elite in UP was further alienated, when they saw chaotic scenes of the new Congress Raj, in which rural people who sometimes turned up in large numbers in Government buildings, were indistinguishable from the administrators and the law enforcement personnel.[41] The Muslim
Muslim
League conducted its own investigation into the conditions of Muslims
Muslims
under Congress-governed provinces.[42] The findings of such investigations increased fear among the Muslim
Muslim
masses of future Hindu domination.[42] The view that Muslims
Muslims
would be unfairly treated in an independent India
India
dominated by the Congress was now a part of the public discourse of Muslims.[42] With the outbreak of World War II
World War II
in 1939, the viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, declared war on India's behalf without consulting Indian leaders, leading the Congress provincial ministries to resign in protest.[42] The Muslim
Muslim
League, which functioned under state patronage,[43] in contrast, organized "Deliverance Day", celebrations (from Congress dominance) and supported Britain in the war effort.[42] When Linlithgow, met with nationalist leaders, he gave the same status to Jinnah
Jinnah
as he did to Gandhi, and a month later described the Congress as a "Hindu organization."[43] In March 1940, in the League's annual three-day session in Lahore, Jinnah
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
Muslims
and Hindus
Hindus
... were irreconcilably opposed monolithic religious communities and as such no settlement could be imposed that did not satisfy the aspirations of the former."[42] On the last day of its session, the League passed, what came to be known as the Lahore
Lahore
Resolution, sometimes also " Pakistan
Pakistan
Resolution",[42] demanding that "the areas in which the Muslims
Muslims
are numerically in majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India
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.[44] In March 1942, with the Japanese fast moving up the Malayan Peninsula after the Fall of Singapore,[43] and with the Americans supporting independence for India,[45] Winston Churchill, the wartime Prime Minister of Britain, sent Sir Stafford Cripps, the leader of the House of Commons, with an offer of dominion status to India
India
at the end of the war in return for the Congress's support for the war effort.[46] Not wishing to lose the support of the allies they had already secured—the Muslim
Muslim
League, Unionists of the Punjab, and the Princes—the Cripps offer included a clause stating that no part of the British Indian Empire
British Indian Empire
would be forced to join the post-war Dominion. As a result of the proviso, the proposals were rejected by the Congress, which, since its founding as a polite group of lawyers in 1885,[44] saw itself as the representative of all Indians of all faiths.[46] After the arrival in 1920 of Gandhi, the preeminent strategist of Indian nationalism,[47] the Congress had been transformed into a mass nationalist movement of millions.[44] In August 1942, the Congress launched the Quit India
India
Resolution which asked for drastic constitutional changes, which the British saw as the most serious threat to their rule since the Indian rebellion of 1857.[46] With their resources and attention already spread thin by a global war, the nervous British immediately jailed the Congress leaders and kept them in jail until August 1945,[48] whereas the Muslim
Muslim
League was now free for the next three years to spread its message.[43] Consequently, the Muslim
Muslim
League's ranks surged during the war, with Jinnah
Jinnah
himself admitting, "The war which nobody welcomed proved to be a blessing in disguise."[49] Although there were other important national Muslim
Muslim
politicians such as Congress leader Abul Kalam Azad, and influential regional Muslim
Muslim
politicians such as A. K. Fazlul Huq of the leftist Krishak Praja Party
Krishak Praja Party
in Bengal, Sikander Hyat Khan of the landlord-dominated Punjab Unionist Party, and Abd al-Ghaffar Khan of the pro-Congress Khudai Khidmatgar
Khudai Khidmatgar
(popularly, "red shirts") in the North West Frontier Province, the British were to increasingly see the League as the main representative of Muslim India.[50] The Muslim
Muslim
League's demand for Pakistan
Pakistan
pitted it against the British and Congress.[51] 1946 Election, Cabinet Mission, Direct Action Day, Plan for Partition, Independence: 1946–1947[edit] Further information: Indian general election, 1945
Indian general election, 1945
and Indian provincial elections, 1946

Members of the 1946 Cabinet Mission to India
India
meeting Muhammad Ali Jinnah. On the extreme left is Lord Pethick Lawrence; on the extreme right, Sir Stafford Cripps.

An aged and abandoned Muslim
Muslim
couple and their grand children sitting by the roadside on this arduous journey. "The old man is dying of exhaustion. The caravan has gone on," wrote Bourke-White.

An old Sikh
Sikh
man carrying his wife. Over 10 million people were uprooted from their homeland and travelled on foot, bullock carts and trains to their promised new home.

Gandhi in Bela, Bihar, after attacks on Muslims, 28 March 1947.

Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee
Clement Attlee
had been deeply interested in Indian independence since the 1920s, and for years had supported independence. He now took charge of the government position and gave the issue highest priority. Some Indian writers assume that localised mutinies in the Royal Indian Navy
Royal Indian Navy
in 1946 prompted his actions, but historians find little evidence from the British records. The mutiny was repressed with force by British troops and Royal Navy warships. The total number of casualties was 8 mutineers dead and 33 other mutineers wounded. Only the Communist Party supported the strikers; the Congress and the Muslim
Muslim
League condemned it. Attlee sent a Cabinet Mission to India
India
which was led by the Secretary of State for India, Lord Pethick Lawrence, and it included Sir Stafford Cripps, who had visited India
India
four years before. It failed because Congress and the Muslim
Muslim
League could not agree.[52] In early 1946, new elections were held in India. With the announcement of the elections the line had been drawn for Muslim
Muslim
voters to choose between a united Indian state or Partition.[53] Earlier, at the end of the war in 1945, the colonial government had announced the public trial of three senior officers of Subhas Chandra Bose's defeated Indian National Army
Indian National Army
who stood accused of treason. Now as the trials began, the Congress leadership, although it never supported the INA, chose to defend the accused officers.[54] The subsequent convictions of the officers, the public outcry against the convictions, 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.[55] The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim
Muslim
League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. British rule had lost its legitimacy for most Hindus
Hindus
and conclusive proof of this came in the form of the 1946 elections with the Congress winning 91 percent of the vote among non- Muslim
Muslim
constituencies, thereby gaining a majority in the Central Legislature and forming governments in eight provinces, and becoming the legitimate successor to the British government for most Hindus. If the British intended to stay in India
India
the acquiescence of politically active Indians to British rule would have been in doubt after these election results, although the views of many rural Indians were uncertain even at that point.[56] The Muslim
Muslim
League won the majority of the Muslim
Muslim
vote as well as most reserved Muslim
Muslim
seats in the provincial assemblies and it also secured all the Muslim
Muslim
seats in the Central Assembly. Recovering from its performance in the 1937 elections, the Muslim
Muslim
League was finally able to make good on the claim that it and Jinnah
Jinnah
alone represented India's Muslims[57] and Jinnah
Jinnah
quickly interpreted this vote as a popular demand for a separate homeland.[58] However, tensions heightened while the Muslim
Muslim
League was unable to form ministries outside the two provinces of Sind and Bengal, with the Congress forming a ministry in the NFWP and the key Punjab province coming under a coalition ministry of the Congress, Sikhs
Sikhs
and Unionists.[59] Britain wanted India
India
and its army to remain united[60] for the purpose of keeping India
India
in its system of 'imperial defence'.[61][62] With India's two political parties unable to come to an agreement, Britain devised the Cabinet Mission Plan. Through this mission, Britain hoped to preserve the united India
India
which they and the Congress desired, while concurrently securing the essence of Jinnah's demand for a Pakistan
Pakistan
through 'groupings'.[63] The Cabinet Mission was composed of three Cabinet ministers from England. The Cabinet Mission engaged with various Indian political parties for three weeks but could not reach an agreement. Finally, the mission released its own recommendations on May 16, 1946. In its recommendations the Cabinet Mission rejected the idea of a separate Pakistan
Pakistan
and favoured an undivided, although decentralized, India. The Cabinet Mission recommended groupings of Muslim-majority provinces, separate from Hindu-majority provinces, which were to be provided almost complete autonomy. The Congress, having wanted a strong centre, rejected the proposals concerning decentralization.[64] After the Cabinet Mission broke down, Jinnah
Jinnah
proclaimed 16 August 1946 Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of peacefully highlighting the demand for a Muslim
Muslim
homeland in British India. However, on the morning of the 16th, armed Muslim
Muslim
gangs gathered at the Ochterlony Monument
Ochterlony Monument
in Calcutta
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."[65] That very evening, in Calcutta, Hindus
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
Direct Action Day
with the outbreak of the cycle of violence that would later be called the "Great Calcutta
Calcutta
Killing of August 1946".[66] The next day, Hindus struck back and the violence continued for three days in which approximately 4,000 people died (according to official accounts), Hindus
Hindus
and Muslims
Muslims
in equal numbers. Although India
India
had had outbreaks of religious violence between Hindus
Hindus
and Muslims
Muslims
before, the Calcutta killings were the first to display elements of "ethnic cleansing", in modern parlance.[67] Violence was not confined to the public sphere, but homes were entered and destroyed and women and children were attacked.[68] Although the Government of India
India
and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru
Jawaharlal Nehru
as united India's prime minister. The communal violence spread to Bihar
Bihar
(where Muslims
Muslims
were attacked by Hindus), to Noakhali in Bengal
Bengal
(where Hindus
Hindus
were targeted by Muslims), to Garhmukteshwar
Garhmukteshwar
in the United Provinces (where Muslims were attacked by Hindus), and on to Rawalpindi
Rawalpindi
in March 1947 in which Hindus
Hindus
were attacked or driven out by Muslims.[69] Vallabhbhai Patel
Vallabhbhai Patel
was one of the first Congress leaders to accept the partition of India
India
as a solution to the rising Muslim
Muslim
separatist movement led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah. He had been outraged by Jinnah's Direct Action campaign, which had provoked communal violence across India
India
and by the viceroy's vetoes of his home department's plans to stop the violence on the grounds of constitutionality. Patel severely criticised the viceroy's induction of League ministers into the government, and the revalidation of the grouping scheme by the British without Congress approval. Although further outraged at the League's boycott of the assembly and non-acceptance of the plan of 16 May despite entering government, he was also aware that Jinnah
Jinnah
did enjoy popular support amongst Muslims, and that an open conflict between him and the nationalists could degenerate into a Hindu- Muslim
Muslim
civil war of disastrous consequences. The continuation of a divided and weak central government would in Patel's mind, result in the wider fragmentation of India
India
by encouraging more than 600 princely states towards independence.[70] Between the months of December 1946 and January 1947, Patel worked with civil servant V. P. Menon on the latter's suggestion for a separate dominion of Pakistan
Pakistan
created out of Muslim-majority provinces. Communal violence in Bengal
Bengal
and Punjab in January and March 1947 further convinced Patel of the soundness of partition. Patel, a fierce critic of Jinnah's demand that the Hindu-majority areas of Punjab and Bengal
Bengal
be included in a Muslim state, obtained the partition of those provinces, thus blocking any possibility of their inclusion in Pakistan. Patel's decisiveness on the partition of Punjab and Bengal
Bengal
had won him many supporters and admirers amongst the Indian public, which had tired of the League's tactics, but he was criticised by Gandhi, Nehru, secular Muslims
Muslims
and socialists for a perceived eagerness to do so. When Lord Louis 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 frank discussion in private meetings over the perceived practical unworkability of any Congress-League coalition, the rising violence and the threat of civil war. At the All India
India
Congress Committee meeting called to vote on the proposal, Patel said:

I fully appreciate the fears of our brothers from [the Muslim-majority areas]. Nobody likes the division of India
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 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 has completely disillusioned me regarding the supposed merits of the Cabinet Mission Plan. Except for a few honorable exceptions, Muslim
Muslim
officials from the top down to the chaprasis (peons 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
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 own genius. The League can develop the rest of the country.[71]

Following Gandhi's denial[72] but Congress' approval of the plan, Patel represented India
India
on the Partition Council, where he oversaw the division of public assets, and selected the Indian council of ministers with Nehru. However, neither he nor any other Indian leader had foreseen the intense violence and population transfer that would take place with partition. Late in 1946, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948. However, with the British army unprepared for the potential for increased violence, the new viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, advanced the date for the transfer of power, allowing less than six months for a mutually agreed plan for independence. In June 1947, the nationalist leaders, including Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad
Abul Kalam Azad
on behalf of the Congress, Jinnah
Jinnah
representing the Muslim
Muslim
League, B. R. Ambedkar
B. R. Ambedkar
representing the Untouchable community, and Master Tara Singh
Master Tara Singh
representing the Sikhs, agreed to a partition of the country along religious lines in stark opposition to Gandhi's views. The predominantly Hindu
Hindu
and Sikh
Sikh
areas were assigned to the new India
India
and predominantly Muslim
Muslim
areas to the new nation of Pakistan; the plan included a partition of the Muslim-majority provinces of Punjab and Bengal. The communal violence that accompanied the announcement of the Radcliffe Line, the line of partition, was even more horrific. Describing the violence that accompanied the Partition of India, historians Ian Talbot and Gurharpal Singh write:

There are numerous eyewitness accounts of the maiming and mutilation of victims. The catalogue of horrors includes the disembowelling of pregnant women, the slamming of babies' heads against brick walls, the cutting off of victims limbs and genitalia and the displaying of heads and corpses. While previous communal riots had been deadly, the scale and level of brutality during the Partition massacres was unprecedented. Although some scholars question the use of the term 'genocide' with respect to the Partition massacres, much of the violence was manifested with genocidal tendencies. It was designed to cleanse an existing generation and prevent its future reproduction."[73]

On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion
Dominion
of Pakistan
Pakistan
came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah
Muhammad Ali Jinnah
sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru
Jawaharlal Nehru
assuming the office of prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General; Gandhi, however, remained in Bengal, preferring instead to work with the new refugees from the partitioned subcontinent. Geographic partition, 1947[edit] Mountbatten Plan[edit]

Mountbatten with a countdown calendar to the Transfer of Power in the background

The actual division of British India
British India
between the two new dominions was accomplished according to what has come to be known as the 3 June Plan or Mountbatten Plan. It was announced at a press conference by Mountbatten on 3 June 1947, when the date of independence was also announced – 15 August 1947. The plan's main points were:

Sikhs, Hindus
Hindus
and Muslims
Muslims
in Punjab and Bengal
Bengal
legislative assemblies would meet and vote for partition. If a simple majority of either group wanted partition, then these provinces would be divided. Sind and Baluchistan were to make their own decision.[74] The fate of North West Frontier Province and Sylhet district of Assam was to be decided by a referendum. India
India
would be independent by 15 August 1947. The separate independence of Bengal
Bengal
was ruled out. A boundary commission to be set up in case of partition.

The Indian political leaders accepted the Plan on 2 June. It did not deal with the question of the princely states, but on 3 June Mountbatten advised them against remaining independent and urged them to join one of the two new dominions.[75] The Muslim
Muslim
League's demands for a separate state were thus conceded. The Congress' position on unity was also taken into account while making Pakistan
Pakistan
as small as possible. Mountbatten's formula was to divide India
India
and at the same time retain maximum possible unity. Abul Kalam Azad
Abul Kalam Azad
expressed concern over the likelihood of violent riots, to which Mountbatten replied:

At least on this question I shall give you complete assurance. I shall see to it that there is no bloodshed and riot. I am a soldier and not a civilian. Once partition is accepted in principle, I shall issue orders to see that there are no communal disturbances anywhere in the country. If there should be the slightest agitation, I shall adopt the sternest measures to nip the trouble in the bud.[76]

Jagmohan has stated that this and what followed shows the "glaring" "failure of the government machinery".[76] On 3 June 1947, the partition plan was accepted by the Congress Working Committee.[77] Boloji[unreliable source?] states that in Punjab there were no riots but there was communal tension, while Gandhi was reportedly isolated by Nehru and Patel and observed maun vrat (day of silence). Mountbatten visited Gandhi and said he hoped that he would not oppose the partition, to which Gandhi wrote the reply: "Have I ever opposed you?"[78] Within British India, the border between India
India
and Pakistan
Pakistan
(the Radcliffe Line) was determined by a British Government-commissioned report prepared under the chairmanship of a London barrister, Sir Cyril Radcliffe. Pakistan
Pakistan
came into being with two non-contiguous enclaves, East Pakistan
East Pakistan
(today Bangladesh) and West Pakistan, separated geographically by India. India
India
was formed out of the majority Hindu
Hindu
regions of British India, and Pakistan
Pakistan
from the majority Muslim
Muslim
areas. On 18 July 1947, the British Parliament
British Parliament
passed the Indian Independence Act that finalized the arrangements for partition and abandoned British suzerainty over the princely states, of which there were several hundred, leaving them free to choose whether to accede to one of the new dominions. The Government of India
India
Act 1935 was adapted to provide a legal framework for the new dominions. Following its creation as a new country in August 1947, Pakistan applied for membership of the United Nations and was accepted by the General Assembly on 30 September 1947. The Dominion
Dominion
of India
India
continued to have the existing seat as India
India
had been a founding member of the United Nations since 1945.[79] Radcliffe Line[edit] Further information: Radcliffe Line

A map of the Punjab region
Punjab region
c. 1947.

The Punjab—the region of the five rivers east of Indus: Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej—consists of interfluvial doabs, or tracts of land lying between two confluent rivers. These are the Sind-Sagar doab (between Indus
Indus
and Jhelum), the Jech doab (Jhelum/Chenab), the Rechna doab (Chenab/Ravi), the Bari doab (Ravi/Beas), and the Bist doab (Beas/Sutlej) (see map on the right). In early 1947, in the months leading up to the deliberations of the Punjab Boundary Commission, the main disputed areas appeared to be in the Bari and Bist doabs, although some areas in the Rechna doab were claimed by the Congress and Sikhs. In the Bari doab, the districts of Gurdaspur, Amritsar, Lahore, and Montgomery were all disputed.[80] All districts (other than Amritsar, which was 46.5% Muslim) had Muslim majorities; albeit, in Gurdaspur, the Muslim
Muslim
majority, at 51.1%, was slender. At a smaller area-scale, only three tehsils (sub-units of a district) in the Bari doab had non- Muslim
Muslim
majorities. These were: Pathankot (in the extreme north of Gurdaspur, which was not in dispute), and Amritsar and Tarn Taran in Amritsar district. In addition, there were four Muslim-majority tehsils east of Beas-Sutlej (with two where Muslims
Muslims
outnumbered Hindus
Hindus
and Sikhs
Sikhs
together).[80] 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
Muslim
and two non- Muslim
Muslim
judges with Sir Cyril Radcliffe as a common chairman.[80] The mission of the Punjab commission was worded generally as: "To demarcate the boundaries of the two parts of the Punjab, on the basis of ascertaining the contiguous majority areas of Muslims
Muslims
and non-Muslims. In doing so, it will take into account other factors." Each side (the Muslims
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."[80] Independence, population transfer, and violence[edit]

Train to Pakistan
Pakistan
being given an honour-guard send-off. New Delhi railway station, 1947

Rural Sikhs
Sikhs
in a long oxcart train headed towards India. 1947.

Two men carrying an old woman in a makeshift doli or palanquin. 1947.

A refugee train on its way to Punjab, Pakistan

Massive population exchanges occurred between the two newly formed states in the months immediately following the Partition. "The population of undivided India
India
in 1947 was approx 390 million. After partition, there were 330 million people in India, 30 million in West Pakistan, and 30 million people in East Pakistan
East Pakistan
(now Bangladesh)."[81] Once the lines were established, about 14.5 million people crossed the borders to what they hoped was the relative safety of religious majority. The 1951 Census of Pakistan
Pakistan
identified the number of displaced persons in Pakistan
Pakistan
at 7,226,600, presumably all Muslims
Muslims
who had entered Pakistan
Pakistan
from India. Similarly, the 1951 Census of India
India
enumerated 7,295,870 displaced persons, apparently all Hindus
Hindus
and Sikhs
Sikhs
who had moved to India
India
from Pakistan
Pakistan
immediately after the Partition.[82] The two numbers add up to 14.5 million. Since both censuses were held about 3.6 years after the Partition, the enumeration included net population increase after the mass migration.[83] About 11.2 million (77.4% of the displaced persons) were in the west, with the Punjab accounting for most of it: 6.5 million Muslims
Muslims
moved from India
India
to West Pakistan, and 4.7 million Hindus
Hindus
and Sikhs
Sikhs
moved from West Pakistan
Pakistan
to India; thus the net migration in the west from India
India
to West Pakistan
Pakistan
(now Pakistan) was 1.8 million. The remaining 3.3 million (22.6% of the displaced persons) were in the east: 2.6 million moved from East Pakistan
East Pakistan
to India
India
and 0.7 million moved from India
India
to East Pakistan
East Pakistan
(now Bangladesh); thus net migration in the east was 1.9 million into India. Punjab[edit]

A refugee special train at Ambala Station during partition of India

The Partition of British India
British India
split the former British province of Punjab between the Dominion
Dominion
of India
India
and the Dominion
Dominion
of Pakistan. The mostly Muslim
Muslim
western part of the province became Pakistan's Punjab province; the mostly Sikh
Sikh
and Hindu
Hindu
eastern part became India's East Punjab state (later divided into Punjab, Haryana
Haryana
and Himachal Pradesh). Many Hindus
Hindus
and Sikhs
Sikhs
lived in the west, and many Muslims lived in the east, and the fears of all such minorities were so great that the Partition saw many people displaced and much intercommunal violence. Some have described the violence in Punjab as a retributive genocide.[84] The newly formed governments were completely unequipped to deal with migrations of such staggering magnitude, and massive violence and slaughter occurred on both sides of the border. Estimates of the number of deaths vary, with low estimates at 200,000 and high estimates at 2,000,000.[85][86][87] Virtually no Muslim
Muslim
survived in East Punjab (except in Malerkotla) and virtually no Hindu
Hindu
or Sikh survived in West Punjab.[88] Lawrence James observed that 'Sir Francis Mudie, the governor of West Punjab, estimated that 500,000 Muslims
Muslims
died trying to enter his province, while the British high commissioner in Karachi
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]".[89] According to political scientist Ishtiaq Ahmed, "in March 1947 the Muslims
Muslims
started large-scale violence, mainly against Sikhs
Sikhs
but also against Hindus, in the Muslim-majority districts of northern Punjab. Yet at the end of that year more Muslims
Muslims
had been killed in East Punjab than Hindus
Hindus
and Sikhs
Sikhs
together in West Punjab."[90][91] Nehru wrote to Gandhi on 22 August that up to then, twice as many Muslims had been killed in East Punjab than Hindus
Hindus
and Sikhs
Sikhs
in West Punjab.[92] Bengal[edit] Main article: Partition of Bengal
Bengal
(1947) The province of Bengal
Bengal
was divided into the two separate entities of West Bengal, awarded to the Dominion
Dominion
of India, and East Bengal, awarded to the Dominion
Dominion
of Pakistan. East Bengal
East Bengal
was renamed East Pakistan
Pakistan
in 1955, and later became the independent nation of Bangladesh
Bangladesh
after the Bangladesh Liberation War
Bangladesh Liberation War
of 1971. While the Muslim
Muslim
majority districts of Murshidabad and Malda were given to India, the Hindu
Hindu
majority district of Khulna and the Buddhist majority, but sparsely populated, Chittagong Hill Tracts
Chittagong Hill Tracts
were given to Pakistan
Pakistan
by the Radcliffe award.[93] Thousands of Hindus, located in the districts of East Bengal
East Bengal
which were awarded to Pakistan, found themselves being attacked and this religious persecution forced hundreds of thousands of Hindus
Hindus
from East Bengal
Bengal
to seek refuge in India. The huge influx of Hindu
Hindu
refugees into Calcutta
Calcutta
affected the demographics of the city. Many Muslims
Muslims
left the city for East Pakistan
East Pakistan
and some of their homes and properties were occupied by the refugee families. Sindh[edit] Most of Sindh's prosperous middle class at the time of Partition was Hindu. At the time of Partition there were 1,400,000 Hindu
Hindu
Sindhis, though most were concentrated in cities such as Hyderabad, Karachi, Shikarpur, and Sukkur. Hundreds of Hindus
Hindus
residing in Sindh
Sindh
were forced to migrate. Some anti- Hindu
Hindu
violence in Sindh
Sindh
was precipitated by the arrival of Muslim
Muslim
refugees from India
India
with minimal local Muslim support for the rioters. Sindhi Hindus
Hindus
faced low scale rioting unlike the Punjabi Hindus
Hindus
and Sikhs
Sikhs
who had to migrate from West Punjab.[94] On 6 December 1947, communal violence broke out in Ajmer in India, precipitated by an argument between Sindhi Hindu
Hindu
refugees and local Muslims
Muslims
in the Dargah Bazaar. Violence in Ajmer again broke out in the middle of December with stabbings, looting and arson resulting in mostly Muslim
Muslim
casualties.[95] Many Muslims
Muslims
fled across the Thar Desert to Sindh
Sindh
in Pakistan.[95] This sparked further anti- Hindu
Hindu
riots in Hyderabad, Sindh. On 6 January anti- Hindu
Hindu
riots broke out in Karachi, leading to an estimate of 1100 casualties.[95] 776,000 Sindhi Hindus fled to India.[96] The arrival of Sindhi Hindu
Hindu
refugees in North Gujarat's town of Godhra sparked the March 1948 riots there which led to an emigration of Muslims
Muslims
from Godhra to Pakistan.[95] Despite the migration, a significant Sindhi Hindu
Hindu
population still resides in Pakistan's Sindh
Sindh
province where they number at around 2.28 million as per Pakistan's 1998 census; the Sindhi Hindus
Hindus
in India
India
were at 2.57 million as per India's 2001 Census. Some bordering districts in Sindh
Sindh
had a Hindu
Hindu
majority like Tharparkar District, Umerkot, Mirpurkhas, Sanghar and Badin, but their population is decreasing and they consider themselves a minority in decline. In fact, only Umerkot
Umerkot
still has a majority of Hindus
Hindus
in the district.[97] The Sindhi community did not face large scale violence, but felt deprivation of homeland and culture.[95] Delhi[edit]

A crowd of Muslims
Muslims
at the Old Fort (Purana Qila) in Delhi, which had been converted into a vast camp for Muslim
Muslim
refugees waiting to be transported to Pakistan. Manchester Guardian, 27 September 1947.

For centuries Delhi had been the capital of the Mughal Empire
Mughal Empire
and of previous Turkic Muslim
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. The 1941 Census listed Delhi's population as being 33.22% Muslim. However thousands of Hindu
Hindu
and Sikh
Sikh
refugees from Punjab poured into the city. This created an atmosphere of upheavals as anti-Muslim pogroms rocked the historical stronghold of Indo-Islamic culture and politics. Pakistani diplomat in Delhi, Hussain, alleged that the Indian government was intent on eliminating Delhi's Muslim
Muslim
population or was indifferent to their fate. He reported that Army troops openly gunned down innocent Muslims.[98] Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru estimated 1000 casualties in the city. However other sources claimed that the casualty rate had been 20 times higher. Gyanendra Pandey's more recent account of the Delhi violence puts the figure of Muslim
Muslim
casualties in Delhi as being between 20,000–25,000.[99] Tens of thousands of Muslims
Muslims
were driven to refugee camps regardless of their political affiliations and numerous historic sites in Delhi such as the Purana Qila, Idgah and Nizamuddin were transformed into refugee camps. At the culmination of the tensions in Delhi 330,000 Muslims
Muslims
were forced to flee the city to Pakistan. The 1951 Census registered a drop of the Muslim
Muslim
population in the city from 33.22% in 1941 to 5.33% in 1951.[100] Alwar and Bharatpur[edit] Alwar and Bharatpur were two princely states of Rajputana (modern day Rajasthan) which were the scene of a bloody confrontation between the dominant, land-holding community of Hindu
Hindu
Jats and the cultivating community of Muslim
Muslim
Meos from May 1947 onwards.[101] Well-organised bands of Hindu
Hindu
Jats, Ahirs and Gujars started attacking Muslim
Muslim
Meos in April 1947. By June more than fifty Muslim
Muslim
villages had been destroyed after attacks by all sides. The Muslim
Muslim
League was outraged and demanded that the Viceroy
Viceroy
provide Muslim
Muslim
troops. Accusations emerged in June of the involvement of Indian State Forces from Alwar and Bharatpur in the destruction of Muslim
Muslim
villages both inside their states and in British India.[102] In the wake of unprecedented violent attacks unleashed against them in 1947, 100,000 Muslim
Muslim
Meos from Alwar and Bharatpur was forced to flee their homes and an estimated 30,000 Meos are said to have been massacred.[103] On 17 November, a column of 80,000 Meo refugees went on their way to Pakistan. However, 10,000 stopped travelling due to the risk of trying to reach and settle in Pakistan.[101] Jammu
Jammu
and Kashmir[edit] Main article: 1947 Jammu
Jammu
massacres In September–November 1947 in the Jammu
Jammu
region of the princely state of Jammu
Jammu
and Kashmir, a large number of Muslims
Muslims
were massacred and others driven away to West Punjab. The impetus for this violence was partly provided by the influx of a large number of Hindu
Hindu
and Sikh refugees since March 1947, who brought with them "harrowing stories of Muslim
Muslim
atrocities", to Jammu
Jammu
from West Punjab. The killings were carried out by extremist Hindus
Hindus
and Sikhs, aided and abetted by the forces of the Dogra State headed by the Maharaja of Jammu
Jammu
and Kashmir Hari Singh. Observers state that Hari Singh’s aim was to alter the demographics of the region by eliminating the Muslim
Muslim
population, in order to ensure a Hindu
Hindu
majority in the region.[104][105] Resettlement of refugees in India: 1947–1957[edit] According to the 1951 Census of India, 2% of India's population were refugees (1.3% from West Pakistan
Pakistan
and 0.7% from East Pakistan). Delhi received the largest number of refugees for a single city – the population of Delhi grew rapidly in 1947 from under 1 million (917,939) to a little less than 2 million (1,744,072) during the period 1941–1951.[106] The refugees were housed in various historical and military locations such as the Purana Qila, Red Fort, and military barracks in Kingsway Camp
Kingsway Camp
(around the present Delhi University). The latter became the site of one of the largest refugee camps in northern India
India
with more than 35,000 refugees at any given time besides Kurukshetra camp near Panipat. The camp sites were later converted into permanent housing through extensive building projects undertaken by the Government of India
India
from 1948 onwards. A number of housing colonies in Delhi came up around this period like Lajpat Nagar, Rajinder Nagar, Nizamuddin East, Punjabi Bagh, Rehgar Pura, Jangpura
Jangpura
and Kingsway Camp. A number of schemes such as the provision of education, employment opportunities, and easy loans to start businesses were provided for the refugees at the all- India
India
level.[107] Many Sikhs
Sikhs
and Hindu
Hindu
Punjabis came from West Punjab and settled in East Punjab (which then also included Haryana
Haryana
and Himachal Pradesh) and Delhi. Hindus
Hindus
fleeing from East Pakistan
East Pakistan
(now Bangladesh) settled across Eastern India
India
and Northeastern India, many ending up in neighbouring Indian states such as West Bengal, Assam, and Tripura. Some migrants were sent to the Andaman islands
Andaman islands
where Bengalis today form the largest linguistic group. Sindhi Hindus
Hindus
settled predominantly in Gujarat, Maharashtra and Rajasthan. Some, however, settled further afield in Madhya Pradesh. A new township was established for Sindhi Hindu
Hindu
refugees in Maharashtra. The Governor-General of India, Sir Rajagopalachari, laid the foundation for this township and named it Ulhasnagar (namely 'city of joy'). Resettlement of refugees in Pakistan: 1947–1957[edit] The 1951 Census of Pakistan
Pakistan
recorded that the largest number of Muslim refugees came from the East Punjab and nearby Rajputana states (Alwar and Bharatpur). They were a number of 5,783,100 and constituted 80.1% of Pakistan's total refugee population.[108] This was the effect of the retributive ethnic cleansing on both sides of the Punjab where the Muslim
Muslim
population of East Punjab was forcibly expelled like the Hindu/ Sikh
Sikh
population in West Punjab. Migration from other regions of India
India
were as follows: Bihar, West Bengal
Bengal
and Orissa, 700,300 or 9.8%; UP and Delhi 464,200 or 2.4%; Gujarat and Bombay, 160,400 or 2.2%; Bhopal and Hyderabad 95,200 or 1.2%; and Madras and Mysore 18,000 or 0.2%.[108] So far as their settlement in Pakistan
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
West Bengal
and Orissa to the erstwhile East Pakistan; 95.5% from UP and Delhi to West Pakistan, mainly Karachi
Karachi
and Sind; 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.[108] West Punjab received the largest number of refugees (73.1%), mainly from East Punjab and its contiguous areas. East Bengal
East Bengal
received the second largest number of refugees, 699,100, who constituted 9.7% of the total Muslim
Muslim
refugee population in Pakistan. 66.69% of the refugees in East Bengal
East Bengal
originated from West Bengal, 14.50% from Bihar and 11.84% from Assam.[109] Karachi
Karachi
received 8.5% of the total migrant population while Sind received 7.6%. 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). The Government undertook a census of refugees in West Punjab in 1948, which displayed their place of origin in India. Data on the Number of Muslim
Muslim
refugees in West Punjab from the Districts of East Punjab and Neighbouring Regions[110]

Places Number

Amritsar (East Punjab) 741,444

Jalandhar (East Punjab) 520,189

Gurdaspur (East Punjab) 499,793

Hoshiarpur (East Punjab) 384,448

Karnal (East Punjab) 306,509

Hissar (East Punjab) 287,479

Ludhiana (East Punjab) 255,864

Ambala (East Punjab) 222,939

Gurgaon (East Punjab) 80,537

Rohtak (East Punjab) 172,640

Delhi 91,185

Kangra (East Punjab) 33,826

United Provinces 28,363

Shimla (East Punjab) 11,300

Data on the Number of Muslim
Muslim
refugees in West Punjab from the Princely states in East Punjab and Rajputana[110]

Name Number

Patiala (East Punjab) 308,948

Alwar (Rajputana) 191,567

Kapurthala (East Punjab) 172,079

Faridkot (East Punjab) 66,596

Bharatpur (Rajputana) 43,614

Nabha (East Punjab) 43,538

Jind (East Punjab) 41,696

Together other small states 39,322

Missing persons[edit] A study of the total population inflows and outflows in the districts of the Punjab, using the data provided by the 1931 and 1951 Census has led to an estimate of 1.26 million missing Muslims
Muslims
who left western India
India
but did not reach Pakistan.[89] The corresponding number of missing Hindus/ Sikhs
Sikhs
along the western border is estimated to be approximately 0.84 million.[111] This puts the total of missing people, due to Partition-related migration along the Punjab border, to around 2.23 million.[111] Another study of the demographic consequences of partition in the Punjab region
Punjab region
using the 1931, 1941 and 1951 censuses concluded that between 2.3 and 3.2 million people went missing in the Punjab.[112] Rehabilitation of women[edit] See also: Violence against women during the partition of India 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
Hindu
and Sikh
Sikh
women were abducted, and the Pakistani government claimed that 50,000 Muslim
Muslim
women were abducted during riots. By 1949, there were governmental claims that 12,000 women had been recovered in India
India
and 6,000 in Pakistan.[113] By 1954, there were 20,728 Muslim
Muslim
women recovered from India
India
and 9,032 Hindu
Hindu
and Sikh women recovered from Pakistan.[114] Most of the Hindu
Hindu
and Sikh
Sikh
women refused to go back to India, fearing that they would never be accepted by their family, a fear mirrored by Muslim
Muslim
women.[115] Post-Partition migration[edit] Pakistan[edit] Even after the 1951 Census many Muslim
Muslim
families from India
India
continued migrating to Pakistan
Pakistan
throughout the 1950s and the early 1960s. According to historian Omar Khalidi the Indian Muslim
Muslim
migration to West Pakistan
Pakistan
between December 1947 and December 1971 was from U.P., Delhi, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The next stage of migration, which lasted between 1973 and the 1990s, was when the migration of Indian Muslims
Muslims
to Pakistan
Pakistan
was reduced to its lowest levels since 1947. The primary destination for these migrants was Karachi
Karachi
and other urban centers in Sindh.[116] In 1959, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) published a report stating that from 1951 to 1956, a total of 650,000 Muslims
Muslims
from India
India
relocated to West Pakistan.[116] However, Visaria (1969) raised doubts about the authenticity of the claims about Indian Muslim migration to Pakistan, since the 1961 Census of Pakistan
Pakistan
did not corroborate these figures. However, the 1961 Census of Pakistan
Pakistan
did incorporate a statement suggesting that there had been a migration of 800,000 people from India
India
to Pakistan
Pakistan
throughout the previous decade.[117] Of those who had left for Pakistan, most never came back. Indian Muslim
Muslim
migration to Pakistan
Pakistan
declined drastically in the 1970s, a trend noticed by the Pakistani authorities. On June 1995, 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
India
on valid travel documents. Of these only 3,393 stayed.[116] In a related trend, intermarriages between Indian and Pakistani Muslims
Muslims
have declined sharply. According to a November 1995 statement of Riaz Khokhar, the Pakistani High Commissioner in New Delhi, the number of cross-border marriages has declined from 40,000 a year in the 1950s and 1960s to barely 300 annually.[116] In the aftermath of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, 3,500 Muslim families migrated from the Indian part of the Thar Desert to the Pakistani section of the Thar Desert.[118] 400 families were settled in Nagar after the 1965 war and an additional 3000 settled in the Chachro taluka in Sind province of West Pakistan.[119] The government of Pakistan
Pakistan
provided each family with 12 acres of land. According to government records this land totalled 42,000 acres.[119] The 1951 census in Pakistan
Pakistan
recorded 671,000 refugees in East Pakistan, the majority of which came from West Bengal. The rest were from Bihar.[120] According to the ILO in the period 1951–1956, half a million Indian Muslims
Muslims
migrated to East Pakistan.[116] By 1961 the numbers reached 850,000. In the aftermath of the riots in Ranchi and Jamshedpur, Biharis continued to migrate to East Pakistan
East Pakistan
well into the late sixties and added up to around a million.[121] Crude estimates suggest that about 1.5 million Muslims
Muslims
migrated from West Bengal
Bengal
and Bihar
Bihar
to East Bengal
East Bengal
in the two decades after partition.[122] India[edit] Due to religious persecution in Pakistan, Hindus
Hindus
continue to flee to India. Most of them tend to settle in the state of Rajasthan in India.[123] According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan
Pakistan
data, just around 1,000 Hindu
Hindu
families fled to India
India
in 2013.[123] In May 2014, a member of the ruling Pakistan
Pakistan
Muslim
Muslim
League-Nawaz (PML-N), Dr Ramesh Kumar Vankwani, revealed in the National Assembly of Pakistan that around 5,000 Hindus
Hindus
are migrating from Pakistan
Pakistan
to India
India
every year.[124] Since India
India
is not a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention it refuses to recognise Pakistani Hindu migrants as refugees.[123] The population in the Tharparkar district in the Sind province of West Pakistan
Pakistan
was 80% Hindu
Hindu
and 20% Muslim
Muslim
at the time of independence in 1947. During the Indo-Pakistani wars of 1965 and 1971, the Hindu
Hindu
upper castes and their retainers fled to India. This led to a massive demographic shift in the district.[118] In 1978 India
India
gave citizenship to 55,000 Pakistanis.[123] By the time of the 1998 census of Pakistan, Muslims
Muslims
made up 64.42% of the population and Hindus
Hindus
35.58% of the population in Tharparkar. The migration of Hindus
Hindus
from East Pakistan
East Pakistan
to India
India
continued unabated after partition. The 1951 census in India
India
recorded that 2.523 million refugees arrived from East Pakistan, of which 2.061 million migrated to West Bengal
West Bengal
while the rest migrated to Assam, Tripura
Tripura
and other states.[120] These refugees arrived in waves and did not come solely at partition. By 1973 their number reached over 6 million. The following data displays the major waves of refugees from East Pakistan and the incidents which precipitated the migrations.[125][126]

Year Reason Number

1947 Partition 344,000

1948 Hyderabad annexation by India 786,000

1950 1950 Barisal Riots 1,575,000

1956 Pakistan
Pakistan
becomes Islamic Republic 320,000

1964 Riots over Hazratbal incident 693,000

1971 Bangladesh
Bangladesh
liberation war 1,500,000

Perspectives[edit]

Play media

Refugees on train roof during Partition

The Partition was a highly controversial arrangement, and remains a cause of much tension on the Indian subcontinent
Indian subcontinent
today. According to American scholar[127] Allen McGrath many British leaders including the British Viceroy, Mountbatten, were unhappy over the partition of India.[128] Lord Mountbatten of Burma
Burma
had not only been accused of rushing the process through, but also is alleged to have influenced the Radcliffe Line
Radcliffe Line
in India's favour.[129][130] The commission took longer to decide on a final boundary than on the partition itself. Thus the two nations were granted their independence even before there was a defined boundary between them. Some critics allege that British haste led to increased cruelties during the Partition.[131] Because independence was declared prior to the actual Partition, it was up to the new governments of India
India
and Pakistan
Pakistan
to keep public order. No large population movements were contemplated; the plan called for safeguards for minorities on both sides of the new border. It was a task at which both states failed. There was a complete breakdown of law and order; many died in riots, massacre, or just from the hardships of their flight to safety. What ensued was one of the largest population movements in recorded history. According to Richard Symonds, at the lowest estimate, half a million people perished and twelve million became homeless.[132] However, many argue that the British were forced to expedite the Partition by events on the ground.[133] Once in office, Mountbatten quickly became aware that if Britain were to avoid involvement in a civil war, which seemed increasingly likely, there was no alternative to partition and a hasty exit from India.[133] Law and order had broken down many times before Partition, with much bloodshed on both sides. A massive civil war was looming by the time Mountbatten became Viceroy. After the Second World War, Britain had limited resources,[134] perhaps insufficient to the task of keeping order. Another viewpoint is that while Mountbatten may have been too hasty he had no real options left and achieved the best he could under difficult circumstances.[135] The historian Lawrence James concurs that in 1947 Mountbatten was left with no option but to cut and run. The alternative seemed to be involvement in a potentially bloody civil war from which it would be difficult to get out.[136] Conservative elements in England consider the partition of India
India
to be the moment that the British Empire
British Empire
ceased to be a world power, following Curzon's dictum: "the loss of India
India
would mean that Britain drop straight away to a third rate power."[137] Venkat Dhulipala rejects the idea that the British divide and rule policy was responsible for partition and elaborates on the perspective that Pakistan
Pakistan
was popularly imagined as a sovereign Islamic state or a 'New Medina', as a potential successor to the defunct Turkish caliphate[138][139] and as a leader and protector of the entire Islamic world. Islamic scholars debated over creating Pakistan
Pakistan
and its potential to become a true Islamic state[138][139] The majority of Barelvis supported the creation of Pakistan[140][141] and believed that any co-operation with Hindus
Hindus
would be counter productive.[142] Most Deobandis, who were led by Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, were opposed to the creation of Pakistan
Pakistan
and the two-nation theory. According to them Muslims
Muslims
and Hindus
Hindus
could be one nation.[143][144][145] In their authoritative study of the partition, Ian Talbot and Gurharpal Singh have shown that the partition was not the inevitable end of the so-called British 'divide and rule policy' nor was it the inevitable end of Hindu- Muslim
Muslim
differences.[146] A cross-border student initiative, The History Project, was launched in 2014 to explore the differences in perception of the events during the British era which led to the partition. The project resulted in a book that explains both interpretations of the shared history in Pakistan
Pakistan
and India.[147][148] Berkeley, California based non-profit organization The 1947 Partition Archive collects oral histories from people who lived through the Partition and consolidates the interviews into an archive. In October 2016, The Arts and Cultural Heritage Trust (TAACHT) of India
India
set up what they describe as "the world’s first Partition Museum" at Town Hall in Amritsar (in Punjab state). The Museum, which is open from Tuesday to Sunday, offers multi-media 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. [149] Artistic depictions of the Partition[edit] Main article: Artistic depictions of the partition of India The partition of India
India
and the associated bloody riots inspired many in India
India
and Pakistan
Pakistan
to create literary/cinematic depictions of this event.[150] While some creations depicted the massacres during the refugee migration, others concentrated on the aftermath of the partition in terms of difficulties faced by the refugees in both side of the border. Even now, more than 60 years after the partition, works of fiction and films are made that relate to the events of partition. The early members of the Progressive Artist's Group of Bombay cite "The Partition" of India
India
and Pakistan
Pakistan
as a key reason for its founding in December 1947. They included FN Souza, MF Husain, SH Raza, SK Bakre, HA Gade and KH Ara, who went on to become some of the most important and influential Indian artists of the 20th Century.[151] Literature describing the human cost of independence and partition comprises Bal K. Gupta's memoirs Forgotten Atrocities (2012), Khushwant Singh's Train to Pakistan
Pakistan
(1956), several short stories such as Toba Tek Singh (1955) by Saadat Hassan Manto, Urdu
Urdu
poems such as Subh-e-Azadi (Freedom's Dawn, 1947) by Faiz Ahmad Faiz, Bhisham Sahni's Tamas (1974), Manohar Malgonkar's A Bend in the Ganges (1965), Chaman Nahal's AZADI (1975) originally written in English and winner of the Sahitya Akedemi Award in India
India
(1977), and Bapsi Sidhwa's Ice-Candy Man (1988), among others.[152][153] Salman Rushdie's novel Midnight's Children
Midnight's Children
(1980), which won the Booker Prize
Booker Prize
and The Best of the Booker, wove its narrative based on the children born with magical abilities on midnight of 14 August 1947.[153] Freedom at Midnight (1975) is a non-fiction work by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre that chronicled the events surrounding the first Independence Day celebrations in 1947. There is a paucity of films related to the independence and partition.[154][155][156] Early films relating to the circumstances of the independence, partition and the aftermath include Nemai Ghosh's Chinnamul
Chinnamul
(Bengali) (1950),[154] Dharmputra (1961)[157] Lahore
Lahore
(1948), Chhalia (1956), Nastik (1953). George Cukor's Bhowani Junction (1956), Ritwik Ghatak's trilogy of Meghe Dhaka
Dhaka
Tara (Bengali) (1960) / Komal Gandhar (Bengali) (1961) / Subarnarekha (Bengali) (1962);[154][158] later films include Garm Hava
Garm Hava
(1973) and Tamas (1987).[157] From the late 1990s onwards, more films on this theme were made, including several mainstream ones, such as Earth (1998), Train to Pakistan (1998) (based on the aforementined book), Hey Ram
Hey Ram
(2000), Gadar: Ek Prem Katha (2001), Khamosh Pani
Khamosh Pani
(2003), Pinjar (2003), Partition (2007), Madrasapattinam
Madrasapattinam
(2010)[157] and Viceroy's House (2017). The biographical films Gandhi (1982), Jinnah
Jinnah
(1998) and Sardar (1993) also feature independence and partition as significant events in their screenplay. A Pakistani drama Daastan, based on the novel Bano, highlights the plight of Muslim
Muslim
girls who were abducted and raped during partition. The novel Lost Generations (2013) by Manjit Sachdeva describes the March 1947 massacre in rural areas of Rawalpindi
Rawalpindi
by the Muslim
Muslim
League, followed by massacres on both sides of the new border in August 1947 seen through the eyes of an escaping Sikh
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 2013 Google India
India
advertisement Reunion (about the Partition of India) has had a strong impact in India
India
and Pakistan, leading to hope for the easing of travel restrictions between the two countries.[159][160][161] It went viral[162][163] and was viewed more than 1.6 million times before officially debuting on television on 15 November 2013.[164] See also[edit]

History portal India
India
portal Indian independence movement
Indian independence movement
portal

List of princely states of India Princely states
Princely states
of Pakistan Indian independence movement Pakistan
Pakistan
Movement History of Bangladesh History of India History of Pakistan History of the Republic of India Indian annexation of Goa The 1947 Partition Archive

Notes[edit]

^ British India
British India
consisted of those regions of the British Raj, or the British Indian Empire, which were directly administered by Britain; other regions, called princely states, were ruled by native rulers called Maharajahs and Nawabs, but under the suzerainty of the British Crown ^ "The death toll remains disputed with figures ranging from 200,000 to 2 million."[3] ^ Coastal Ceylon, part of the Madras Presidency
Madras Presidency
of British India
British India
from 1796, became the separate crown colony of British Ceylon
Ceylon
in 1802. Burma, gradually annexed by the British during 1826–86 and governed as a part of the British Indian administration until 1937, was directly administered thereafter.[4] Burma
Burma
was granted independence on 4 January 1948 and Ceylon
Ceylon
on 4 February 1948. (See History of Sri Lanka and History of Burma.) ^ The Himalayan kingdom of Sikkim
Sikkim
was established as a princely state after the Anglo-Sikkimese Treaty of 1861, however, the issue of sovereignty was left undefined.[5] In 1947, Sikkim
Sikkim
became an independent kingdom under the suzerainty of India
India
and remained so until 1975 when it was absorbed into India
India
as the 22nd state. Other Himalayan kingdoms, Nepal
Nepal
and Bhutan, having signed treaties with the British designating them as independent states, were not a part of British India.[6] The Indian Ocean
Indian Ocean
island of The Maldives, became a protectorate of the British crown
British crown
in 1887 and gained its independence in 1965.

References[edit]

^ Partition (n), 7. b (3rd ed.). Oxford English Dictionary. 2005. The division of British India
British India
into India
India
and Pakistan, achieved in 1947.  ^ Yasmin Khan The Great Partition: The Making of India
India
and Pakistan Yale University Press, 2007 ISBN 0300120788, 9780300120783 ^ a b Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 2. ^ Sword For Pen, Time, 12 April 1937 ^ "Sikkim". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008.  ^ Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. "Nepal.", Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. "Bhutan." ^ a b c Spear 1990, p. 176 ^ Spear 1990, p. 176, Stein & Arnold 2010, p. 291, Ludden 2002, p. 193, Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, p. 156 ^ a b Bandyopādhyāẏa 2004, p. 260 ^ a b c Ludden 2002, p. 193 ^ Ludden 2002, p. 199 ^ a b c d e Ludden 2002, p. 200 ^ Stein & Arnold 2010, p. 286 ^ Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 20. ^ a b Ludden 2002, p. 201 ^ a b c Brown 1994, pp. 197–198 ^ Olympic Games Antwerp 1920: Official Report, 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 ..." ^ a b c Brown 1994, pp. 200–201 ^ a b c d e f g h i Brown 1994, pp. 205–207 ^ Robin W. Winks, Alaine M. Low (2001), The Oxford history of the British Empire: Historiography, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-924680-9, ... At the heart of the two-nation theory was the belief that the Indian Muslims' identity was defined by religion rather than language or ethnicity ...  ^ Liaquat Ali Khan
Liaquat Ali Khan
(1940), Pakistan: The Heart of Asia, Thacker & Co. Ltd., ... There is much in the Musalmans which, if they wish, can roll them into a nation. But isn't there enough that is common to both Hindus
Hindus
and Muslims, which if developed, is capable of molding them into one people? Nobody can deny that there are many modes, manners, rites and customs which are common to both. Nobody can deny that there are rites, customs and usages based on religion which do divide Hindus and Muslmans. The question is, which of these should be emphasized ...  ^ "Two-Nation Theory Exists". Pakistan
Pakistan
Times. Archived from the original on 11 November 2007.  ^ "Holy War Against India
India
by Conor Cruise O'Brien". www.theatlantic.com. Retrieved 2017-04-02.  ^ Economic and political weekly, Volume 14, Part 3, Sameeksha Trust, 1979, ... the Muslims
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 ...  ^ M. M. Sankhdher, K. K. Wadhwa (1991), National unity and religious minorities, Gitanjali Publishing House, ISBN 978-81-85060-36-1, ... In their heart of hearts, the Indian Muslims
Muslims
are not Indian citizens, are not Indians: they are citizens of the universal Islamic ummah, of Islamdom ...  ^ Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Sudhakar Raje (1989), Savarkar commemoration volume, Savarkar Darshan Pratishthan, ... His historic warning against conversion and call for Shuddhi was condensed in the dictum 'Dharmantar is Rashtrantar' (to change one's religion is to change one's nationality) ...  ^ N. Chakravarty (1990), "Mainstream", Mainstream, 28 (32–52), ... 'Dharmantar is Rashtrantar' is one of the old slogans of the VHP ...  ^ http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1826/18260810.htm ^ Carlo Caldarola (1982), Religions and societies, Asia and the Middle East, Walter de Gruyter, ISBN 978-90-279-3259-4, ... Hindu
Hindu
and Muslim
Muslim
cultures constitute two distinct, and frequently antagonistic, ways of life, and that therefore they cannot coexist in one nation ...  ^ S. Harman (1977), Plight of Muslims
Muslims
in India, DL Publications, ISBN 978-0-9502818-2-7, ... strongly and repeatedly pressed for the transfer of population between India
India
and Pakistan. At the time of partition some of the two-nation theory protagonists proposed that the entire Hindu
Hindu
population should migrate to India
India
and all Muslims
Muslims
should move over to Pakistan, leaving no Hindus
Hindus
in Pakistan
Pakistan
and no Muslims
Muslims
in India
India
...  ^ M. M. Sankhdher (1992), Secularism in India, dilemmas and challenges, Deep & Deep Publication, ... The partition of the country did not take the two-nation theory to its logical conclusion, i.e., complete transfer of populations ...  ^ Rafiq Zakaria (2004), Indian Muslims: where have they gone wrong?, Popular Prakashan, ISBN 978-81-7991-201-0, ... As a Muslim
Muslim
... Hindus
Hindus
and Muslims
Muslims
are one nation and not two ... two nations has no basis in history ... they shall continue to live together for another thousand years in united India
India
...  ^ Pakistan
Pakistan
Constituent Assembly (1953), Debates: Official report, Volume 1; Volume 16, Government of Pakistan
Pakistan
Press, ... say that Hindus and Muslims
Muslims
are one, single nation. It is a very peculiar attitude on the part of the leader of the ppposition. In fact if his point of view was accepted, then the very justification for the existence of Pakistan
Pakistan
would disappear ...  ^ Janmahmad (1989), Essays on Baloch national struggle in Pakistan: emergence, dimensions, repercussions, Gosha-e-Adab, ... 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
Muslims
... would mean losing their Baloch identity in the process ...  ^ Stephen P. Cohen
Stephen P. Cohen
(2004), The idea of Pakistan, Brookings Institution Press, p. 212, ISBN 978-0-8157-1502-3, [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.  ^ Ahmad Salim (1991), Pashtun and Baloch history: Punjabi view, Fiction House, ... 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
Pakistan
...  ^ Principal Lecturer in Economics Pritam Singh; Pritam Singh (19 February 2008). Federalism, Nationalism and Development: India
India
and the Punjab Economy. Routledge. pp. 137–. ISBN 978-1-134-04946-2.  ^ Pritam Singh (19 February 2008). Federalism, Nationalism and Development: India
India
and the Punjab Economy. Routledge. pp. 173–. ISBN 978-1-134-04945-5.  ^ a b Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 31. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 32. ^ Talbot & Singh 2009, pp. 32–33. ^ a b c d e f g Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 33. ^ a b c d Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 34. ^ a b c Khan 2007, p. 18. ^ Talbot & Singh 2009, pp. 34–35. ^ a b c Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 35. ^ Stein & Arnold 2010, p. 289: Quote: "Gandhi was the leading genius of the later, and ultimately successful, campaign for India's independence" ^ Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, p. 209. ^ Khan 2007, p. 43. ^ Robb 2002, p. 190 ^ Gilmartin, David (8 September 2009). " Muslim
Muslim
League Appeals to the Voters of Punjab for Support of Pakistan". In D. Metcalf, Barbara. Islam
Islam
in South Asia in Practice. Princeton University Press. pp. 410–. ISBN 1-4008-3138-5. At the all- India
India
level, the demand for Pakistan
Pakistan
pitted the League against the Congress and the British.  ^ Dr. Malti Malik (2016). History of India. Saraswati House. p. 432.  ^ Barbara Metcalf (1 December 2012). Husain Ahmad Madani: The Jihad for Islam
Islam
and India's Freedom. Oneworld Publications. pp. 107–. ISBN 978-1-78074-210-6.  ^ Judd 2004, pp. 170–171 ^ Judd 2004, p. 172 ^ Brown, Judith Margaret (1994). Modern India: the origins of an Asian democracy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-873112-2. Yet these final years of the raj showed conclusively that British rule had lost legitimacy and that among the vast majority of Hindus
Hindus
Congress had become the raj's legitimate successor. Tangible proof came in the 1945-6 elections to the central and provincial legislatures. In the former Congress won 91 per cent of the votes cast in non-Muslim constituencies; and in the latter gained an absolute majority and became the provincial raj in eight provinces. The acquiescence of the politically aware (though possibly not of many villagers even at this point) would have been seriously in doubt if the British had displayed any intention of staying in India. (pages 328-329)  ^ Barbara D. Metcalf; Thomas R. Metcalf (24 September 2012). A Concise History of Modern India. Cambridge University Press. pp. 212–. ISBN 978-1-139-53705-6.  ^ Burton Stein (4 February 2010). A History of India. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 347–. ISBN 978-1-4443-2351-1.  ^ Sugata Bose; Ayesha Jalal (January 2004). Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-30787-1.  ^ Burton Stein (4 February 2010). A History of India. John Wiley & Sons. p. 347. ISBN 978-1-4443-2351-1. His standing with the British remained high, however, for even though they no more agreed with the idea of a separate Muslim
Muslim
state than the Congress did, government officials appreciated the simplicity of a single negotiating voice for all of India's Muslims.  ^ Jeffery J. Roberts (2003). The Origins of Conflict in Afghanistan. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 85–. ISBN 978-0-275-97878-5. Virtually every Briton wanted to keep India
India
united. Many expressed moral or sentimental obligations to leave India
India
intact, either for the inhabitants' sake or simply as a lasting testament to the Empire. The Cabinet Defense Committee and the Chiefs of Staff, however, stressed the maintenance of a united India
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
India
would thus remain of crucial importance as a base, training ground, and staging area for operations from Egypt to the Far East.  ^ Darwin, John (2011-03-03). "Britain, the Commonwealth and the End of Empire". BBC. Retrieved Apr 10, 2017. But the British still hoped that a self-governing India
India
would remain part of their system of 'imperial defence'. For this reason, Britain was desperate to keep India
India
(and its army) united.  ^ Barbara D. Metcalf; Thomas R. Metcalf (2002). A Concise History of India. Cambridge University Press. pp. 212–. ISBN 978-0-521-63974-3. By this scheme, the British hoped they could at once preserve the united India
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'.  ^ "Cabinet Mission Plan 1946". GKToday. 2011-10-30. Retrieved 2017-03-25.  ^ Khan 2007, pp. 64–65. ^ Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 69: Quote: "Despite the Muslim League's denials, the outbreak was clearly linked with the celebration of Direction Action Day. Muslim
Muslim
processionists who had gone to the staging ground of the 150-foot Ochterlony Monument
Ochterlony Monument
on the maidan to hear the Muslim
Muslim
League Prime Minister Suhrawardy, attacked Hindus
Hindus
on their way back. They were heard shouting slogans as 'Larke Lenge Pakistan' (We shall win Pakistan
Pakistan
by force). Violence spread to North Calcutta
Calcutta
when Muslim
Muslim
crowds tried to force Hindu
Hindu
shopkeepers to observe the day's strike (hartal) call. The circulation of pamphlets in advance of Direct Action Day
Direct Action Day
demonstrated a clear connection between the use of violence and the demand for Pakistan." ^ Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 67 Quote: "The signs of 'ethnic cleansing' are first evident in the Great Calcutta
Calcutta
Killing of 16–19 August 1946." ^ Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 68. ^ Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 67 Quote: "(Signs of 'ethnic cleansing') were also present in the wave of violence that rippled out from Calcutta
Calcutta
to Bihar, where there were high Muslim
Muslim
casualty figures, and to Noakhali deep in the Ganges-Brahmaputra delta of Bengal. With respect to the Noakhali riots, one British officer spoke of a 'determined and organised' Muslim
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
Rawalpindi
massacres of March 1947. The level of death and destruction in such West Punjab villages as Thoa Khalsa was such that it was impossible for communities to live together in its wake." ^ Gandhi, Rajmohan. Patel: A Life. pp. 395–397.  ^ Menon, V. P. Transfer of Power in India. p. 385.  ^ Jain, Jagdish Chandra.Gandhi, the forgotten Mahatma. Mittal Publications, 1987, p 38. ^ Talbot & Singh 2009, pp. 67–68. ^ Menon, V.P (1957). Transfer of Power in India. Orient Blackswan. p. 512. ISBN 9788125008842.  ^ Sankar Ghose, Jawaharlal Nehru, a biography (1993), p. 181 ^ a b Jagmohan (2005). Soul and Structure of Governance in India. Allied Publishers. p. 49. ISBN 9788177648317.  ^ Gopal, Ram. Hindu
Hindu
Culture During and After Muslim
Muslim
Rule: Survival and Subsequent Challenges. M.D. Publications Pvt. Ltd. p. 133.  ^ Ray, Jayanta Kumar. India’s Foreign Relations, 1947–2007. Routledge. p. 58.  ^ Raju, Thomas G. C. (Fall 1994). "Nations, States, and Secession: Lessons from the Former Yugoslavia". Mediterranean Quarterly. Duke University Press. 5 (4): 40–65.  ^ a b c d Spate 1947, pp. 126–137 ^ Cause for acceptance of refugees into European Nations by Dhruv Kharabanda; p 4 ^ Population Redistribution and Development in South Asia. Springer Science & Business Media. 2012. p. 6.  ^ "When Muslims
Muslims
left Pakistan
Pakistan
for India".  ^ "The partition of India
India
and retributive genocide in the Punjab, 1946–47: means, methods, and purposes" (PDF). Retrieved 19 December 2006.  ^ D'Costa, Bina (2011). Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia. Routledge. p. 53. ISBN 9780415565660.  ^ Butalia, Urvashi (2000). The Other Side of Silence: Voices From the Partition of India. Duke University Press.  ^ Sikand, Yoginder (2004). Muslims
Muslims
in India
India
Since 1947: Islamic Perspectives on Inter-Faith Relations. Routledge. p. 5. ISBN 9781134378258.  ^ "A heritage all but erased". The Friday Times. 2015-12-25. Retrieved 2017-06-26.  ^ a b 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 2016-01-16.  ^ Ahmed, Ishtiaq. "The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed".  ^ Butt, Shafiq. "A page from history: Dr Ishtiaq underscores need to build bridges".  ^ Nisid Hajari (2015). Midnight's Furies: The Deadly Legacy of India's Partition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. pp. 139–. ISBN 978-0-547-66921-2.  ^ Chatterji, Joya. The Spoils of Partition: Bengal
Bengal
and India, 1947–1967. p. 45.  ^ Salim, Ahmad (2004), Partition of India: The Case of Sindh
Sindh
– Migration, Violence and Peaceful Sindh
Sindh
(PDF), Sustainable Development Policy Institute  ^ a b c d e Bhavnani, Nandita (2014). The Making of Exile: Sindhi Hindus
Hindus
and the Partition of India. Westland. ISBN 978-93-84030-33-9.  ^ Markovits, Claude (2000). The Global World of Indian Merchants, 1750–1947. Cambridge University Press. p. 278. ISBN 0-521-62285-9.  ^ "Population of Hindus
Hindus
in the World". Pakistan
Pakistan
Hindu
Hindu
Council. Archived from the original on 18 May 2013.  ^ Nisid Hajari (2015). Midnight's Furies: The Deadly Legacy of India's Partition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. pp. 160–. ISBN 978-0-547-66921-2.  ^ Zamindar, Vazira Fazila-Yacoobali (2010). The Long Partition and the Making of Modern South Asia: Refugees, Boundaries, Histories. Columbia University Press. p. 247. ISBN 978-0-231-13847-5.  ^ Sharma, Bulbul (2013). Muslims
Muslims
In Indian Cities. HarperCollins Publishers India. ISBN 978-93-5029-555-7.  ^ a b Pandey, Gyanendra (2001). Remembering Partition: Violence, Nationalism and History in India. Cambridge University Press. p. 39. ISBN 978-0-521-00250-9.  ^ Marston, Daniel (2014). The Indian Army and the End of the Raj. Cambridge University Press. p. 306. ISBN 9781139915762.  ^ Khan, Yasmin (2007). The Great Partition: The Making of India
India
and Pakistan. Yale University Press. p. 135. ISBN 978-0-300-12078-3.  ^ Chattha, Ilyas Ahmad (September 2009), Partition and Its Aftermath: Violence, Migration and the Role of Refugees in the Socio-Economic Development of Gujranwala and Sialkot Cities, 1947–1961. University of Southampton, retrieved 2016-02-16. pp. 179, 183.  ^ "Horrors of Partition, A.G. NOORANI." FRONTLINE.  ^ Census of India, 1941 and 1951. ^ Kaur, Ravinder (2007). Since 1947: Partition Narratives among Punjabi Migrants of Delhi. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-568377-6.  ^ a b c Chitkara, G.M. (1998). Converts Do Not Make A Nation. APH Publishing. p. 216. ISBN 978-81-7024-982-5.  ^ Ghosh, Papiya (2001). "The Changing Discourse Of The Muhajirs". India
India
International Centre Quarterly. 28 (3): 58. JSTOR 23005560.  ^ a b Chattha 2009, p. 111. ^ a b 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 16/01/2016 ^ Hill, K., Selzer, W., Leaning, J., Malik, S., & Russell, S. (2008). The Demographic Impact of Partition in the Punjab in 1947. Population Studies, 62(2), 155-170. ^ Perspectives on Modern South Asia: A Reader in Culture, History, and ... – Kamala Visweswara. nGoogle Books.in (16 May 2011). ^ Borders & boundaries: women in India's partition – Ritu Menon, Kamla Bhasi. nGoogle Books.in (24 April 1993). ^ Jayawardena, Kumari; de Alwi, Malathi (1996). Embodied violence: Communalising women's sexuality in South Asia. Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-448-9.  ^ a b c d e Khalidi, Omar (Autumn 1998). "From Torrent to Trickle: Indian Muslim
Muslim
Migration to Pakistan, 1947—97". Islamic Studies. Islamic Research Institute, International Islamic University, Islamabad. 37 (3): 339–52. JSTOR 20837002.  ^ http://www.lse.ac.uk/asiaResearchCentre/_files/ARCWP04-Karim.pdf ^ a b Hasan, Arif; Mansoor, Raza (2009). Migration and Small Towns in Pakistan; Volume 15 of Rural-urban interactions and livelihood strategies working paper. IIED. p. 16. ISBN 978-1-84369-734-3. ^ a b Hasan, Arif (30 December 1987). "Comprehensive assessment of drought and famine in Sind arid ones leading to a realistic short and long-term emergency intervention plan" (PDF). p. 25. Retrieved 2016-01-12. ^ a b Hill et al, page 13[permanent dead link] ^ Ben Whitaker, The Biharis in Bangladesh, Minority Rights Group, London, 1971, p.7. ^ Chatterji – Spoils of partition. Page 166 ^ a b c d Rizvi, Uzair Hasan (10 September 2015). " Hindu
Hindu
refugees from Pakistan
Pakistan
encounter suspicion and indifference in India". Dawn.  ^ Haider, Irfan (13 May 2014). "5,000 Hindus
Hindus
migrating to India
India
every year, NA told". Retrieved 2016-01-15.  ^ P. N. Luthra – Rehabilitation, page 18-19 ^ During Bangladesh
Bangladesh
liberation war 11 million people from both communities took shelter in India. After the war 1.5 million decided to stay. Source. ^ Stephen P. Cohen
Stephen P. Cohen
(2004). The Idea of Pakistan. Brookings Institution Press. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-8157-9761-6. American scholar Allen Mcgrath  ^ Allen McGrath (1996). The Destruction of Pakistan's Democracy. Oxford University Press. p. 38. ISBN 978-0-19-577583-9. Undivided India, their magnificent imperial trophy, was besmirched by the creation of Pakistan, and the division of India
India
was never emotionally accepted by many British leaders, Mountbatten among them.  ^ K. Z. Islam, 2002, The Punjab Boundary Award, Inretrospect Archived 17 January 2006 at the Wayback Machine. ^ Partitioning India
India
over lunch, Memoirs of a British civil servant Christopher Beaumont. BBC News (10 August 2007). ^ Stanley Wolpert, 2006, Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire
British Empire
in India, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-515198-4 ^ Richard Symonds, 1950, The Making of Pakistan, London, OCLC 245793264, p 74 ^ a b Lawrence J. Butler, 2002, Britain and Empire: Adjusting to a Post-Imperial World, p. 72 ^ Lawrence J. Butler, 2002, Britain and Empire: Adjusting to a Post-Imperial World, p 72 ^ Ronald Hyam, Britain's Declining Empire: The Road to Decolonisation, 1918–1968, page 113; Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-86649-9, 2007 ^ Lawrence James, Rise and Fall of the British Empire ^ Judd, Dennis, The Lion and the Tiger: The rise and Fall of the British Raj,1600–1947. Oxford University Press: New York. (2010) p. 138. ^ a b "Was Pakistan
Pakistan
sufficiently imagined before independence? – The Express Tribune". The Express Tribune. 2015-08-23. Retrieved 2017-03-08.  ^ a b Ashraf, Ajaz. "The Venkat Dhulipala interview: 'On the Partition issue, Jinnah
Jinnah
and Ambedkar were on the same page'". Scroll.in. Retrieved 2017-03-08.  ^ Long, Roger D.; Singh, Gurharpal; Samad, Yunas; Talbot, Ian (2015). State and Nation-Building in Pakistan: Beyond Islam
Islam
and Security. Routledge. p. 167. ISBN 9781317448204. In the 1940s a solid majority of the Barelvis were supporters of the Pakistan
Pakistan
Movement and played a supporting role in its final phase (1940–7), mostly under the banner of the All- India
India
Sunni Conference which had been founded in 1925.  ^ John, Wilson (2009). Pakistan: The Struggle Within. Pearson Education India. p. 87. ISBN 9788131725047. During the 1946 election, Barelvi Ulama issued fatwas in favour of the Muslim League.  ^ Cesari, Jocelyne (2014). The Awakening of Muslim
Muslim
Democracy: Religion, Modernity, and the State. Cambridge University Press. p. 135. ISBN 9781107513297. For example, the Barelvi ulama supported the formation of the state of Pakistan
Pakistan
and thought that any alliance with Hindus
Hindus
(such as that between the Indian National Congress and the Jamiat ulama-I-Hind [JUH]) was counterproductive.  ^ Jaffrelot, Christophe (2004). A History of Pakistan
History of Pakistan
and Its Origins. Anthem Press. p. 224. ISBN 9781843311492. Believing that Islam
Islam
was a universal religion, the Deobandi advocated a notion of a composite nationalism according to which Hindus
Hindus
and Muslims constituted one nation.  ^ Abdelhalim, Julten (2015). Indian Muslims
Muslims
and Citizenship: Spaces for Jihād in Everyday Life. Routledge. p. 26. ISBN 9781317508755. Madani...stressed the difference between qaum, meaning a nation, hence a territorial concept, and millat, meaning an Ummah and thus a religious concept.  ^ Sikka, Sonia (2015). Living with Religious Diversity. Routledge. p. 52. ISBN 9781317370994. 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
Muslims
exclusively.  ^ Jayeeta Sharma (2010) A Review of “The Partition of India”, History: Reviews of New Books, 39:1, 26–27, DOI: 10.1080/03612759.2011.520189 ^ One history, two narratives, Beena Sarwar, The News ^ "The History Project". The History Project. Retrieved 2017-11-18.  ^ "About the Partition Museum". Retrieved 2018-03-17.  ^ Cleary, Joseph N. (3 January 2002). Literature, Partition and the Nation-State: Culture and Conflict in Ireland, Israel and Palestine. Cambridge University Press. p. 104. ISBN 978-0-521-65732-7. Retrieved 27 July 2012. The partition of India
India
figures in a good deal of imaginative writing...  ^ "Progressive Artists Group of Bombay: An Overview". Artnewsnviews.com. 2012-05-12. Retrieved 2017-11-18.  ^ Bhatia, Nandi (1996). "Twentieth Century Hindi Literature". In Natarajan, Nalini. Handbook of Twentieth-Century Literatures of India. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 146–147. ISBN 978-0-313-28778-7. Retrieved 27 July 2012.  ^ a b Roy, Rituparna (15 July 2011). South Asian Partition Fiction in English: From Khushwant Singh
Khushwant Singh
to Amitav Ghosh. Amsterdam University Press. pp. 24–29. ISBN 978-90-8964-245-5. Retrieved 27 July 2012.  ^ a b c Mandal, Somdatta (2008). "Constructing Post-partition Bengali Cultural Identity through Films". In Bhatia, Nandi; Roy, Anjali Gera. Partitioned Lives: Narratives of Home, Displacement, and Resettlement. Pearson Education India. pp. 66–69. ISBN 978-81-317-1416-4. Retrieved 27 July 2012.  ^ Dwyer, R. (2010). "Bollywood's India: Hindi Cinema as a Guide to Modern India". Asian Affairs. 41 (3): 381–398. doi:10.1080/03068374.2010.508231.  (subscription required) ^ Sarkar, Bhaskar (29 April 2009). Mourning the Nation: Indian Cinema in the Wake of Partition. Duke University Press. p. 121. ISBN 978-0-8223-4411-7. Retrieved 27 July 2012.  ^ a b c Vishwanath, Gita; Malik, Salma (2009). "Revisiting 1947 through Popular Cinema: a Comparative Study of India
India
and Pakistan" (PDF). Economic and Political Weekly. XLIV (36): 61–69. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 September 2013. Retrieved 27 July 2012.  ^ Raychaudhuri, Anindya (2009). "Resisting the Resistible: Re-writing Myths of Partition in the Works of Ritwik Ghatak". Social Semiotics. 19 (4): 469–481. doi:10.1080/10350330903361158. (subscription required) ^ Naqvi, Sibtain (19 November 2013). "Google can envision Pakistan- India
India
harmony in less than 4 minutes…can we?". The Express Tribune.  ^ PTI (15 November 2013). "Google reunion ad reignites hope for easier Indo-Pak visas". Deccan Chronicle.  ^ Chatterjee, Rhitu (20 November 2013). "This ad from Google India brought me to tears". Public Radio International,.  ^ Peter, Sunny (15 November 2013). "Google Search: Reunion Video Touches Emotions in India, Pakistan; Goes Viral [Watch VIDEO]". International Business Times.  ^ "Google's India-Pak reunion ad strikes emotional chord". The Times of India. 14 November 2013.  ^ Johnson, Kay (15 November 2013). "Google ad an unlikely hit in both India, Pakistan
Pakistan
by referring to traumatic 1947 partition". ABC News/Associated Press. 

Further reading[edit]

Textbook histories

Dhulipala, Venkat. 2015. Creating a New Medina: State Power, Islam, and the Quest for Pakistan
Pakistan
in Late Colonial North India. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 1-10-705212-2 Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (2004), From Plassey to partition: a history of modern India, Delhi: Orient Blackswan, ISBN 978-81-250-2596-2  Bose, Sugata; Jalal, Ayesha (2004), Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political economy: second edition, Routledge, ISBN 978-1-134-39715-0  Brown, Judith Margaret (1994), Modern India: the origins of an Asian democracy, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-873112-2  Ayub, Muhammad (2005). An army, Its Role and Rule: A History of the Pakistan
Pakistan
Army from Independence to Kargil, 1947–1999. RoseDog Books. ISBN 978-0-8059-9594-7. Chattha, Ilyas Ahmad (2009), Partition and Its Aftermath: Violence, Migration and the Role of Refugees in the Socio-Economic Development of Gujranwala and Sialkot Cities, 1947–1961, University of Southampton, School of Humanities, Centre for Imperial and Post-Colonial Studies  Judd, Denis (2004), The lion and the tiger: the rise and fall of the British Raj, 1600–1947, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-280579-9  Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (2004), A history of India, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-32920-0  Ludden, David (2002), India
India
and South Asia: a short history, Oneworld, ISBN 978-1-85168-237-9  Markovits, Claude (2004), A history of modern India, 1480–1950, Anthem Press, ISBN 978-1-84331-152-2  Metcalf, Barbara Daly; Metcalf, Thomas R. (2006), A concise history of modern India, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-86362-9  Peers, Douglas M. (2006), India
India
under colonial rule: 1700–1885, Pearson Education, ISBN 978-0-582-31738-3  Robb, Peter (2002), A History of India, Palgrave Macmillan (published 2011), ISBN 978-0-230-34549-2  Spear, Percival (1990) [First published 1965], A History of India, 2, Penguin Books, ISBN 978-0-14-013836-8  Stein, Burton; Arnold, David (2010), A History of India, John Wiley and Sons, ISBN 978-1-4051-9509-6  Wolpert, Stanley (2008), A new history of India, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-533756-3 

Monographs

Dhulipala, Venkat. 2015. Creating a New Medina: State Power, Islam, and the Quest for Pakistan
Pakistan
in Late Colonial North India. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 1-10-705212-2 Ishtiaq Ahmed, Ahmed, Ishtiaq. 2011. The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed: Unravelling the 1947 Tragedy through Secret British Reports and First Person Account. New Delhi: RUPA Publications. 808 pages. ISBN 978-81-291-1862-2 Ansari, Sarah. 2005. Life after Partition: Migration, Community and Strife in Sindh: 1947–1962. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 256 pages. ISBN 0-19-597834-X. Butalia, Urvashi. 1998. The Other Side of Silence: Voices from the Partition of India. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 308 pages. ISBN 0-8223-2494-6 Bhavnani, Nandita. The Making of Exile: Sindhi Hindus
Hindus
and the Partition of India. Westland, 2014. Butler, Lawrence J. 2002. Britain and Empire: Adjusting to a Post-Imperial World. London: I.B.Tauris. 256 pages. ISBN 1-86064-449-X Chakrabarty; Bidyut. 2004. The Partition of Bengal
Bengal
and Assam: Contour of Freedom (RoutledgeCurzon, 2004) online edition Chatterji, Joya. 2002. Bengal
Bengal
Divided: Hindu
Hindu
Communalism and Partition, 1932—1947. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. 323 pages. ISBN 0-521-52328-1. Chester, Lucy P. 2009. Borders and Conflict in South Asia: The Radcliffe Boundary Commission and the Partition of Punjab. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-7899-6. Daiya, Kavita. 2008. Violent Belongings: Partition, Gender, and National Culture in Postcolonial India. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 274 pages. ISBN 978-1-59213-744-2. Gilmartin, David. 1988. Empire and Islam: Punjab and the Making of Pakistan. Berkeley: University of California Press. 258 pages. ISBN 0-520-06249-3. Gossman, Partricia. 1999. Riots and Victims: Violence and the Construction of Communal Identity Among Bengali Muslims, 1905–1947. Westview Press. 224 pages. ISBN 0-8133-3625-2 Gupta, Bal K. 2012 "Forgotten Atrocities: Memoirs of a Survivor of 1947 Partition of India". lulu.com Hansen, Anders Bjørn. 2004. "Partition and Genocide: Manifestation of Violence in Punjab 1937–1947", India
India
Research Press. ISBN 978-81-87943-25-9. Harris, Kenneth. Attlee (1982) pp 355–87 Hasan, Mushirul (2001), India's Partition: Process, Strategy and Mobilization, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-563504-3 . Herman, Arthur. Gandhi & Churchill: The Epic Rivalry that Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age (2009) Ikram, S. M. 1995. Indian Muslims
Muslims
and Partition of India. Delhi: Atlantic. ISBN 81-7156-374-0 Jain, Jasbir (2007), Reading Partition, Living Partition, Rawat, ISBN 81-316-0045-9  Jalal, Ayesha (1993), The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim
Muslim
League and the Demand for Pakistan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-45850-1  Kaur, Ravinder. 2007. "Since 1947: Partition Narratives among Punjabi Migrants of Delhi". Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-568377-6. Khan, Yasmin (2007), The Great Partition: The Making of India
India
and Pakistan, Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-12078-3  Khosla, G. D. Stern reckoning : a survey of the events leading up to and following the partition of India
India
New Delhi: Oxford University Press:358 pages Published: February 1990 ISBN 0-19-562417-3 Lamb, Alastair (1991), Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy, 1846–1990, Roxford Books, ISBN 0-907129-06-4  Metcalf, Barbara; Metcalf, Thomas R. (2006), A Concise History of Modern India
India
(Cambridge Concise Histories), Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-68225-8  Mookerjea-Leonard, Debali. (2017). Literature, Gender, and the Trauma of Partition: The Paradox of Independence London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1138183100. Moon, Penderel. (1999). The British Conquest and Dominion
Dominion
of India
India
(2 vol. 1256pp) Moore, R.J. (1983). Escape from Empire: The Attlee Government and the Indian Problem, the standard history of the British position Nair, Neeti. (2010) Changing Homelands: Hindu
Hindu
Politics and the Partition of India Page, David, Anita Inder Singh, Penderel Moon, G. D. Khosla, and Mushirul Hasan. 2001. The Partition Omnibus: Prelude to Partition/the Origins of the Partition of India
India
1936-1947/Divide and Quit/Stern Reckoning. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-565850-7 Pal, Anadish Kumar. 2010. World Guide to the Partition of INDIA. Kindle Edition: Amazon Digital Services. 282 KB. ASIN B0036OSCAC Pandey, Gyanendra. 2002. Remembering Partition:: Violence, Nationalism and History in India. Cambridge University Press. 232 pages. ISBN 0-521-00250-8 online edition Panigrahi; D.N. 2004. India's Partition: The Story of Imperialism in Retreat London: Routledge. online edition Raja, Masood Ashraf. Constructing Pakistan: Foundational Texts and the Rise of Muslim
Muslim
National Identity, 1857–1947, Oxford 2010, ISBN 978-0-19-547811-2 Raza, Hashim S. 1989. Mountbatten and the partition of India. New Delhi: Atlantic. ISBN 81-7156-059-8 Shaikh, Farzana. 1989. Community and Consensus in Islam: Muslim Representation in Colonial India, 1860—1947. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 272 pages. ISBN 0-521-36328-4. Singh, Jaswant. (2011) Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence Talib, Gurbachan Singh, & Shromaṇī Guraduārā Prabandhaka Kameṭī. (1950). Muslim
Muslim
League attack on Sikhs
Sikhs
and Hindus
Hindus
in the Punjab, 1947. Amritsar: Shiromani Gurdwara Parbankhak Committee. Talbot, Ian. 1996. Freedom's Cry: The Popular Dimension in the Pakistan
Pakistan
Movement and Partition Experience in North-West India. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-577657-7. Talbot, Ian and Gurharpal Singh (eds). 1999. Region and Partition: Bengal, Punjab and the Partition of the Subcontinent. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 420 pages. ISBN 0-19-579051-0. Talbot, Ian. 2002. Khizr Tiwana: The Punjab Unionist Party and the Partition of India. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 216 pages. ISBN 0-19-579551-2. Talbot, Ian. 2006. Divided Cities: Partition and Its Aftermath in Lahore
Lahore
and Amritsar. Oxford and Karachi: Oxford University Press. 350 pages. ISBN 0-19-547226-8. Wolpert, Stanley. 2006. Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 272 pages. ISBN 0-19-515198-4. Talbot, Ian; Singh, Gurharpal (2009), The Partition of India, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-85661-4  Wolpert, Stanley. 1984. Jinnah
Jinnah
of Pakistan

Articles

Brass, Paul. 2003. The partition of India
India
and retributive genocide in the Punjab,1946–47: means, methods, and purposes Journal of Genocide Research (2003), 5#1, 71–101 Gilmartin, David (1998). "Partition, Pakistan, and South Asian History: In Search of a Narrative". The Journal of Asian Studies. 57 (4): 1068–1095. doi:10.2307/2659304.  Gilmartin, David (1998). "A Magnificent Gift: Muslim
Muslim
Nationalism and the Election Process in Colonial Punjab". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 40 (3): 415–436. JSTOR 179270.  Gupta, Bal K. "Death of Mahatma Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi
and Alibeg Prisoners" www.dailyexcelsior.com Gupta, Bal K. "Train from Pakistan" www.nripulse.com Gupta, Bal K. "November 25, 1947, Pakisatni Invasion of Mirpur". www.dailyexcelsior.com Jeffrey, Robin (1974), "The Punjab Boundary Force and the Problem of Order, August 1947", Modern Asian Studies, Cambridge University Press, 8 (4): 491–520, doi:10.1017/s0026749x0000562x, JSTOR 311867  Ravinder Kaur (2014). "Bodies of Partition: Of Widows, Residue and Other Historical Waste".  Kaur, Ravinder. 2009. 'Distinctive Citizenship: Refugees, Subjects and Postcolonial State in India's Partition', Cultural and Social History. Kaur, Ravinder. 2008. 'Narrative Absence: An 'untouchable' account of India's Partition Migration, Contributions to Indian Sociology. Kaur Ravinder. 2007. " India
India
and Pakistan: Partition Lessons". Open Democracy. Kaur, Ravinder. 2006. "The Last Journey: Social Class in the Partition of India". Economic and Political Weekly, June 2006. epw.org.in Khalidi, Omar (1998-01-01). "From Torrent to Trickle: Indian Muslim Migration to Pakistan, 1947—97". Islamic Studies. 37 (3): 339–352. Khan, Lal (2003), Partition – Can it be undone?, Wellred Publications, p. 228, ISBN 1-900007-15-0  Mookerjea-Leonard, Debali (2005). "Divided Homelands, Hostile Homes: Partition, Women and Homelessness". Journal of Commonwealth Literature. 40 (2): 141–154. doi:10.1177/0021989405054314.  Mookerjea-Leonard, Debali (2004). "Quarantined: Women and the Partition". Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East. 24 (1): 35–50. doi:10.1215/1089201x-24-1-35.  Morris-Jones (1983). "Thirty-Six Years Later: The Mixed Legacies of Mountbatten's Transfer of Power". International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs). 59 (4): 621–628. doi:10.2307/2619473.  Noorani, A. G. (22 Dec 2001 – 4 Jan 2002), "The Partition of India", Frontline, 18 (26), retrieved 12 October 2011 [permanent dead link] Spate, O. H. K. (1947), "The Partition of the Punjab and of Bengal", The Geographical Journal, 110 (4/6): 201–218, doi:10.2307/1789950  Spear, Percival (1958). "Britain's Transfer of Power in India". Pacific Affairs. 31 (2): 173–180. doi:10.2307/3035211.  Talbot, Ian (1994). "Planning for Pakistan: The Planning Committee of the All- India
India
Muslim
Muslim
League, 1943–46". Modern Asian Studies. 28 (4): 875–889. doi:10.1017/s0026749x00012567.  Visaria, Pravin M (1969). "Migration Between India
India
and Pakistan, 1951–61". Demography. 6 (3): 323–334. doi:10.2307/2060400.  Chopra, R. M., "The Punjab And Bengal", Calcutta, 1999.

Primary sources

Mansergh, Nicholas, and Penderel Moon, eds. The Transfer of Power 1942–47 (12 vol., London: HMSO . 1970–83) comprehensive collection of British official and private documents Moon, Penderel. (1998) Divide & Quit Narendra Singh Sarila, "The Shadow of the Great Game: The Untold Story of India's Partition", Publisher: Carroll & Graf

Popularizations

Collins, Larry and Dominique Lapierre: Freedom at Midnight. London: Collins, 1975. ISBN 0-00-638851-5 Seshadri, H. V. (2013). The tragic story of partition. Bangalore : Sahitya Sindhu Prakashana, 2013. Zubrzycki, John. (2006) The Last Nizam: An Indian Prince in the Australian Outback. Pan Macmillan, Australia. ISBN 978-0-330-42321-2.

Memoirs and oral history

Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam (2003) [First published 1959], India
India
Wins Freedom: An Autobiographical Narrative, New Delhi: Orient Longman, ISBN 81-250-0514-5  Bonney, Richard; Hyde, Colin; Martin, John. "Legacy of Partition, 1947–2009: Creating New Archives from the Memories of Leicestershire People," Midland History, (Sept 2011), Vol. 36 Issue 2, pp 215–224 Mountbatten, Pamela. (2009) India
India
Remembered: A Personal Account of the Mountbattens During the Transfer of Power

Historical-Fiction

Mohammed, Javed: Walk to Freedom, Rumi Bookstore, 2006. ISBN 978-0-9701261-2-2

External links[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Partition of British India.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Partition of India.

1947 Partition Archive Partition of Bengal
Bengal
— Encyclopædia Britannica India
India
Memory Project – 1947 India
India
Pakistan
Pakistan
Partition The Road to Partition 1939–1947 – The National Archives INDIAN INDEPENDENCE BILL, 1947 India's Partition: The Forgotten Story British film-maker Gurinder Chadha, director of Bend It Like Beckham and Viceroy's House, travels from Southall to Delhi and Shimla to find out about the Partition of India
India
– one of the most seismic events of the 20th century. Partition saw India
India
divided into two new nations – Independent India and Pakistan. The split led to violence, disruption and death.

Bibliographies

Select Research Bibliography on the Partition of India, Compiled by Vinay Lal, Department of History, UCLA; University of California at Los Angeles South Asian History: Colonial India
India
— University of California, Berkeley Collection of documents on colonial India, Independence, and Partition Indian Nationalism — Fordham University
Fordham University
archive of relevant public-domain documents

v t e

Indian Independence Movement

History

Colonisation Porto Grande de Bengala Dutch Bengal East India
India
Company British Raj French India Portuguese India Battle of Plassey Battle of Buxar Anglo-Mysore Wars

First Second Third Fourth

Anglo-Maratha Wars

First Second Third

Polygar Wars Vellore Mutiny First Anglo- Sikh
Sikh
War Second Anglo- Sikh
Sikh
War Sannyasi Rebellion Rebellion of 1857 Radcliffe Line more

Philosophies and ideologies

Ambedkarism Gandhism Hindu
Hindu
nationalism Indian nationalism Khilafat Movement Muslim
Muslim
nationalism in South Asia Satyagraha Socialism Swadeshi
Swadeshi
movement Swaraj

Events and movements

Partition of Bengal
Bengal
(1905) Partition of Bengal
Bengal
(1947) Revolutionaries Direct Action Day Delhi- Lahore
Lahore
Conspiracy The Indian Sociologist Singapore Mutiny Hindu–German Conspiracy Champaran Satyagraha Kheda Satyagraha Rowlatt Committee Rowlatt Bills Jallianwala Bagh massacre Noakhali riots Non-Cooperation Movement Christmas Day Plot Coolie-Begar Movement Chauri Chaura incident, 1922 Kakori conspiracy Qissa Khwani Bazaar massacre Flag Satyagraha Bardoli 1928 Protests Nehru Report Fourteen Points of Jinnah Purna Swaraj Salt March Dharasana Satyagraha Vedaranyam March Chittagong armoury raid Gandhi–Irwin Pact Round table conferences Act of 1935 Aundh Experiment Indische Legion Cripps' mission Quit India Bombay Mutiny Coup d'état of Yanaon Provisional Government of India Independence Day

Organisations

All India
India
Kisan Sabha All- India
India
Muslim
Muslim
League Anushilan Samiti Arya Samaj Azad Hind Berlin Committee Ghadar Party Hindustan Socialist Republican Association Indian National Congress India
India
House Indian Home Rule movement Indian Independence League Indian National Army Jugantar Khaksar Tehrik Khudai Khidmatgar Swaraj
Swaraj
Party more

Social reformers

A. Vaidyanatha Iyer Ayya Vaikundar Ayyankali B. R. Ambedkar Baba Amte Bal Gangadhar Tilak Dayananda Saraswati Dhondo Keshav Karve G. Subramania Iyer Gazulu Lakshminarasu Chetty Gopal Ganesh Agarkar Gopal Hari Deshmukh Gopaldas Ambaidas Desai Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar J. B. Kripalani Jyotirao Phule Kandukuri Veeresalingam Mahadev Govind Ranade Mahatma Gandhi Muthulakshmi Reddi Narayana Guru Niralamba Swami Pandita Ramabai Periyar E. V. Ramasamy Ram Mohan Roy Rettamalai Srinivasan Sahajanand Saraswati Savitribai Phule Shahu Sister Nivedita Sri Aurobindo Syed Ahmad Khan Vakkom Moulavi Vinayak Damodar Savarkar Vinoba Bhave Vitthal Ramji Shinde Vivekananda

Independence activists

Abul Kalam Azad Accamma Cherian Achyut Patwardhan A. K. Fazlul Huq Alluri Sitarama Raju Annapurna Maharana Annie Besant Ashfaqulla Khan Babu Kunwar Singh Bagha Jatin Bahadur Shah II Bakht Khan Bal Gangadhar Tilak Basawon Singh Begum Hazrat Mahal Bhagat Singh Bharathidasan Bhavabhushan Mitra Bhikaiji Cama Bhupendra Kumar Datta Bidhan Chandra Roy Bipin Chandra Pal C. Rajagopalachari Chandra Shekhar Azad Chetram Jatav Chittaranjan Das Dadabhai Naoroji Dayananda Saraswati Dhan Singh Dukkipati Nageswara Rao Gopal Krishna Gokhale Govind Ballabh Pant Har Dayal Hemu Kalani Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi Jatindra Mohan Sengupta Jatindra Nath Das Jawaharlal Nehru K. Kamaraj Kanaiyalal Maneklal Munshi Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan Khudiram Bose Shri Krishna Singh Lala Lajpat Rai M. Bhaktavatsalam M. N. Roy Mahadaji Shinde Mahatma Gandhi Mangal Pandey Mir Qasim Mithuben Petit‎ Muhammad Ali Jauhar Muhammad Ali Jinnah Muhammad Mian Mansoor Ansari Nagnath Naikwadi Nana Fadnavis Nana Sahib P. Kakkan Prafulla Chaki Pritilata Waddedar Pritilata Waddedar Purushottam Das Tandon R. Venkataraman Rahul Sankrityayan Rajendra Prasad Ram Prasad Bismil Rani Lakshmibai Rash Behari Bose Sahajanand Saraswati Sangolli Rayanna Sarojini Naidu Satyapal Dang Shuja-ud-Daula Shyamji Krishna Varma Sibghatullah Shah Rashidi Siraj ud-Daulah Subhas Chandra Bose Subramania Bharati Subramaniya Siva Surya Sen Syama Prasad Mukherjee Tara Rani Srivastava Tarak Nath Das Tatya Tope Tiruppur Kumaran Ubaidullah Sindhi V O Chidamabaram V. K. Krishna Menon Vallabhbhai Patel Vanchinathan Veeran Sundaralingam Vinayak Damodar Savarkar Virendranath Chattopadhyaya Yashwantrao Holkar Yogendra Shukla more

British leaders

Wavell Canning Cornwallis Irwin Chelmsford Curzon Ripon Minto Dalhousie Bentinck Mountbatten Wellesley Lytton Clive Outram Cripps Linlithgow Hastings

Independence

Cabinet Mission Annexation of French colonies in India Constitution Republic of India Indian annexation of Goa Indian Independence Act Partition of India Political integration Simla Conference

v t e

Pakistan
Pakistan
Movement

History of Pakistan
History of Pakistan
(timeline: 1947–present)

History

East India
India
Company Indian Rebellion of 1857 Aligarh Movement Urdu
Urdu
movement Partition of Bengal Lucknow Pact Khilafat Movement Shuddhi Movement Nehru Report Fourteen Points of Jinnah Allahabad Address Now or Never pamphlet World War II Two nation theory Round Table Conferences Lahore
Lahore
Resolution Direct Action Day Muslim
Muslim
nationalism in South Asia Cabinet Mission Indian Independence Act Partition of India Radcliffe Line Durand Line Pakistan Osmanistan Enlightened Moderation Objectives Resolution Independence Republic Day Kashmir
Kashmir
conflict National symbols Constitution of Pakistan British heritage

Organisations

Muslim
Muslim
League

Punjab Branch Bengal
Bengal
Branch

Unionist Student Federations Khaksars Renaissance Society Philosophical Congress Dawn Daily War

Leaders

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan Allama Muhammad Iqbal Aga Khan III Nawab Salimullah Mian Muhammad Shafi Syed Ameer Ali Muhammad Ali Jinnah Fatima Jinnah Liaquat Ali Khan Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman Muhammad Zafarullah Khan Bahadur Yar Jung Nawab Waqar-ul-Mulk Kamboh Mohsin-ul-Mulk Hasrat Mohani Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani Baba-e- Urdu
Urdu
Maulvi Abdul Haq G. M. Syed Abdur Rab Nishtar Qazi Muhammad Essa Choudhary Rahmat Ali Muhammad Ali Jouhar Maulana Shaukat Ali A. K. Fazlul Huq K. H. Khurshid Sikandar Hayat Khan Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan Maulana Zafar Ali Khan Khawaja Nazimuddin Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan Ghulam Bhik Nairang Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy Ra'ana Liaquat Ali Khan Jogendra Nath Mandal more

Activists

Hameed Nizami Abdullah Haroon Yusuf Haroon Altaf Husain (journalist) Adamjee Haji Dawood Mufti Muhammad Shafi Maulana Ahmed Ali Lahori Malik Barkat Ali Yusuf Khattak Mian Iftikharuddin Iftikhar Hussain Khan Mamdot Shaukat Hayat Khan Muhammad Asad Ziauddin Ahmad A. B. A. Haleem Maulana Ghulam Rasool Mehr Hakeem Mohammad Saeed Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas Sardar Muhammad Abdul Qayyum Khan Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan Fida Mohammad Khan Sheikh Sir Abdul Qadir Professor M. M. Sharif J. A. Rahim of PPP Z. A. Suleri G. Allana more

Literature

Idea of Pakistan Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence Notes on Afghanistan and Baluchistan A Short History of Pakistan Pakistan: A Personal History The Myth of Independence Pakistan: A Hard Country Now or Never; Are We to Live or Perish Forever? Causes of Indian Mutiny of 1857

Architecture

Minar-e-Pakistan Bab-e-Pakistan The Monument Mazar-e-Quaid Ziarat Residency Iqbal's Tomb Wazir Mansion National Library Deena Public Hall Bab-e-Khyber Jinnah
Jinnah
Terminal

In Memory

Youm-e- Pakistan
Pakistan
(23 March) Youm-e-Dastur (10 April) Youm-e-Takbir
Youm-e-Takbir
(28 May) Youm-e-Azadi (14 August) Youm-e-Difah (6 September) Youm-e-Tasees (24 October) Youm-e-Iqbal (9 November) Youm-e-Viladat (25 December)

v t e

India– Pakistan
Pakistan
relations

Diplomacy

High Commission of India
India
to Pakistan

High Commissioner of India
India
to Pakistan

High Commission of Pakistan
Pakistan
to India

High Commissioner of Pakistan
Pakistan
to India

Treaties and summits

Jinnah–Mountbatten Talks
Jinnah–Mountbatten Talks
(1947) Karachi
Karachi
Agreement (1949) Liaquat-Nehru Treaty (1950) Indus
Indus
Waters Treaty (1960) Tashkent Declaration
Tashkent Declaration
(1965) Simla Agreement
Simla Agreement
(1972) Delhi Agreement
Delhi Agreement
(1974) Islamabad Agreement (1988) Lahore
Lahore
summit (1999) Agra Summit (2001)

Events and conflicts

Partition of India Kashmir
Kashmir
conflict Integration of Junagadh 1947-1948 War Sir Creek Operation Gibraltar 1965 War 1971 War Bangladesh
Bangladesh
Liberation War Pokhran–I Kirana–I Nuclear race Line of Control Maritime trespassing Siachen conflict Operation Brasstacks Pokhran-II
Pokhran-II
/ Chagai-I
Chagai-I
/ Chagai-II Violence against Muslims
Muslims
in India Persecution of Hindus
Hindus
in Pakistan Human rights abuses in Jammu
Jammu
and Kashmir Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir Insurgency in Jammu
Jammu
and Kashmir Balochistan conflict Kargil conflict Atlantique incident Iran–Pakistan– India
India
gas pipeline 2001 Indian Parliament attack 2001–2002 military standoff 2007 Samjhauta Express
Samjhauta Express
bombings 2008 Mumbai attacks 2008 military standoff 2011 border skirmishes 2013 border skirmishes Sarabjit/Sanaullah murder incidents 2013 Pakistan
Pakistan
Embassy attack 2014-2015 border skirmishes 2016 Kulbhushan Jadhav interception 2016–17 unrest in Jammu
Jammu
and Kashmir 2016 Uri attack 2016 military confrontation

Initiatives

Aman ki Asha Hotline Transport Samjhauta Express Delhi– Lahore
Lahore
Bus Srinagar–Muzaffarabad Bus Thar Express Indo-Pak Confederation Indo-Pak Joint Judicial Committee Hindi in Pakistan

Sports

India– Pakistan
Pakistan
cricket rivalry India– Pakistan
Pakistan
field hockey rivalry

Related templates

Foreign relations of India Foreign rel

.