Opposition to the partition of India
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Map of British India (1893)
Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan of the Khudai Khidmatgars and Mohandas Gandhi of the Indian National Congress both strongly opposed the partition of India.
Opposition to the partition of India was widespread in British India in the 20th century and it continues to remain a contentious issue in South Asian politics. Most individuals of the Hindu and Sikh faiths were opposed to the partition of India (and its underlying two-nation theory),[1] as were many Muslims in that country (these were represented by the All India Azad Muslim Conference).[2][3]
Pashtun politician Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan of the Khudai Khidmatgar viewed the proposal to partition India as un-Islamic and "contrary to the history of Muslims in the subcontinent, who had for over a millenium considered India their homeland."[4] Mahatma Gandhi opined that "Hindus and Muslims were sons of the same soil of India; they were brothers who therefore must strive to keep India free and united."[5]
Muslims of the Deobandi school of thought "criticized the idea of Pakistan as being the conspiracy of the colonial government to prevent the emergence of a strong united India" and helped to organize the Azad Muslim Conference to condemn the partition of India.[6] They also argued that the economic development of Muslims would be hurt if India was partitioned,[6] seeing the idea of partition as one that was designed to keep Muslims backward.[7] They also expected "Muslim-majority provinces in united India to be more effective than the rulers of independent Pakistan in helping the Muslim minorities living in Hindu-majority areas."[6] Deobandis pointed to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, which was made between the Muslims and Qureysh of Mecca, that "promoted mutual interaction between the two communities thus allowing more opportunities for Muslims to preach their religion to Qureysh through peaceful tabligh."[6] Deobandi scholar Sayyid Husain Ahmad Madani argued for a united India in his book Muttahida Qaumiyat Aur Islam (Composite Nationalism and Islam), promulgating the idea that different religions do not constitute different nationalities and that the proposition for a partition of India was not justifiable, religiously.[8]
Khaksar Movement leader Allama Mashriqi opposed the partition of India because he felt that if Muslims and Hindus had largely lived peacefully together in India for centuries, they could also do so in a free and united India.[9] Mashriqi saw the two-nation theory as a plot of the British to maintain control of the region more easily, if India was divided into two countries that were pitted against one another.[9] He reasoned that a division of India along religious lines would breed fundamentalism and extremism on both sides of the border.[9] Mashriqi thought that "Muslim majority areas were already under Muslim rule, so if any Muslims wanted to move to these areas, they were free to do so without having to divide the country."[9] To him, separatist leaders "were power hungry and misleading Muslims in order to bolster their own power by serving the British agenda."[9]
The Deccan Herald, in an article titled The tragedy of Partition, argued that:[10]
The Muslim and the non-Muslim population lived together since centuries on the Indian soil, peacefully and harmoniously, without any major conflict. It was clear that if ever a separate Muslim nation-state was formed, it could not possibly contain all or even most, Indian Muslims. And there would inevitably be many non-Muslims in it. No amount of social engineering could separate India’s Muslims from non-Muslims. It was simply not possible. The Indian Muslims did not have a common culture or speak one major language. A Punjabi Muslim had very little in common with a Muslim in Bengal or in Malabar, except, of course, religion. There was no single language that could be called a Muslim language. For centuries, Indian Muslims shared the language and culture of the region along with non-Muslims. The second claim, that Indian Muslims were fundamentally different from non-Muslims, was even more absurd. Syncretism had been an important feature of Indian culture since early times. Culture and language were generally based on region, more than religion. And so a Bengali Muslim had much more in common with a Bengali Hindu than with a Punjabi Muslim. Considerable cultural diversity existed within Muslims and multiple connections existed between Muslims and non-Muslims. It was simply not possible to draw a dividing line, either of territory or of culture, between India’s Muslims and non-Muslims.[10]
After it occurred, critics of the partition of India point to the displacement of fifteen million people, the murder of more than one million people, and the rape of 75,000 women to demonstrate the view that it was a mistake.[11]
Contents
1 Organisations and prominent individuals opposing the partition of India
1.1 Political parties
1.2 Politicians
1.3 Writers
1.4 Religious organizations
2 Indian Reunification proposals
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
Organisations and prominent individuals opposing the partition of India
Political parties
First Session of All-India Jamhur Muslim League, which was established by Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi to support a united India (1940).
All India Azad Muslim Conference[12]
All-India Jamhur Muslim League[13]
All India Momin Conference[12]
All India Muslim Majlis[14]
All India Shia Political Conference[12]
Anjuman-i-Watan Baluchistan[12]
Indian National Congress[15]
Jamaat-e-Islami
Jamiat Ahl-i-Hadis[12]
Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind[16]
Khaksar Movement[17][18]
Khudai Khidmatgar[19]
Krishak Praja Party[12]
Majlis-e-Ahrar-ul-Islam[20]
Sind United Party[3]
Unionist Party (Punjab)[21]
Politicians
Abul Kalam Azad[22]
Abdul Matlib Mazumdar[23]
Abdul Samad Khan Achakzai[14]
Allah Bakhsh Soomro[3]
Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed[24]
Altaf Hussain[25][26]
Fazl-i-Hussain[27]
Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi[28][17]
Kanaiyalal Maneklal Munshi[29]
Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan[19]
Khan Abdul Jabbar Khan[30]
Khwaja Abdul Majid[31]
Khwaja Atiqullah[32]
Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi[13]
Mahatma Gandhi[33]
Malik Khizar Hayat Tiwana[27][34]
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad[35]
Maulana Attaullah Shah Bukhari
Markandey Katju[36]
Maulana Sayyid Husain Ahmad Madani[37]
Maulana Abul Ala Maududi
Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari[14]
Rafi Ahmed Kidwai[24]
Shaukatullah Shah Ansari[14]
Sheikh Abdullah[24]
Shibli Nomani[14]
Sikandar Hayat Khan[27][38]
Ubaidullah Sindhi[39]
Writers
Saadat Hasan Manto strongly opposed the partition of India, which he saw as an "overwhelming tragedy" and "maddeningly senseless".[40][41] The literature he is remembered for is largely about the partition of India.[40]
Religious organizations
Darul Uloom Deoband[42]
Indian Reunification proposals
Main article: Indian reunification
Further information: Indo-Pak Confederation proposals
In The Nation, Kashmiri Indian politician Markandey Katju has advocated the reunification of India with Pakistan under a secular government.[43] He stated that the cause of the partition was the divide and rule policy of Britain, which was implemented to spread communal hatred after Britain saw that Hindus and Muslims worked together to agitate against their colonial rule in India.[43] Katju serves as the chairman of the Indian Reunification Association (IRA), which seeks to campaign for this cause.[44][45]
Pakistani historian Nasim Yousaf, the grandson of Allama Mashriqi, has also championed Indian Reunification and presented the idea at the New York Conference on Asian Studies on 9 October 2009 at Cornell University; Yousaf stated that the partition of India itself was a result of the British interests and their divide and rule policy that sought to create another buffer state between the Soviet Union and India to prevent the spread of Communism, as well the fact that a "division of the people and territory would prevent a united India from emerging as a world power and keep the two nations dependent on pivotal powers."[46] Yousaf cited former Indian National Congress president Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who wrote in the same vein:[46]
If a united India had become free...there was little chance that Britain could retain her position in the economic and industrial life of India. The partition of India, in which the Moslem majority provinces formed a separate and independent state, would, on the other hand, give Britain a foothold in India. A state dominated by the Moslem League would offer a permanent sphere of influence to the British. This was also bound to influence the attitude of India. With a British base in Pakistan, India would have to pay far greater attention to British interests than she might otherwise do. ... The partition of India would materially alter the situation in favour of the British.[46]
Yousaf holds that "Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the President of the All-India Muslim League and later founder of Pakistan, had been misleading the Muslim community in order to go down in history as the saviour of the Muslim cause and to become founder and first Governor General of Pakistan."[46] Allama Mashriqi, a nationalist Muslim, thus saw Jinnah as "becoming a tool in British hands for his political career."[46] Besides the pro-separatist Muslim League, Islamic leadership in British India rejected the notion of partitioning the country, exemplified by the fact that most Muslims in the heartland of the subcontinent remained where they were, rather than migrating to newly created state of Pakistan.[46] India and Pakistan are currently allocating a significant amount of their budget into military spending—money that could be spent in economic and social development.[46] Poverty, homelessness, illiteracy, terrorism and a lack of medical facilities, in Yousaf's eyes, would not be plaguing an undivided India as it would be more advantaged "economically, politically, and socially."[46] Yousaf has stated that Indians and Pakistanis speak a common lingua franca, Hindi-Urdu, "wear the same dress, eat the same food, enjoy the same music and movies, and communicate in the same style and on a similar wavelength".[46] He argues that uniting would be a challenge, though not impossible, citing the fall of the Berlin Wall and the consequent German Reunification as an example.[46]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Map of British India (1893)
Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan of the Khudai Khidmatgars and Mohandas Gandhi of the Indian National Congress both strongly opposed the partition of India.
Opposition to the partition of India was widespread in British India in the 20th century and it continues to remain a contentious issue in South Asian politics. Most individuals of the Hindu and Sikh faiths were opposed to the partition of India (and its underlying two-nation theory),[1] as were many Muslims in that country (these were represented by the All India Azad Muslim Conference).[2][3]
Pashtun politician Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan of the Khudai Khidmatgar viewed the proposal to partition India as un-Islamic and "contrary to the history of Muslims in the subcontinent, who had for over a millenium considered India their homeland."[4] Mahatma Gandhi opined that "Hindus and Muslims were sons of the same soil of India; they were brothers who therefore must strive to keep India free and united."[5]
Muslims of the Deobandi school of thought "criticized the idea of Pakistan as being the conspiracy of the colonial government to prevent the emergence of a strong united India" and helped to organize the Azad Muslim Conference to condemn the partition of India.[6] They also argued that the economic development of Muslims would be hurt if India was partitioned,[6] seeing the idea of partition as one that was designed to keep Muslims backward.[7] They also expected "Muslim-majority provinces in united India to be more effective than the rulers of independent Pakistan in helping the Muslim minorities living in Hindu-majority areas."[6] Deobandis pointed to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, which was made between the Muslims and Qureysh of Mecca, that "promoted mutual interaction between the two communities thus allowing more opportunities for Muslims to preach their religion to Qureysh through peaceful tabligh."[6] Deobandi scholar Sayyid Husain Ahmad Madani argued for a united India in his book Muttahida Qaumiyat Aur Islam (Composite Nationalism and Islam), promulgating the idea that different religions do not constitute different nationalities and that the proposition for a partition of India was not justifiable, religiously.[8]
Khaksar Movement leader Allama Mashriqi opposed the partition of India because he felt that if Muslims and Hindus had largely lived peacefully together in India for centuries, they could also do so in a free and united India.[9] Mashriqi saw the two-nation theory as a plot of the British to maintain control of the region more easily, if India was divided into two countries that were pitted against one another.[9] He reasoned that a division of India along religious lines would breed fundamentalism and extremism on both sides of the border.[9] Mashriqi thought that "Muslim majority areas were already under Muslim rule, so if any Muslims wanted to move to these areas, they were free to do so without having to divide the country."[9] To him, separatist leaders "were power hungry and misleading Muslims in order to bolster their own power by serving the British agenda."[9]
The Deccan Herald, in an article titled The tragedy of Partition, argued that:[10]
The Muslim and the non-Muslim population lived together since centuries on the Indian soil, peacefully and harmoniously, without any major conflict. It was clear that if ever a separate Muslim nation-state was formed, it could not possibly contain all or even most, Indian Muslims. And there would inevitably be many non-Muslims in it. No amount of social engineering could separate India’s Muslims from non-Muslims. It was simply not possible. The Indian Muslims did not have a common culture or speak one major language. A Punjabi Muslim had very little in common with a Muslim in Bengal or in Malabar, except, of course, religion. There was no single language that could be called a Muslim language. For centuries, Indian Muslims shared the language and culture of the region along with non-Muslims. The second claim, that Indian Muslims were fundamentally different from non-Muslims, was even more absurd. Syncretism had been an important feature of Indian culture since early times. Culture and language were generally based on region, more than religion. And so a Bengali Muslim had much more in common with a Bengali Hindu than with a Punjabi Muslim. Considerable cultural diversity existed within Muslims and multiple connections existed between Muslims and non-Muslims. It was simply not possible to draw a dividing line, either of territory or of culture, between India’s Muslims and non-Muslims.[10]
After it occurred, critics of the partition of India point to the displacement of fifteen million people, the murder of more than one million people, and the rape of 75,000 women to demonstrate the view that it was a mistake.[11]
Contents
1 Organisations and prominent individuals opposing the partition of India
1.1 Political parties
1.2 Politicians
1.3 Writers
1.4 Religious organizations
2 Indian Reunification proposals
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
Organisations and prominent individuals opposing the partition of India
Political parties
First Session of All-India Jamhur Muslim League, which was established by Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi to support a united India (1940).
All India Azad Muslim Conference[12]
All-India Jamhur Muslim League[13]
All India Momin Conference[12]
All India Muslim Majlis[14]
All India Shia Political Conference[12]
Anjuman-i-Watan Baluchistan[12]
Indian National Congress[15]
Jamaat-e-Islami
Jamiat Ahl-i-Hadis[12]
Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind[16]
Khaksar Movement[17][18]
Khudai Khidmatgar[19]
Krishak Praja Party[12]
Majlis-e-Ahrar-ul-Islam[20]
Sind United Party[3]
Unionist Party (Punjab)[21]
Politicians
Abul Kalam Azad[22]
Abdul Matlib Mazumdar[23]
Abdul Samad Khan Achakzai[14]
Allah Bakhsh Soomro[3]
Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed[24]
Altaf Hussain[25][26]
Fazl-i-Hussain[27]
Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi[28][17]
Kanaiyalal Maneklal Munshi[29]
Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan[19]
Khan Abdul Jabbar Khan[30]
Khwaja Abdul Majid[31]
Khwaja Atiqullah[32]
Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi[13]
Mahatma Gandhi[33]
Malik Khizar Hayat Tiwana[27][34]
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad[35]
Maulana Attaullah Shah Bukhari
Markandey Katju[36]
Maulana Sayyid Husain Ahmad Madani[37]
Maulana Abul Ala Maududi
Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari[14]
Rafi Ahmed Kidwai[24]
Shaukatullah Shah Ansari[14]
Sheikh Abdullah[24]
Shibli Nomani[14]
Sikandar Hayat Khan[27][38]
Ubaidullah Sindhi[39]
Writers
Saadat Hasan Manto strongly opposed the partition of India, which he saw as an "overwhelming tragedy" and "maddeningly senseless".[40][41] The literature he is remembered for is largely about the partition of India.[40]
Religious organizations
Darul Uloom Deoband[42]
Indian Reunification proposals
Main article: Indian reunification
Further information: Indo-Pak Confederation proposals
In The Nation, Kashmiri Indian politician Markandey Katju has advocated the reunification of India with Pakistan under a secular government.[43] He stated that the cause of the partition was the divide and rule policy of Britain, which was implemented to spread communal hatred after Britain saw that Hindus and Muslims worked together to agitate against their colonial rule in India.[43] Katju serves as the chairman of the Indian Reunification Association (IRA), which seeks to campaign for this cause.[44][45]
Pakistani historian Nasim Yousaf, the grandson of Allama Mashriqi, has also championed Indian Reunification and presented the idea at the New York Conference on Asian Studies on 9 October 2009 at Cornell University; Yousaf stated that the partition of India itself was a result of the British interests and their divide and rule policy that sought to create another buffer state between the Soviet Union and India to prevent the spread of Communism, as well the fact that a "division of the people and territory would prevent a united India from emerging as a world power and keep the two nations dependent on pivotal powers."[46] Yousaf cited former Indian National Congress president Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who wrote in the same vein:[46]
If a united India had become free...there was little chance that Britain could retain her position in the economic and industrial life of India. The partition of India, in which the Moslem majority provinces formed a separate and independent state, would, on the other hand, give Britain a foothold in India. A state dominated by the Moslem League would offer a permanent sphere of influence to the British. This was also bound to influence the attitude of India. With a British base in Pakistan, India would have to pay far greater attention to British interests than she might otherwise do. ... The partition of India would materially alter the situation in favour of the British.[46]
Yousaf holds that "Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the President of the All-India Muslim League and later founder of Pakistan, had been misleading the Muslim community in order to go down in history as the saviour of the Muslim cause and to become founder and first Governor General of Pakistan."[46] Allama Mashriqi, a nationalist Muslim, thus saw Jinnah as "becoming a tool in British hands for his political career."[46] Besides the pro-separatist Muslim League, Islamic leadership in British India rejected the notion of partitioning the country, exemplified by the fact that most Muslims in the heartland of the subcontinent remained where they were, rather than migrating to newly created state of Pakistan.[46] India and Pakistan are currently allocating a significant amount of their budget into military spending—money that could be spent in economic and social development.[46] Poverty, homelessness, illiteracy, terrorism and a lack of medical facilities, in Yousaf's eyes, would not be plaguing an undivided India as it would be more advantaged "economically, politically, and socially."[46] Yousaf has stated that Indians and Pakistanis speak a common lingua franca, Hindi-Urdu, "wear the same dress, eat the same food, enjoy the same music and movies, and communicate in the same style and on a similar wavelength".[46] He argues that uniting would be a challenge, though not impossible, citing the fall of the Berlin Wall and the consequent German Reunification as an example.[46]
No comments:
Post a Comment