La partición causó una pérdida de vidas a gran escala y una migración sin precedentes entre los dos dominios. [6] Entre los refugiados que sobrevivieron, consolidó la creencia de que la seguridad estaba entre correligionarios. En el caso de Pakistán, hizo palpable un refugio hasta entonces solo imaginado para los musulmanes de la India británica. [7] Las migraciones se produjeron apresuradamente y sin previo aviso. Se cree que entre 14 y 18 millones de personas se mudaron, y tal vez más. Se estima que el exceso de mortalidad durante el período de la partición fue de alrededor de un millón. [8] El 13 de enero de 1948, Mahatma Gandhi comenzó su ayuno con el objetivo de detener la violencia. Terminó su ayuno el 18 de enero a instancias de varios líderes religiosos y políticos, que se comprometieron a poner fin a la violencia y defender la armonía comunitaria. [9] [10] [11]
El término partición de la India no cubre:
La separación de Birmania (actual Myanmar ) del Raj británico en 1937.
Nepal y Bután firmaron tratados con los británicos que los designaban como estados independientes y no formaban parte de la India gobernada por los británicos. [12] El Reino Himalaya de Sikkim se estableció como un estado principesco después del Tratado Anglo-Sikkim de 1861, pero su soberanía había quedado sin definir. [13] En 1947, Sikkim se convirtió en un reino independiente bajo la soberanía de la India. Las Maldivas se convirtieron en un protectorado de la corona británica en 1887 y obtuvieron su independencia en 1965.
La élite hindú de Bengala, muchos de cuyos miembros poseían tierras que habían sido arrendadas a campesinos musulmanes en Bengala Oriental, protestó enérgicamente. La gran clase media bengalí-hindú (los Bhadralok ), molesta ante la perspectiva de que los bengalíes fueran superados en número en la nueva provincia de Bengala por los biharíes y los oriyas , sintió que el acto de Curzon era un castigo por su asertividad política . [14] Las protestas generalizadas contra la decisión de Curzon tomaron predominantemente la forma de la campaña Swadeshi ('compre indio'), que implicaba un boicot a los productos británicos. Esporádicamente, pero flagrantemente, los manifestantes también recurrieron a la violencia política , que implicaba ataques a civiles. [15] La violencia fue ineficaz, ya que la mayoría de los ataques planeados fueron impedidos por los británicos o fracasaron. [16] El grito de guerra para ambos tipos de protesta fue el lema Bande Mataram ( bengalí , lit.: 'Salve a la Madre'), el título de una canción de Bankim Chandra Chatterjee , que invocaba a una diosa madre , que representaba de diversas formas a Bengala, la India y la diosa hindú Kali . [17] El malestar se extendió desde Calcuta a las regiones circundantes de Bengala cuando los estudiantes educados en inglés de Calcuta regresaron a sus hogares, a sus pueblos y ciudades. [18] Los movimientos religiosos del lema y la indignación política por la partición se combinaron cuando los jóvenes, en grupos como Jugantar , comenzaron a bombardear edificios públicos, organizar robos a mano armada [16] y asesinar a funcionarios británicos. [17] Dado que Calcuta era la capital imperial, tanto la indignación como el lema pronto se hicieron conocidos a nivel nacional. [17]
La abrumadora protesta, predominantemente hindú, contra la partición de Bengala, junto con el temor a las reformas que favorecían a la mayoría hindú, llevó a la élite musulmana de la India en 1906 al nuevo virrey Lord Minto , pidiendo electorados separados para los musulmanes. Al mismo tiempo, exigieron una representación en proporción a su participación en la población total, lo que reflejaría tanto su condición de antiguos gobernantes como su historial de cooperación con los británicos. Esto daría lugar [ cita requerida ] a la fundación de la Liga Musulmana Panindia en Dacca en diciembre de 1906. Aunque Curzon ya había regresado a Inglaterra tras su dimisión por una disputa con su jefe militar, Lord Kitchener , la Liga estaba a favor de su plan de partición. [18] La posición de la élite musulmana, que se reflejaba en la posición de la Liga, se había cristalizado gradualmente durante las tres décadas anteriores, empezando por el Censo de la India Británica de 1871 , [ cita requerida ] que había estimado por primera vez las poblaciones en regiones de mayoría musulmana. [19] Por su parte, el deseo de Curzon de cortejar a los musulmanes de Bengala Oriental había surgido de las ansiedades británicas desde el censo de 1871, y a la luz de la historia de los musulmanes que lucharon contra ellos en la Rebelión de 1857 y la Segunda Guerra Anglo-Afgana . [ cita requerida ]
En las tres décadas transcurridas desde el censo de 1871, los líderes musulmanes en todo el norte de la India habían experimentado de manera intermitente la animosidad pública de algunos de los nuevos grupos políticos y sociales hindúes. [19] El Arya Samaj , por ejemplo, no sólo había apoyado el movimiento de protección de las vacas en su agitación, [20] sino que también, angustiado por las cifras de musulmanes del censo, organizó eventos de "reconversión" con el propósito de dar la bienvenida a los musulmanes de regreso al redil hindú. [19] En las Provincias Unidas , los musulmanes se volvieron ansiosos a fines del siglo XIX a medida que aumentaba la representación política hindú y los hindúes se movilizaron políticamente en la controversia hindi-urdu y los disturbios contra la matanza de vacas de 1893. [21] En 1905, los temores musulmanes crecieron cuando Tilak y Lajpat Rai intentaron ascender a posiciones de liderazgo en el Congreso, y el propio Congreso se unió en torno al simbolismo de Kali. [22] Por ejemplo, a muchos musulmanes no se les escapó que el grito de guerra de bande mataram había aparecido por primera vez en la novela Anandmath, en la que los hindúes luchaban contra sus opresores musulmanes. [22] Por último, la élite musulmana, incluido el nawab de Dacca , Khwaja Salimullah , que fue el anfitrión de la primera reunión de la Liga en su mansión de Shahbag , era consciente de que una nueva provincia con una mayoría musulmana beneficiaría directamente a los musulmanes que aspiraban al poder político. [22]
Primera Guerra Mundial, Pacto de Lucknow: 1914-1918
Enfermeros indios atendiendo a soldados heridos de la Fuerza Expedicionaria Mesopotámica en Mesopotamia durante la Primera Guerra MundialMohandas Karamchand Gandhi (sentado en el carruaje, a la derecha, con la mirada baja y un sombrero negro de copa plana) recibe una gran bienvenida en Karachi en 1916 después de su regreso a la India desde Sudáfrica.Muhammad Ali Jinnah , sentado, tercero desde la izquierda, fue partidario del Pacto de Lucknow, que, en 1916, puso fin a la ruptura tripartita entre los extremistas, los moderados y la Liga.
La Primera Guerra Mundial demostraría ser un punto de inflexión en la relación imperial entre Gran Bretaña e India. 1,4 millones de soldados indios y británicos del Ejército Británico de la India participarían en la guerra, y su participación tendría una repercusión cultural más amplia: las noticias de soldados indios que luchaban y morían con soldados británicos, así como de soldados de dominios como Canadá y Australia, viajarían a rincones distantes del mundo tanto en papel de periódico como por el nuevo medio de la radio. [23] De este modo, el perfil internacional de la India aumentaría y seguiría aumentando durante la década de 1920. [23] Esto llevaría, entre otras cosas, a que la India, bajo su nombre, se convirtiera en miembro fundador de la Liga de las Naciones en 1920 y participara, bajo el nombre de "Les Indes Anglaises" (India británica), en los Juegos Olímpicos de Verano de 1920 en Amberes . [24] De regreso en la India, especialmente entre los líderes del Congreso Nacional Indio , conduciría a pedidos de un mayor autogobierno para los indios. [23]
La sesión de Lucknow de 1916 del Congreso también fue el escenario de un esfuerzo mutuo inesperado entre el Congreso y la Liga Musulmana, que se produjo gracias a la asociación en tiempos de guerra entre Alemania y Turquía. Dado que el sultán otomano también tenía la tutela de los lugares sagrados islámicos de La Meca , Medina y Jerusalén , y que los británicos y sus aliados estaban ahora en conflicto con el Imperio otomano, comenzaron a aumentar las dudas entre algunos musulmanes indios sobre la "neutralidad religiosa" de los británicos, dudas que ya habían surgido como resultado de la reunificación de Bengala en 1911, una decisión que se consideró malintencionada para los musulmanes. [25] En el Pacto de Lucknow, la Liga se unió al Congreso en la propuesta de un mayor autogobierno por el que hicieron campaña Tilak y sus partidarios; a cambio, el Congreso aceptó electorados separados para los musulmanes en las legislaturas provinciales, así como en el Consejo Legislativo Imperial. En 1916, la Liga Musulmana tenía entre 500 y 800 miembros y aún no contaba con un mayor número de seguidores entre los musulmanes indios de años posteriores; en la propia Liga, el pacto no tuvo un respaldo unánime, ya que fue negociado en gran medida por un grupo de musulmanes del "Partido Joven" de las Provincias Unidas (UP), principalmente los hermanos Mohammad y Shaukat Ali , que habían abrazado la causa panislámica. [25] Obtuvo el apoyo de un joven abogado de Bombay, Muhammad Ali Jinnah , que más tarde ascendió a puestos de liderazgo en la Liga y el movimiento de independencia de la India. En años posteriores, a medida que se desarrollaban todas las ramificaciones del pacto, se consideró que beneficiaba a las élites minoritarias musulmanas de provincias como UP y Bihar más que a las mayorías musulmanas de Punjab y Bengala. En ese momento, el "Pacto de Lucknow" fue un hito importante en la agitación nacionalista y así lo vieron los británicos. [25]
Reformas de Montagu-Chelmsford: 1919
El Secretario de Estado para la India, Montagu , y el virrey Lord Chelmsford presentaron un informe en julio de 1918 después de un largo viaje de investigación por la India el invierno anterior. [26] Después de más debates por parte del gobierno y el parlamento en Gran Bretaña, y otra gira del Comité de Franquicias y Funciones para identificar quién entre la población india podría votar en futuras elecciones, la Ley de Gobierno de la India de 1919 (también conocida como las Reformas Montagu-Chelmsford ) se aprobó en diciembre de 1919. [26] La nueva ley amplió los consejos legislativos provinciales e imperiales y derogó el recurso del Gobierno de la India a la "mayoría oficial" en votos desfavorables. [26] Aunque departamentos como defensa, asuntos exteriores, derecho penal, comunicaciones e impuesto sobre la renta fueron retenidos por el virrey y el gobierno central en Nueva Delhi, otros departamentos como salud pública, educación, ingresos territoriales y autogobierno local fueron transferidos a las provincias. [26] Las provincias mismas debían ahora ser administradas bajo un nuevo sistema dircárquico , por el cual algunas áreas como la educación, la agricultura, el desarrollo de infraestructura y el autogobierno local pasaron a ser dominio exclusivo de los ministros y legislaturas indias, y en última instancia de los electorados indios, mientras que otras como la irrigación, los ingresos de la tierra, la policía, las prisiones y el control de los medios de comunicación permanecieron dentro de la competencia del gobernador británico y su consejo ejecutivo. [26] La nueva ley también facilitó la admisión de indios en el servicio civil y el cuerpo de oficiales del ejército.
Un mayor número de indios obtuvieron el derecho al voto, aunque, para votar a nivel nacional, constituían solo el 10% de la población masculina adulta total, muchos de los cuales todavía eran analfabetos. [26] En las legislaturas provinciales, los británicos continuaron ejerciendo cierto control reservando escaños para intereses especiales que consideraban cooperativos o útiles. En particular, a los candidatos rurales, generalmente simpatizantes del gobierno británico y menos confrontativos, se les asignaron más escaños que a sus contrapartes urbanas. [26] También se reservaron escaños para no brahmanes , terratenientes, empresarios y graduados universitarios. El principio de "representación comunal", una parte integral de las Reformas Minto-Morley y, más recientemente, del Pacto de Lucknow entre el Congreso y la Liga Musulmana, se reafirmó, y se reservaron escaños para musulmanes , sijs , cristianos indios , angloindios y europeos domiciliados, tanto en los consejos legislativos provinciales como imperiales. [26] Las reformas de Montagu-Chelmsford ofrecieron a los indios la oportunidad más importante hasta el momento para ejercer el poder legislativo, especialmente a nivel provincial, aunque restringida por el número todavía limitado de votantes elegibles, por los pequeños presupuestos disponibles para las legislaturas provinciales y por la presencia de escaños rurales y de intereses especiales que eran vistos como instrumentos del control británico. [26]
Introducción de la teoría de las dos naciones: década de 1920
La teoría de las dos naciones es la afirmación, basada en el sentido de la antigua clase dirigente musulmana india de ser cultural e históricamente distinta, de que los hindúes y los musulmanes indios son dos naciones distintas . [27] [28] [29] Argumentaba que la religión resultaba en diferencias culturales y sociales entre musulmanes e hindúes. [30] Mientras que algunos políticos indios musulmanes profesionales la utilizaron para asegurar o salvaguardar una gran parte del botín político para los musulmanes indios con la retirada del dominio británico, otros creían que el principal objetivo político era la preservación de la entidad cultural de la India musulmana. [31] La teoría de las dos naciones fue un principio fundador del Movimiento de Pakistán (es decir, la ideología de Pakistán como un estado-nación musulmán en el sur de Asia) y la partición de la India en 1947. [32]
Theodore Beck , que desempeñó un papel importante en la fundación de la Liga Musulmana Panindia en 1906, apoyó la teoría de las dos naciones. Otro funcionario británico que apoyó la teoría fue Theodore Morison . Tanto Beck como Morison creían que el sistema parlamentario de gobierno mayoritario sería desventajoso para los musulmanes. [33]
El líder de Arya Samaj, Lala Lajpat Rai, expuso su propia versión de la teoría de las dos naciones en 1924 para formar "una partición clara de la India en una India musulmana y una India no musulmana". Lala creía en la partición como respuesta a los disturbios contra los hindúes en Kohat, provincia de la Frontera Noroeste , que minaron su fe en la unidad hindú-musulmana. [33] [34] [35]
La ideología hindutva del líder del Hindu Mahasabha Vinayak Damodar Savarkar tenía una forma embrionaria de teoría de dos naciones desde la década de 1920. [36] Savarkar en 1937, durante la 19ª sesión del Hindu Mahasabha en Ahmedabad, apoyó la teoría de dos naciones donde dijo que "hay dos naciones en general: los hindúes y los musulmanes, en la India". [37]
Muhammad Ali Jinnah asumió la ideología de que la religión es el factor determinante para definir la nacionalidad de los musulmanes indios en 1940. La calificó como el despertar de los musulmanes para la creación de Pakistán. [38] Sin embargo, Jinnah se opuso a la Partición de Punjab y Bengala, y abogó por la integración de todo Punjab y Bengala en Pakistán sin el desplazamiento de ninguno de sus habitantes, ya fueran sijs o hindúes. [39] La teoría también es una fuente de inspiración para varias organizaciones nacionalistas hindúes , con causas tan variadas como la redefinición de los musulmanes indios como extranjeros no indios y ciudadanos de segunda clase en la India, la expulsión de todos los musulmanes de la India , el establecimiento de un estado legalmente hindú en la India, la prohibición de las conversiones al Islam y la promoción de las conversiones o reconversiones de musulmanes indios al hinduismo. [40] [41] [42] [43]
Existen diversas interpretaciones de la teoría de las dos naciones, en función de si las dos nacionalidades postuladas pueden coexistir o no en un territorio, con implicaciones radicalmente diferentes. Una interpretación defendía la autonomía soberana, incluido el derecho a la secesión, para las zonas del subcontinente indio de mayoría musulmana, pero sin ninguna transferencia de poblaciones (es decir, hindúes y musulmanes seguirían viviendo juntos). Una interpretación diferente sostiene que hindúes y musulmanes constituyen "dos formas de vida distintas y frecuentemente antagónicas y que, por lo tanto, no pueden coexistir en una nación". [44] En esta versión, una transferencia de poblaciones (es decir, la eliminación total de hindúes de las zonas de mayoría musulmana y la eliminación total de musulmanes de las zonas de mayoría hindú) era un paso deseable hacia una separación completa de dos naciones incompatibles que "no pueden coexistir en una relación armoniosa". [45] [46]
La oposición a la teoría ha surgido de dos fuentes. La primera es el concepto de una única nación india , de la cual los hindúes y los musulmanes son dos comunidades entrelazadas. [47] Este es un principio fundador de la moderna República de la India , oficialmente secular . Incluso después de la formación de Pakistán, los debates sobre si los musulmanes y los hindúes son nacionalidades distintas o no continuaron también en ese país. [48] La segunda fuente de oposición es el concepto de que si bien los indios no son una nación, tampoco lo son los musulmanes o los hindúes del subcontinente, y son en cambio las unidades provinciales relativamente homogéneas del subcontinente las que son verdaderas naciones y merecedoras de soberanía ; los baluchis han presentado este punto de vista, [ 49] las subnacionalidades sindhi [50] y pastún [51] de Pakistán y las subnacionalidades asamés [52] y punjabi [53] de la India.
Elecciones provinciales en la patria musulmana: 1930-1938
En 1933, Choudhry Rahmat Ali había publicado un panfleto titulado Ahora o nunca , en el que se acuñó por primera vez el término Pakistán , «tierra de los puros», que comprendía el Punjab , la Provincia de la Frontera Noroeste (Afganistán) , Cachemira , Sindh y Baluchistán . [54] No atrajo la atención política y, [54] un poco más tarde, una delegación musulmana al Comité Parlamentario de Reformas Constitucionales de la India desestimó la idea de Pakistán, calificándola de «quimérica e impracticable». [54]
En 1932, el primer ministro británico, Ramsay MacDonald, aceptó la demanda de Ambedkar de que las " clases deprimidas " tuvieran una representación separada en las legislaturas central y provincial. La Liga Musulmana favoreció esta "recompensa comunitaria" porque tenía el potencial de debilitar el liderazgo de castas hindú. Mahatma Gandhi , que era visto como un destacado defensor de los derechos de los dalits , realizó un ayuno para persuadir a los británicos de que derogaran estos electorados separados. Ambedkar tuvo que dar marcha atrás cuando pareció que la vida de Gandhi estaba amenazada. [55] [ se necesita una mejor fuente ]
Dos años después, la Ley de Gobierno de la India de 1935 introdujo la autonomía provincial, aumentando el número de votantes en la India a 35 millones. [56] Más significativamente, las cuestiones de ley y orden fueron transferidas por primera vez de la autoridad británica a los gobiernos provinciales encabezados por indios. [56] Esto aumentó las ansiedades musulmanas sobre la eventual dominación hindú. [56] En las elecciones provinciales indias de 1937 , la Liga Musulmana obtuvo su mejor desempeño en las provincias de minoría musulmana, como las Provincias Unidas , donde ganó 29 de los 64 escaños musulmanes reservados. [56] En las regiones de mayoría musulmana de Punjab y Bengala, los partidos regionales superaron a la Liga. [56] En Punjab, el Partido Unionista de Sikandar Hayat Khan ganó las elecciones y formó un gobierno, con el apoyo del Congreso Nacional Indio y el Shiromani Akali Dal , que duró cinco años. [56] En Bengala, la Liga tuvo que compartir el poder en una coalición encabezada por AK Fazlul Huq , el líder del Partido Krishak Praja . [56]
El Congreso, por otra parte, con 716 victorias en el total de 1585 escaños de las asambleas provinciales, fue capaz de formar gobiernos en 7 de las 11 provincias de la India británica . [56] En su manifiesto, el Congreso sostuvo que las cuestiones religiosas eran de menor importancia para las masas que las cuestiones económicas y sociales. La elección reveló que había disputado sólo 58 de los 482 escaños musulmanes en total, y de estos, ganó en sólo 26. [56] En UP, donde el Congreso ganó, ofreció compartir el poder con la Liga con la condición de que la Liga dejara de funcionar como representante sólo de los musulmanes, a lo que la Liga se negó. [56] Esto resultó ser un error, ya que alejó aún más al Congreso de las masas musulmanas. Además, la nueva administración provincial de UP promulgó la protección de las vacas y el uso del hindi. [56] La élite musulmana en Uttar Pradesh se sintió aún más alienada cuando vio escenas caóticas del nuevo Raj del Congreso, en el que la gente rural que a veces aparecía en grandes cantidades en los edificios gubernamentales, era indistinguible de los administradores y el personal encargado de hacer cumplir la ley. [57]
La Liga Musulmana llevó a cabo una investigación sobre las condiciones de vida de los musulmanes en las provincias gobernadas por el Congreso. [58] Los resultados de esas investigaciones aumentaron el temor entre las masas musulmanas a una futura dominación hindú. [58] La opinión de que los musulmanes serían tratados injustamente en una India independiente dominada por el Congreso era ahora parte del discurso público de los musulmanes. [58]
Durante y después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial (1939-1947)
Con el estallido de la Segunda Guerra Mundial en 1939, Lord Linlithgow , virrey de la India , declaró la guerra en nombre de la India sin consultar a los líderes indios, lo que llevó a los ministros provinciales del Congreso a dimitir en protesta. [58] Por el contrario, la Liga Musulmana, que funcionaba bajo el patrocinio estatal, [59] organizó celebraciones del "Día de la Liberación" (del dominio del Congreso) y apoyó a Gran Bretaña en el esfuerzo bélico. [58] Cuando Linlithgow se reunió con los líderes nacionalistas, dio el mismo estatus a Jinnah que a Gandhi y, un mes más tarde, describió al Congreso como una "organización hindú". [59]
En marzo de 1940, en la sesión anual de tres días de la Liga en Lahore , Jinnah pronunció un discurso de dos horas en inglés, en el que se expusieron los argumentos de la teoría de las dos naciones , afirmando, en palabras de los historiadores Talbot y Singh, que "los musulmanes y los hindúes... eran comunidades religiosas monolíticas irreconciliablemente opuestas y, como tales, no se podía imponer ningún acuerdo que no satisficiera las aspiraciones de los primeros". [58] El último día de su sesión, la Liga aprobó lo que llegó a conocerse como la Resolución de Lahore , a veces también "Resolución de Pakistán", [58] exigiendo que "las áreas en las que los musulmanes son numéricamente mayoría, como en las zonas noroccidental y oriental de la India, se agruparan para constituir estados independientes en los que las unidades constituyentes fueran autónomas y soberanas". Aunque se había fundado más de tres décadas antes, la Liga reuniría apoyo entre los musulmanes del sur de Asia solo durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial. [60]
Oferta de agosto, Misión Cripps: 1940-1942
En agosto de 1940, Lord Linlithgow propuso que se otorgara a la India el estatus de dominio después de la guerra. Como no había tomado en serio la idea de Pakistán, Linlithgow supuso que lo que Jinnah quería era un acuerdo no federal sin dominación hindú. Para disipar los temores musulmanes a la dominación hindú, la "Oferta de Agosto" fue acompañada por la promesa de que una futura constitución consideraría las opiniones de las minorías. [61] Ni el Congreso ni la Liga Musulmana quedaron satisfechos con la oferta, y ambos la rechazaron en septiembre. El Congreso una vez más inició un programa de desobediencia civil . [62]
En marzo de 1942, con los japoneses avanzando rápidamente hacia la península malaya después de la caída de Singapur , [59] y con los estadounidenses apoyando la independencia de la India, [63] Winston Churchill , entonces primer ministro de Gran Bretaña, envió a Sir Stafford Cripps , líder de la Cámara de los Comunes , con una oferta de estatus de dominio para la India al final de la guerra a cambio del apoyo del Congreso al esfuerzo bélico. [64] No queriendo perder el apoyo de los aliados que ya habían conseguido (la Liga Musulmana, los unionistas de Punjab y los príncipes), la oferta de Cripps incluía una cláusula que establecía que ninguna parte del Imperio Británico de la India sería obligada a unirse al dominio de posguerra. La Liga rechazó la oferta, viendo esta cláusula como insuficiente para cumplir con el principio de Pakistán. [65] Como resultado de esa condición, las propuestas también fueron rechazadas por el Congreso, que, desde su fundación como un grupo educado de abogados en 1885, [66] se veía a sí mismo como el representante de todos los indios de todas las religiones. [64] Después de la llegada en 1920 de Gandhi, el estratega preeminente del nacionalismo indio, [67] el Congreso se había transformado en un movimiento nacionalista de masas de millones de personas. [66]
Resolución de abandonar la India: agosto de 1942
En agosto de 1942, el Congreso lanzó la Resolución Quit India , pidiendo cambios constitucionales drásticos que los británicos vieron como la amenaza más seria a su gobierno desde la rebelión india de 1857. [64] Con sus recursos y atención ya dispersos por una guerra global, los nerviosos británicos inmediatamente encarcelaron a los líderes del Congreso y los mantuvieron en prisión hasta agosto de 1945, [ 68] mientras que la Liga Musulmana ahora era libre durante los siguientes tres años para difundir su mensaje. [59] En consecuencia, las filas de la Liga Musulmana aumentaron durante la guerra, y el propio Jinnah admitió: "La guerra que nadie dio la bienvenida resultó ser una bendición disfrazada". [69] Aunque había otros políticos musulmanes nacionales importantes como el líder del Congreso Abul Kalam Azad , y políticos musulmanes regionales influyentes como AK Fazlul Huq del izquierdista Partido Krishak Praja en Bengala, Sikander Hyat Khan del Partido Unionista del Punjab dominado por los terratenientes , y Abd al-Ghaffar Khan del pro-Congreso Khudai Khidmatgar (popularmente, "camisas rojas") en la Provincia de la Frontera Noroeste , los británicos vieron cada vez más a la Liga como el principal representante de la India musulmana. [70] La demanda de la Liga Musulmana sobre Pakistán la enfrentó a los británicos y al Congreso. [71]
Victoria del Partido Laborista en las elecciones británicas, decisión de descolonizar: 1945
En las elecciones generales de 1945 en el Reino Unido ganó el Partido Laborista . Se incorporó al gobierno un gobierno encabezado por Clement Attlee , con Stafford Cripps y Lord Pethick-Lawrence en el gabinete. Muchos de los miembros del nuevo gobierno, incluido Attlee, tenían una larga historia de apoyo a la descolonización de la India. El erario público se había agotado tras la Segunda Guerra Mundial y el público británico no parecía estar entusiasmado con las costosas intervenciones a distancia. [72] [73] A finales de 1945, el gobierno británico decidió poner fin al Raj británico en la India, y a principios de 1947 Gran Bretaña anunció su intención de transferir el poder a más tardar en junio de 1948. [74] Attlee escribió más tarde en una autobiografía que actuó rápidamente para reiniciar el proceso de autogobierno porque esperaba que el gobierno colonial en Asia se encontrara con una renovada oposición después de la guerra, tanto de los movimientos nacionalistas como de los Estados Unidos, [75] mientras que su Hacienda temía que la Gran Bretaña de la posguerra ya no pudiera permitirse el lujo de guarnecer un imperio expansivo. [72] [73]
A principios de 1946 se celebraron nuevas elecciones en la India. [78] Esto coincidió con el infame juicio de tres oficiales de alto rango −Shah Nawaz Khan , Prem Sahgal y Gurubaksh Singh Dhillon− del derrotado Ejército Nacional Indio (INA) de Subhas Chandra Bose , que fueron acusados de traición . Ahora que comenzaron los juicios, la dirigencia del Congreso, aunque nunca había apoyado al INA, optó por defender a los oficiales acusados y rescató con éxito a los miembros del INA. [79] [80]
El gobierno británico había perdido su legitimidad para la mayoría de los hindúes, y una prueba concluyente de ello fueron las elecciones de 1946, en las que el Congreso ganó el 91 por ciento de los votos entre los distritos electorales no musulmanes, con lo que obtuvo la mayoría en la Legislatura central y formó gobiernos en ocho provincias, convirtiéndose en el legítimo sucesor del gobierno británico para la mayoría de los hindúes. Si los británicos tenían intención de permanecer en la India, la aquiescencia de los indios políticamente activos al gobierno británico habría estado en duda después de estos resultados electorales, aunque es posible que muchos indios rurales todavía hubieran aceptado el gobierno británico en ese momento. [81] La Liga Musulmana ganó la mayoría del voto musulmán, así como la mayoría de los escaños reservados para musulmanes en las asambleas provinciales, y también consiguió todos los escaños musulmanes en la Asamblea Central.
Una pareja musulmana mayor y abandonada y sus nietos están sentados al borde de la carretera en este arduo viaje. "El anciano se está muriendo de agotamiento. La caravana ha continuado", escribió Bourke-White.
Un anciano sij lleva a su esposa en brazos. Más de 10 millones de personas fueron desarraigadas de su tierra natal y viajaron a pie, en carros de bueyes y en tren hacia su nuevo hogar prometido.
Gandhi en Bela, Bihar, después de los ataques a los musulmanes, 28 de marzo de 1947.
Misión del Gabinete: julio de 1946
Tras recuperarse de su actuación en las elecciones de 1937, la Liga Musulmana pudo finalmente hacer realidad su afirmación de que ella y Jinnah eran los únicos que representaban a los musulmanes de la India [82] y Jinnah interpretó rápidamente esta votación como una demanda popular de una patria separada. [83] Las tensiones aumentaron mientras la Liga Musulmana no pudo formar ministerios fuera de las dos provincias de Sind y Bengala, y el Congreso formó un ministerio en la NWFP y la provincia clave de Punjab pasó a estar bajo un ministerio de coalición del Congreso, los sikhs y los unionistas. [84]
Los británicos, aunque no aprobaban una patria musulmana separada, apreciaban la simplicidad de una sola voz para hablar en nombre de los musulmanes de la India. [85] Gran Bretaña había querido que la India y su ejército permanecieran unidos para mantener a la India en su sistema de "defensa imperial". [86] [87] Como los dos partidos políticos de la India no podían ponerse de acuerdo, Gran Bretaña ideó el Plan de Misión del Gabinete . A través de esta misión, Gran Bretaña esperaba preservar la India unida que ellos y el Congreso deseaban, al mismo tiempo que aseguraba la esencia de la demanda de Jinnah de un Pakistán a través de "agrupaciones". [88] El plan de misión del Gabinete encapsuló un acuerdo federal que consistía en tres grupos de provincias. Dos de estas agrupaciones consistirían en provincias predominantemente musulmanas, mientras que la tercera agrupación estaría formada por las regiones predominantemente hindúes. Las provincias serían autónomas, pero el centro mantendría el control sobre la defensa, los asuntos exteriores y las comunicaciones. Aunque las propuestas no ofrecían un Pakistán independiente, la Liga Musulmana las aceptó. Aunque se hubiera preservado la unidad de la India, los líderes del Congreso, especialmente Nehru, creían que ello debilitaría al centro. El 10 de julio de 1946, Nehru pronunció un "discurso provocador", rechazó la idea de agrupar las provincias y "torpedeó eficazmente" tanto el plan de misión del Gabinete como la perspectiva de una India unida. [89]
Día de Acción Directa: agosto de 1946
En julio de 1946, tras el fracaso de la misión del gabinete, Jinnah celebró una conferencia de prensa en su casa de Bombay. Proclamó que la Liga Musulmana se estaba "preparando para iniciar una lucha" y que "había trazado un plan". Dijo que si a los musulmanes no se les concedía un Pakistán independiente, emprenderían una "acción directa". Cuando se le pidió que fuera más específico, Jinnah replicó: "Vayan al Congreso y pregúntenles cuáles son sus planes. Cuando ellos les confíen, yo les confío lo mismo. ¿Por qué esperan que yo me quede solo con las manos juntas? Yo también voy a causar problemas". [90]
Al día siguiente, Jinnah anunció que el 16 de agosto de 1946 sería el “ Día de la Acción Directa ” y advirtió al Congreso: “No queremos la guerra. Si ustedes quieren la guerra, aceptaremos su oferta sin vacilar. Tendremos una India dividida o una India destruida”. [90]
Esa mañana, bandas armadas musulmanas se reunieron en el monumento Ochterlony de Calcuta para escuchar a Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy , el Ministro Principal de la Liga de Bengala, quien, en palabras de la historiadora Yasmin Khan, "si no incitó explícitamente a la violencia ciertamente dio a la multitud la impresión de que podían actuar con impunidad, que ni la policía ni los militares serían llamados y que el ministerio haría la vista gorda ante cualquier acción que desataran en la ciudad". [91] Esa misma tarde, en Calcuta, los hindúes fueron atacados por celebrantes musulmanes que regresaban, que llevaban panfletos distribuidos anteriormente que mostraban una clara conexión entre la violencia y la demanda de Pakistán, e implicaban directamente la celebración del Día de Acción Directa con el estallido del ciclo de violencia que más tarde se llamaría la "Gran Matanza de Calcuta de agosto de 1946". [92] Al día siguiente, los hindúes contraatacaron, y la violencia continuó durante tres días en los que murieron aproximadamente 4.000 personas (según los relatos oficiales), tanto hindúes como musulmanes. Aunque la India ya había tenido brotes de violencia religiosa entre hindúes y musulmanes, las matanzas de Calcuta fueron las primeras en mostrar elementos de " limpieza étnica ". [93] La violencia no se limitó a la esfera pública, sino que se invadieron y destruyeron hogares y se atacó a mujeres y niños. [94] Aunque el Gobierno de la India y el Congreso se vieron sacudidos por el curso de los acontecimientos, en septiembre se instaló un gobierno interino dirigido por el Congreso, con Jawaharlal Nehru como primer ministro de la India unida.
La violencia comunitaria se extendió a Bihar (donde los hindúes atacaron a los musulmanes), a Noakhali en Bengala (donde los musulmanes atacaron a los hindúes), a Garhmukteshwar en las Provincias Unidas (donde los hindúes atacaron a los musulmanes) y a Rawalpindi en marzo de 1947, cuando los hindúes y los sikhs fueron atacados o expulsados por los musulmanes. [95]
Plan de partición: 1946-1947
En Londres, el presidente de la Liga de la India , V. K. Krishna Menon , nominó a Louis Mountbatten, primer conde Mountbatten de Birmania, como el único candidato virreinal adecuado en reuniones clandestinas con Sir Stafford Cripps y Clement Attlee. [96] Posteriormente, el primer ministro Attlee nombró a Lord Louis Mountbatten como el último virrey de la India , dándole la tarea de supervisar la independencia de la India británica antes del 30 de junio de 1948, con la instrucción de evitar la partición y preservar una India unida, pero con autoridad adaptable para asegurar una retirada británica con mínimos contratiempos. Mountbatten esperaba revivir el plan de la Misión del Gabinete para un acuerdo federal para la India. Pero a pesar de su entusiasmo inicial por preservar el centro, la tensa situación comunal le hizo concluir que la partición se había vuelto necesaria para una transferencia más rápida del poder. [97] [98] [99] [100]
Propuesta de laLey de Independencia de la India
Cuando Lord Mountbatten propuso formalmente el plan el 3 de junio de 1947, Patel dio su aprobación y presionó a Nehru y otros líderes del Congreso para que aceptaran la propuesta. Conociendo la profunda angustia de Gandhi con respecto a las propuestas de partición, Patel entabló reuniones privadas con él para discutir sobre la percibida imposibilidad práctica de cualquier coalición entre el Congreso y la Liga , la creciente violencia y la amenaza de una guerra civil. En la reunión del Comité del Congreso de toda la India convocada para votar sobre la propuesta, Patel dijo: [101]
Comprendo plenamente los temores de nuestros hermanos de las zonas de mayoría musulmana. A nadie le gusta la división de la India y me pesa el corazón, pero la elección es entre una división y muchas divisiones. Debemos afrontar los hechos. No podemos dejarnos llevar por la emotividad y el sentimentalismo. El Comité de Trabajo no ha actuado por miedo, pero tengo miedo de una cosa: que todo nuestro esfuerzo y duro trabajo de todos estos años se desperdicie o resulte infructuoso. Mis nueve meses en el cargo me han desilusionado por completo en lo que respecta a los supuestos méritos del Plan de Misión del Gabinete . Salvo unas pocas excepciones honrosas, los funcionarios musulmanes, desde los más altos puestos hasta los chaprasis ( peones o sirvientes), están trabajando para la Liga. El veto comunitario otorgado a la Liga en el Plan de Misión habría bloqueado el progreso de la India en todas las etapas. Nos guste o no, ya existe un Pakistán de facto en el Punjab y Bengala. En estas circunstancias, preferiría un Pakistán de iure, que puede hacer que la Liga sea más responsable. La libertad está llegando. Poseemos entre el 75 y el 80 por ciento de la India, que podemos fortalecer con nuestro ingenio. La Liga puede desarrollar el resto del país.
Tras la negación de Gandhi [102] y la aprobación del plan por parte del Congreso, Patel, Rajendra Prasad, C. Rajagopalachari representaron al Congreso en el Consejo de Partición, con Jinnah, Liaqat Ali Khan y Abdur Rab Nishtar representando a la Liga Musulmana. A finales de 1946, el gobierno laborista en Gran Bretaña , con su tesoro agotado por la recién concluida Segunda Guerra Mundial, decidió poner fin al dominio británico de la India, y transferir el poder a más tardar en junio de 1948. Como el ejército británico no estaba preparado para la posibilidad de un aumento de la violencia, el nuevo virrey, Louis Mountbatten , adelantó la fecha, lo que permitió menos de seis meses para un plan de independencia acordado mutuamente.
Línea Radcliffe
Mapa que especula sobre una posible división de la India, del periódico The Daily Herald , 4 de junio de 1947.
En junio de 1947, los líderes nacionalistas, entre ellos Nehru , Valllabh Bhai Patel y JB Kripalini en representación del Congreso, Jinnah, Liaqat Ali Khan y Abdul Rab Nishtar en representación de la Liga Musulmana, y Master Tara Singh en representación de los sikhs , acordaron una partición del país en clara oposición a la oposición de Gandhi a la partición. Las áreas predominantemente hindúes y sikhs fueron asignadas a la nueva India y las áreas predominantemente musulmanas a la nueva nación de Pakistán; el plan incluía una partición de las provincias de mayoría musulmana de Punjab y Bengala. La violencia comunal que acompañó la publicación de la Línea Radcliffe , la línea de partición, fue aún más horrible. Al describir la violencia que acompañó a la partición de la India, los historiadores Ian Talbot y Gurharpal Singh escribieron:
Existen numerosos testimonios de testigos presenciales de mutilaciones y mutilaciones de las víctimas. El catálogo de horrores incluye el destripamiento de mujeres embarazadas, el golpeteo de cabezas de bebés contra paredes de ladrillo, el corte de miembros y genitales de las víctimas y la exhibición de cabezas y cadáveres. Si bien los disturbios comunales anteriores habían sido mortales, la escala y el nivel de brutalidad durante las masacres de la Partición no tenían precedentes. Aunque algunos académicos cuestionan el uso del término " genocidio " en relación con las masacres de la Partición, gran parte de la violencia se manifestó con tendencias genocidas. Fue diseñada para limpiar una generación existente y evitar su reproducción futura". [103]
Independencia: agosto de 1947
La partición de la India: las regiones verdes eran todas parte de Pakistán en 1948, y las naranjas, parte de la India. Las regiones sombreadas más oscuras representan las provincias de Punjab y Bengala divididas por la Línea Radcliffe. Las áreas grises representan algunos de los estados principescos clave que finalmente se integraron a la India o Pakistán.
Mountbatten administró el juramento de independencia a Jinnah el día 14, antes de partir hacia la India, donde el juramento estaba programado para la medianoche del día 15. [104] El 14 de agosto de 1947, se creó el nuevo Dominio de Pakistán , con Muhammad Ali Jinnah jurando como su primer Gobernador General en Karachi . Al día siguiente, el 15 de agosto de 1947, India, ahora Dominio de la India , se convirtió en un país independiente, con ceremonias oficiales que tuvieron lugar en Nueva Delhi , y Jawaharlal Nehru asumió el cargo de primer ministro . Mountbatten permaneció en Nueva Delhi durante 10 meses, sirviendo como el primer gobernador general de una India independiente hasta junio de 1948. [105] Gandhi permaneció en Bengala para trabajar con los nuevos refugiados del subcontinente dividido.
Partición geográfica, 1947
Plano Mountbatten
Mountbatten con un calendario de cuenta regresiva para la transferencia de poder en el fondo
En una conferencia de prensa celebrada el 3 de junio de 1947, Lord Mountbatten anunció la fecha de la independencia (el 14 de agosto de 1947) y también esbozó la división real de la India británica entre los dos nuevos dominios en lo que se conocería como el "Plan Mountbatten" o el "Plan 3 de junio". Los puntos principales del plan eran:
Los sijs, hindúes y musulmanes de las asambleas legislativas de Punjab y Bengala se reunirían y votarían a favor de la partición. Si una mayoría simple de cualquiera de los dos grupos quisiera la partición, entonces esas provincias quedarían divididas.
Sind y Baluchistán debían tomar su propia decisión. [106]
Los dirigentes políticos indios habían aceptado el Plan el 2 de junio. Éste no podía abordar la cuestión de los estados principescos , que no eran posesiones británicas, pero el 3 de junio Mountbatten les aconsejó que no permanecieran independientes y los instó a unirse a uno de los dos nuevos Dominios. [107]
De este modo, se accedió a las exigencias de
la Liga Musulmana de crear un país independiente. También se tuvo en cuenta la posición del Congreso en cuanto a la unidad, al tiempo que se reducía al mínimo el tamaño de Pakistán. La fórmula de Mountbatten consistía en dividir la India y, al mismo tiempo, conservar la máxima unidad posible. Abul Kalam Azad expresó su preocupación por la posibilidad de que se produjeran disturbios violentos, a lo que Mountbatten respondió:
Al menos en esta cuestión os daré plenas garantías. Velaré por que no haya derramamiento de sangre ni disturbios. Soy un soldado, no un civil. Una vez que se acepte en principio la partición, daré órdenes para que no haya disturbios comunales en ninguna parte del país. Si se produjera la más mínima agitación, adoptaré las medidas más severas para cortar de raíz el problema. [108]
Jagmohan ha declarado que esto y lo que siguió demostraron un "fracaso evidente de la maquinaria gubernamental". [108]
El 3 de junio de 1947, el Comité de Trabajo del Congreso aceptó el plan de partición . [109] Boloji [¿ fuente poco fiable? ] afirma que en Punjab no hubo disturbios, pero sí tensión comunal, mientras que Gandhi fue aislado por Nehru y Patel y observó el maun vrat (día de silencio). Mountbatten visitó a Gandhi y le dijo que esperaba que no se opusiera a la partición, a lo que Gandhi escribió la respuesta: "¿Alguna vez me he opuesto a ti?" [110]
Reunión de Mountbatten con Jawaharlal Nehru (izquierda) y Muhammad Ali Jinnah (derecha) para discutir la partición de la India británica, 1947.
Dentro de la India británica, la frontera entre India y Pakistán (la Línea Radcliffe ) fue determinada por un informe encargado por el gobierno británico y preparado bajo la presidencia de un abogado de Londres , Sir Cyril Radcliffe . Pakistán surgió con dos áreas no contiguas, Pakistán Oriental (hoy Bangladesh) y Pakistán Occidental , separadas geográficamente por India. India se formó a partir de las regiones mayoritariamente hindúes de la India británica, y Pakistán a partir de las áreas mayoritariamente musulmanas.
Tras su creación como nuevo país en agosto de 1947, Pakistán solicitó su ingreso a las Naciones Unidas y fue aceptado por la Asamblea General el 30 de septiembre de 1947. El Dominio de la India siguió teniendo el puesto existente, ya que la India había sido miembro fundador de las Naciones Unidas desde 1945. [112]
Comisión de Límites de Punjab
Un mapa de la región de Punjab c. 1947 .
El Punjab, la región de los cinco ríos al este del Indo : Jhelum , Chenab , Ravi , Beas y Sutlej , está formada por doabs interfluviales ('dos ríos'), o extensiones de tierra que se encuentran entre dos ríos confluentes (véase el mapa a la derecha):
A principios de 1947, en los meses previos a las deliberaciones de la Comisión de Límites de Punjab, las principales áreas en disputa parecían estar en los doabs de Bari y Bist. Algunas áreas en el doab de Rechna fueron reclamadas por el Congreso y los sikhs . En el doab de Bari, los distritos de Gurdaspur , Amritsar , Lahore y Montgomery estaban todos en disputa. [113] Todos los distritos (excepto Amritsar, que era 46,5% musulmán) tenían mayorías musulmanas; aunque, en Gurdaspur, la mayoría musulmana, con un 51,1%, era escasa. A una escala de área más pequeña, solo tres tehsils (subunidades de un distrito) en el doab de Bari tenían mayorías no musulmanas: Pathankot , en el extremo norte de Gurdaspur, que no estaba en disputa; y Amritsar y Tarn Taran en el distrito de Amritsar. Sin embargo, había cuatro tehsils de mayoría musulmana al este de Beas-Sutlej, en dos de los cuales los musulmanes superaban en número a los hindúes y sikhs juntos. [113]
Antes de que la Comisión de Límites iniciara las audiencias formales, se habían creado gobiernos para las regiones del Punjab oriental y occidental. Sus territorios se dividieron provisionalmente mediante una "división nocional" basada en mayorías distritales simples. Tanto en el Punjab como en Bengala, la Comisión de Límites estaba formada por dos jueces musulmanes y dos no musulmanes, con Sir Cyril Radcliffe como presidente común. [113] La misión de la comisión del Punjab se expresó en términos generales como: " Demarcar los límites de las dos partes del Punjab, basándose en la determinación de las áreas contiguas de mayoría de musulmanes y no musulmanes. Al hacerlo, tendrá en cuenta otros factores". Cada parte (los musulmanes y el Congreso/sijs) presentó su reclamación a través de abogados sin libertad para negociar. Los jueces tampoco tenían mandato para llegar a acuerdos, y en todas las cuestiones importantes "se dividieron en dos, dejando a Sir Cyril Radcliffe la envidiosa tarea de tomar las decisiones reales". [113]
Independencia, migración y desplazamiento
Guardia de honor despidiéndose de un tren con destino a Pakistán. Estación de trenes de Nueva Delhi, 1947
Sikhs rurales en una larga caravana de bueyes rumbo a la India. 1947.
Dos hombres musulmanes (en un tren de refugiados rurales que se dirige a Pakistán) llevan a una anciana en un doli o palanquín improvisado en 1947.
Un tren de refugiados en camino a Punjab, Pakistán
En los meses inmediatamente posteriores a la partición se produjeron migraciones masivas entre los dos nuevos estados. No se pensó que fuera necesario realizar transferencias de población debido a la partición. Se esperaba que las minorías religiosas se quedaran en los estados en los que se encontraban residiendo. Se hizo una excepción en el caso del Punjab, donde la transferencia de población se organizó debido a la violencia comunal que afectaba a la provincia; esto no se aplicó a otras provincias. [114] [115]
En 1947, la población de la India indivisa era de unos 390 millones de personas. Tras la partición, había quizás 330 millones de personas en la India, 30 millones en Pakistán Occidental y 30 millones en Pakistán Oriental (actual Bangladesh). [116] Una vez que se establecieron los límites, unos 14,5 millones de personas cruzaron las fronteras hacia lo que esperaban que fuera la relativa seguridad de la mayoría religiosa. El censo de Pakistán de 1951 identificó el número de personas desplazadas en Pakistán en 7.226.600, presumiblemente todos musulmanes que habían entrado en Pakistán desde la India; el censo de la India de 1951 contabilizó 7.295.870 personas desplazadas, aparentemente todos hindúes y sikhs que se habían mudado a la India desde Pakistán inmediatamente después de la partición. [117]
Regiones afectadas por la partición
Los gobiernos recién formados no habían previsto una migración de dos vías de una magnitud tan asombrosa y no estaban preparados para ello. Se produjeron violencia y matanzas masivas en ambos lados de la nueva frontera entre la India y el Pakistán. [118]
El 13 de enero de 1948, Mahatma Gandhi inició su ayuno con el objetivo de detener la violencia. Más de 100 líderes religiosos se reunieron en Birla House y aceptaron las condiciones de Gandhi. Miles de hindúes, musulmanes y sikhs se reunieron fuera de Birla House para defender la paz y la unidad. Representantes de organizaciones como Hindu Mahasabha , Jamait-ul-Ulema y Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) visitaron Birla House para prometer armonía comunitaria y el fin de la violencia. [9] Maulana Azad, Jawaharlal Nehru y el Alto Comisionado de Pakistán en la India, Zahid Hussain, también hicieron su visita. [10] El 18 de enero, Gandhi aceptó romper su ayuno. A este ayuno se le atribuye el mérito de poner fin a la violencia comunitaria. [119] [120] [121] [122] [11]
Aunque las estimaciones del número de muertes varían enormemente, desde 200.000 a 2.000.000, la mayoría de los investigadores aceptan que aproximadamente un millón de personas murieron en la violencia de la partición. [123] Se concluye que el peor caso de violencia entre todas las regiones tuvo lugar en Punjab. [124] [125] [126]
Punjab
Un tren especial para refugiados en la estación de Ambala durante la Partición de la India
La Partición de la India dividió la antigua provincia británica de Punjab entre el Dominio de la India y el Dominio de Pakistán . La parte occidental de la provincia, mayoritariamente musulmana, se convirtió en la provincia de Punjab de Pakistán ; la parte oriental, mayoritariamente hindú y sij, se convirtió en el estado de Punjab Oriental de la India (más tarde dividido en los nuevos estados de Punjab , Haryana y Himachal Pradesh ). Muchos hindúes y sijs vivían en el oeste, y muchos musulmanes vivían en el este, y los temores de todas esas minorías eran tan grandes que la partición provocó el desplazamiento de muchas personas y mucha violencia intercomunitaria. Algunos han descrito la violencia en Punjab como un genocidio retributivo. [127] La migración total a través de Punjab durante la partición se estima en 12 millones de personas; [b] alrededor de 6,5 millones de musulmanes se trasladaron a Punjab Occidental, y 4,7 millones de hindúes y sijs se trasladaron a Punjab Oriental.
Vídeo de refugiados en el techo del tren durante la Partición de la India.
Prácticamente ningún musulmán sobrevivió en el Punjab Oriental (excepto en Malerkotla y Nuh ) y prácticamente ningún hindú o sikh sobrevivió en el Punjab Occidental (excepto en Rahim Yar Khan y Bahawalpur ). [129]
Lawrence James observó que "Sir Francis Mudie, gobernador del Punjab occidental, estimó que 500.000 musulmanes murieron tratando de entrar en su provincia, mientras que el Alto Comisionado británico en Karachi estimó el total en 800.000. Esto desmiente la afirmación de Mountbatten y sus partidarios de que sólo murieron 200.000 personas": [James 1998: 636]. [130]
Durante este período, muchos afirmaron que el líder sij Tara Singh estaba apoyando el asesinato de musulmanes. El 3 de marzo de 1947, en Lahore , Singh, junto con unos 500 sijs, declaró desde un estrado "Muerte a Pakistán". [131] Según el politólogo Ishtiaq Ahmed : [132] [133] [134] [135]
El 3 de marzo, el líder sij radical Tara Singh hizo alarde de su kirpan (espada) frente a la Asamblea de Punjab, instando a la destrucción de la idea de Pakistán, lo que provocó una respuesta violenta de los musulmanes, principalmente contra los sijs, pero también contra los hindúes, en los distritos de mayoría musulmana del norte de Punjab. Sin embargo, a finales de ese año, habían muerto más musulmanes en el este de Punjab que hindúes y sijs juntos en el oeste de Punjab.
Nehru escribió a Gandhi el 22 de agosto que, hasta ese momento, se había asesinado al doble de musulmanes en el Punjab Oriental que de hindúes y sijs en el Punjab Occidental . [136]
Los distritos de Murshidabad y Malda , ubicados en la orilla derecha del Ganges, fueron entregados a la India a pesar de tener mayorías musulmanas. El distrito de Khulna , de mayoría hindú , ubicado en las desembocaduras del Ganges y rodeado de distritos de mayoría musulmana, fue entregado a Pakistán, al igual que las colinas de Chittagong , más al este . [140]
Miles de hindúes, ubicados en los distritos de Bengala Oriental, que fueron otorgados a Pakistán, se vieron atacados, y esta persecución religiosa obligó a cientos de miles de hindúes de Bengala Oriental a buscar refugio en la India. La afluencia masiva de refugiados hindúes a Calcuta afectó la demografía de la ciudad. Muchos musulmanes abandonaron la ciudad para dirigirse a Pakistán Oriental, y las familias de refugiados ocuparon algunas de sus casas y propiedades.
Se estima que la migración total a través de Bengala durante la partición fue de 3,3 millones: 2,6 millones de hindúes se trasladaron de Pakistán Oriental a la India y 0,7 millones de musulmanes se trasladaron de la India a Pakistán Oriental (actual Bangladesh).
Zonas montañosas de Chittagong
The sparsely populated Chittagong Hill Tracts were a special case. Located on the eastern limits of Bengal, it provided the Muslim-majority Chittagong with a hinterland. Despite the Tracts' 98.5% Buddhist majority in 1947[141] the territory was given to Pakistan.[140]
Sindh
There was no mass violence in Sindh as there was in Punjab and Bengal.
At the time of partition, the majority of Sindh's prosperous upper and middle class was Hindu. The Hindus were mostly concentrated in cities and formed the majority of the population in cities including Hyderabad, Karachi, Shikarpur, and Sukkur. During the initial months after partition, only some Hindus migrated. In late 1947, the situation began to change. Large numbers of Muslims refugees from India started arriving in Sindh and began to live in crowded refugee camps.[142]
On 6 December 1947, communal violence broke out in Ajmer in India, precipitated by an argument between
some Sindhi Hindu refugees and local 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 casualties.[143] Many Muslims fled across the Thar Desert to Sindh in Pakistan.[143] This sparked further anti-Hindu riots in Hyderabad, Sindh. On 6 January anti-Hindu riots broke out in Karachi, leading to an estimate of 1100 casualties.[143][144] The arrival of Sindhi Hindu refugees in North Gujarat's town of Godhra in March 1948 again sparked riots there which led to more emigration of Muslims from Godhra to Pakistan.[143] These events triggered the large scale exodus of Hindus.
An estimated 1.2 – 1.4 million Hindus migrated to India primarily by ship or train.[142]
Despite the migration, a significant Sindhi Hindu population still resides in Pakistan's Sindh province, where they number at around 2.3 million as per Pakistan's 1998 census. Some districts in Sindh had a Hindu majority like Tharparkar District, Umerkot, Mirpurkhas, Sanghar and Badin.[145]Due to the religious persecution of Hindus in Pakistan, Hindus from Sindh are still migrating to India.[146]
Gujarat
It experienced large refugee migrations.
An estimated 642,000 Muslims migrated to Pakistan, of which 75% went to Karachi largely due to business interests. The 1951 Census registered a drop of the Muslim population in the state from 13% in 1941 to 7% in 1951.[149]
The number of incoming refugees was also quite large, with over a million people migrating to Gujarat.
These Hindu refugees were largely Sindhi and Gujarati.[150]
Delhi
Muslim refugees in the Tomb of Humayun, 1947A crowd of Muslims at the Old Fort (Purana Qila) in Delhi, which had been converted into a vast camp for Muslim refugees waiting to be transported to Pakistan. Manchester Guardian, 27 September 1947.
For centuries Delhi had been the capital of the Mughal Empire from Babur to the successors of Aurangzeb and previous Turkic Muslim rulers of North India. The series of Islamic rulers keeping Delhi as a stronghold of their empires left a vast array of Islamic architecture in Delhi, and a strong Islamic culture permeated the city.[citation needed] In 1911, when the British Raj shifted their colonial capital from Calcutta to Delhi, the nature of the city began changing. The core of the city was called 'Lutyens' Delhi,' named after the British architect Sir Edwin Lutyens, and was designed to service the needs of the small but growing population of the British elite. Nevertheless, the 1941 census listed Delhi's population as being 33.2% Muslim.[151]: 80
As refugees began pouring into Delhi in 1947, the city was ill-equipped to deal with the influx of refugees. Refugees "spread themselves out wherever they could. They thronged into camps ... colleges, temples, gurudwaras, dharmshalas, military barracks, and gardens."[152] By 1950, the government began allowing squatters to construct houses in certain portions of the city. As a result, neighbourhoods such as Lajpat Nagar and Patel Nagar sprang into existence, which carry a distinct Punjabi character to this day. As thousands of Hindu and Sikh refugees from West Punjab and North-West Frontier Province fled to the city, upheavals ensued as communal pogroms rocked the historical stronghold of Indo-Islamic culture and politics. A Pakistani diplomat in Delhi, Hussain, alleged that the Indian government was intent on eliminating Delhi's Muslim population or was indifferent to their fate. He reported that army troops openly gunned down innocent Muslims.[153] Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru estimated 1,000 casualties in the city. Other sources put the casualty rate 20 times higher. Gyanendra Pandey's 2010 account of the violence in Delhi puts the figure of Muslim casualties in Delhi at between 20,000 and 25,000.[154]
Tens of thousands of Muslims were driven to refugee camps regardless of their political affiliations, and numerous historical sites in Delhi such as the Purana Qila, Idgah, and Nizamuddin were transformed into refugee camps. In fact, many Hindu and Sikh refugees eventually occupied the abandoned houses of Delhi's Muslim inhabitants.[155]
At the culmination of the tensions, total migration in Delhi during the partition is estimated at 830,000 people; around 330,000 Muslims had migrated to Pakistan and around 500,000 Hindus and Sikhs migrated from Pakistan to Delhi.[156] The 1951 Census registered a drop of the Muslim population in the city from 33.2% in 1941 to 5.7% in 1951.[157][158]: 298
Princely states
In several cases, rulers of princely states were involved in communal violence or did not do enough to stop in time. Some rulers were away from their states for the summer, such as those of the Sikh states. Some believe that the rulers were whisked away by communal ministers in large part to avoid responsibility for the soon-to-come ethnic cleansing.[citation needed] In Bhawalpur and Patiala, upon the return of their ruler to the state, there was a marked decrease in violence, and the rulers consequently stood against the cleansing. The Nawab of Bahawalpur was away in Europe and returned on 1 October, shortening his trip. A bitter Hassan Suhrawardy would write to Mahatma Gandhi:
What is the use now, of the Maharaja of Patiala, when all the Muslims have been eliminated, standing up as the champion of peace and order?[159]
With the exceptions of Jind and Kapurthala, the violence was well organised in the Sikh states, with logistics provided by local government.[160] In Patiala and Faridkot, the Maharajas responded to the call of Master Tara Singh to cleanse India of Muslims. The Maharaja of Patiala was offered the headship of a future united Sikh state that would rise from the "ashes of a Punjab civil war."[161] The Maharaja of Faridkot, Harinder Singh, is reported to have listened to stories of the massacres with great interest going so far as to ask for "juicy details" of the carnage.[162] The Maharaja of Bharatpur State personally witnessed the cleansing of Muslim Meos at Khumbar and Deeg. When reproached by Muslims for his actions, Brijendra Singh retorted by saying: "Why come to me? Go to Jinnah."[163]
In Alwar and Bahawalpur communal sentiments extended to higher echelons of government, and the prime ministers of these States were said to have been involved in planning and directly overseeing the cleansing. In Bikaner, by contrast, the organisation occurred at much lower levels.[164]
Alwar and Bharatpur
In Alwar and Bharatpur, princely states of Rajputana (modern-day Rajasthan), there were bloody confrontations between the dominant, Hindu land-holding community and the Muslim cultivating community.[165] Well-organised bands of Hindu Jats, Ahirs and Gurjars, started attacking Muslim Meos in April 1947. By June, more than fifty Muslim villages had been destroyed. The Muslim League was outraged and demanded that the Viceroy provide Muslim troops. Accusations emerged in June of the involvement of Indian State Forces from Alwar and Bharatpur in the destruction of Muslim villages both inside their states and in British India.[166]
In the wake of unprecedented violent attacks unleashed against them in 1947, 100,000 Muslim Meos from Alwar and Bharatpur were forced to flee their homes, and an estimated 30,000 are said to have been massacred.[167] On 17 November, a column of 80,000 Meo refugees went to Pakistan. However, 10,000 stopped travelling due to the risks.[165]
Jammu and Kashmir
In September–November 1947 in the Jammu region of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, a large number of Muslims were killed, and others driven away to West Punjab. The impetus for this violence was partly due to the "harrowing stories of Muslim atrocities", brought by Hindu and Sikh refugees arriving to Jammu from West Punjab since March 1947. The killings were carried out by extremist Hindus and Sikhs, aided and abetted by the forces of the Jammu and Kashmir State, headed by the Maharaja of Jammu and KashmirHari Singh. Observers state that Hari Singh aimed to alter the demographics of the region by eliminating the Muslim population and ensure a Hindu majority.[168][169] This was followed by a massacre of Hindus and Sikhs starting in November 1947, in Rajouri and Mirpur by Pashtun tribal militias and Pakistani soldiers.[170] Women were raped and sexually assaulted. Many of those killed, raped and injured had come to these areas to escape massacres in West Punjab, which had become part of Pakistan.
The majority of Hindu and Sikh Punjabi refugees from West Punjab were settled in Delhi and East Punjab (including Haryana and Himachal Pradesh). Delhi received the largest number of refugees for a single city, with the population of Delhi showing an increase from under 1 million (917,939) in the Census of India, 1941, to a little less than 2 million (1,744,072) in the 1951 Census, despite a large number of Muslims leaving Delhi in 1947 to go to Pakistan whether voluntarily or by coercion.[171] The incoming refugees were housed in various historical and military locations such as the Purana Qila, Red Fort, and military barracks in Kingsway Camp (around the present Delhi University). The latter became the site of one of the largest refugee camps in northern India, with more than 35,000 refugees at any given time besides Kurukshetra camp near Panipat. The campsites were later converted into permanent housing through extensive building projects undertaken by the Government of India from 1948 onwards. Many housing colonies in Delhi came up around this period, like Lajpat Nagar, Rajinder Nagar, Nizamuddin East, Punjabi Bagh, Rehgar Pura, Jangpura, and Kingsway Camp. Several schemes such as the provision of education, employment opportunities, and easy loans to start businesses were provided for the refugees at the all-India level.[172] Many Punjabi Hindu refugees were also settled in Cities of Western and Central Uttar Pradesh. A Colony consisting largely of Sikhs and Punjabi Hindus was also founded in Central Mumbai's Sion Koliwada region, and named Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar.[173]
Sindhi Hindus settled predominantly in Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Substantial numbers, however, were also settled in Madhya Pradesh, A few also settled in Delhi. A new township was established for Sindhi Hindu refugees in Maharashtra. The Governor-General of India, Sir Rajagopalachari, laid the foundation for this township and named it Ulhasnagar ('city of joy').
Substantial communities of Hindu Gujarati and Marathi Refugees who had lived in cities of Sindh and Southern Punjab were also resettled in Cities of Modern-day Gujarat and Maharashtra.[150][176]
A small community of Pashtun Hindus from Loralai, Balochistan was also settled City of Jaipur. Today they number around 1,000.[177]
Refugee camps
The list below shows the number of relief camps in districts of Punjab and their population up to December 1948.[178]
Resettlement in Pakistan
The 1951 Census of Pakistan recorded that the most significant number of Muslim refugees came from the East Punjab and nearby Rajputana states (Alwar and Bharatpur). They numbered 5,783,100 and constituted 80.1% of Pakistan's total refugee population.[179] This was the effect of the retributive ethnic cleansing on both sides of the Punjab where the Muslim population of East Punjab was forcibly expelled like the Hindu/Sikh population in West Punjab.
Migration from other regions of India were as follows: Bihar, West Bengal, and Orissa, 700,300 or 9.8%; UP and Delhi 464,200 or 6.4%; 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%.[179]
So far as their settlement in Pakistan is concerned, 97.4% of the refugees from East Punjab and its contiguous areas went to West Punjab; 95.9% from Bihar, West Bengal and Orissa to the erstwhile East Pakistan; 95.5% from UP and Delhi to West Pakistan, mainly in Karachi Division of Sindh; 97.2% from Bhopal and Hyderabad to West Pakistan, mainly Karachi; and 98.9% from Bombay and Gujarat to West Pakistan, largely to Karachi; and 98.9% from Madras and Mysore went to West Pakistan, mainly Karachi.[179]
West Punjab received the largest number of refugees (73.1%), mainly from East Punjab and its contiguous areas. Sindh received the second largest number of refugees, 16.1% of the total migrants, while the Karachi division of Sindh received 8.5% of the total migrant population. East Bengal received the third-largest number of refugees, 699,100, who constituted 9.7% of the total Muslim refugee population in Pakistan. 66.7% of the refugees in East Bengal originated from West Bengal, 14.5% from Bihar and 11.8% from Assam.[180]
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
Missing people
A study of the total population inflows and outflows in the districts of Punjab, using the data provided by the 1931 and 1951 Census has led to an estimate of 1.3 million missing Muslims who left western India but did not reach Pakistan.[130] The corresponding number of missing Hindus/Sikhs along the western border is estimated to be approximately 0.8 million.[182] This puts the total of missing people, due to partition-related migration along the Punjab border, to around 2.2 million.[182]Another study of the demographic consequences of partition in the Punjab region using the 1931, 1941 and 1951 censuses concluded that between 2.3 and 3.2 million people went missing in the Punjab.[183]
Rehabilitation of women
Both sides promised each other that they would try to restore women abducted and raped during the riots. The Indian government claimed that 33,000 Hindu and Sikh women were abducted, and the Pakistani government claimed that 50,000 Muslim women were abducted during riots. By 1949, there were legal claims that 12,000 women had been recovered in India and 6,000 in Pakistan.[184] By 1954, there were 20,728 Muslim women recovered from India, and 9,032 Hindu and Sikh women recovered from Pakistan.[185] Most of the Hindu and Sikh women refused to go back to India, fearing that their families would never accept them, a fear mirrored by Muslim women.[186]
Some scholars have noted some 'positive' effects of partition on women in both Bengal and Punjab. In Bengal, it had some emancipatory effects on refugee women from East Bengal, who took up jobs to help their families, entered the public space and participated in political movements. The disintegration of traditional family structures could have increased the space for the agency of women. Many women also actively participated in the communist movement that later took place in West Bengal of India. Regarding Indian Punjab, one scholar has noted, "Partition narrowed the physical spaces and enlarged the social spaces available to women, thereby affecting the practice of purda or seclusion, modified the impact of caste and regional culture on marriage arrangements and widened the channels of educational mobility and employment for girls and women."[187]
In 1959, the International Labour Organization (ILO) published a report stating that from 1951 to 1956, a total of 650,000 Muslims from India relocated to West Pakistan.[188] However, Visaria (1969) raised doubts about the authenticity of the claims about Indian Muslim migration to Pakistan, since the 1961 Census of Pakistan did not corroborate these figures. However, the 1961 Census of Pakistan did incorporate a statement suggesting that there had been a migration of 800,000 people from India to Pakistan throughout the previous decade.[189] Of those who left for Pakistan, most never came back.[citation needed]
Indian Muslim migration to Pakistan declined drastically in the 1970s, a trend noticed by the Pakistani authorities. In 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 on valid travel documents. Of these only 3,393 stayed.[188] In a related trend, intermarriages between Indian and Pakistani 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 dropped from 40,000 a year in the 1950s and 1960s to barely 300 annually.[188]
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.[190] 400 families were settled in Nagar after the 1965 war and an additional 3000 settled in the Chachro taluka in Sindh province of West Pakistan.[191] The government of Pakistan provided each family with 12 acres of land. According to government records, this land totalled 42,000 acres.[191]
The 1951 census in Pakistan recorded 671,000 refugees in East Pakistan, the majority of which came from West Bengal. The rest were from Bihar.[192] According to the ILO in the period 1951–1956, half a million Indian Muslims migrated to East Pakistan.[188] By 1961 the numbers reached 850,000. In the aftermath of the riots in Ranchi and Jamshedpur, Biharis continued to migrate to East Pakistan well into the late sixties and added up to around a million.[193] Crude estimates suggest that about 1.5 million Muslims migrated from West Bengal and Bihar to East Bengal in the two decades after partition.[194]
The population in the Tharparkar district in the Sindh province of West Pakistan was 80% Hindu and 20% Muslim at the time of independence in 1947. During the Indo-Pakistani Wars of 1965 and 1971, an estimated 1,500 Hindu families fled to India, which led to a massive demographic shift in the district.[190][197] During these same wars, 23,300 Hindu families also migrated to Jammu Division from Azad Kashmir and West Punjab.[198]
The migration of Hindus from East Pakistan to India continued unabated after partition. The 1951 census in India recorded that 2.5 million refugees arrived from East Pakistan, of which 2.1 million migrated to West Bengal while the rest migrated to Assam, Tripura, and other states.[192] 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:[199][200]
Post-partition migration to India from East Pakistan
In 1978, India gave citizenship to 55,000 Pakistani Hindus.[195] By the time of the 1998 Census of Pakistan, Muslims made up 64.4% of the population and Hindus 35.6% of the population in Tharparkar.[citation needed]Around 70,000 Hindus migrated to India due to increased persecution in the aftermath of the riots and mob attacks in response to Demolition of the Babri Masjid.[citation needed]
Perspectives
Refugees on train roof during partition
The partition was a highly controversial arrangement, and remains a cause of much tension on the Indian subcontinent today. According to American scholar Allen McGrath,[202] many British leaders including the British Viceroy, Mountbatten, were unhappy over the partition of India.[203]Louis Mountbatten had not only been accused of rushing the process through but also is alleged to have influenced the Radcliffe Line in India's favour.[204][205][206] 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. The boundary line was revealed on 17 August, two days after the partition. This implied that the boundary location was delayed in order to complete the British withdrawal from India so that the British cannot be burdened by the partition.[207]
Some critics allege that British haste led to increased cruelties during the partition.[208] Because independence was declared prior to the actual partition, it was up to the new governments of India and 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.[209]
However, many argue that the British were forced to expedite the partition by events on the ground.[210] 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.[210] 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,[211] 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.[212] The historian Lawrence James concurs that in 1947 Mountbatten was left with no option but to cut and run. The alternative seemed to be involved in a potentially bloody civil war from which it would be difficult to get out.[213]
When the 2017 film Viceroy's House was being made, pertaining to Partition, Britain's then-Prince Charles, who is a great-nephew of Mountbatten, recommended the book The Shadow of the Great Game: The Untold Story of India's Partition to the filmmaker. The book argues that Mountbatten had been used by the British establishment, which had long sought Partition to maintain a strategic base in northwestern South Asia that could guard British interests in the Middle East and check Soviet advances (see also Great Game#On India).[214][215]
Venkat Dhulipala rejects the idea that the British divide and rule policy was responsible for partition and elaborates on the perspective that Pakistan was popularly imagined as a sovereign Islamic state or a 'New Medina', as a potential successor to the defunct Turkish caliphate[216][217] and as a leader and protector of the entire Islamic world. Islamic scholars debated over creating Pakistan and its potential to become a true Islamic state.[216][217] The majority of Barelvis supported the creation of Pakistan[218][219] and believed that any co-operation with Hindus would be counterproductive.[220] Most Deobandis, who were led by Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, were opposed to the creation of Pakistan and the two-nation theory. According to them Muslims and Hindus could be a part of a single nation.[221][222][223]
In their authoritative study of the partition, Ian Talbot and Gurharpal Singh have said 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 differences.[224]
A cross-border student initiative, The History Project, was launched in 2014 to explore the differences in perception of the events leading up to the partition. The project resulted in a book that explains both interpretations of the shared history in Pakistan and India.[225][226]
In August 2017, The Arts and Cultural Heritage Trust (TAACHT) of United Kingdom set up what they describe as "the world's first Partition Museum" at Town Hall in Amritsar, Punjab. The Museum, which is open from Tuesday to Sunday, offers multimedia exhibits and documents that describe both the political process that led to partition and carried it forward, and video and written narratives offered by survivors of the events.[229]
A 2019 book by Kavita Puri, Partition Voices: Untold British Stories, based on the BBC Radio 4 documentary series of the same name, includes interviews with about two dozen people who witnessed partition and subsequently migrated to Britain.[230][231]
On 14 August 2021, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced Partition Horrors Remembrance Day to remind the nation of the sufferings of the Indians during the partition. This move was criticised by the Congress with Jairam Ramesh saying that the day has been conceptualised with biased intent and its aim is to use traumatic events as "fodder" for Modi's current political fights.[232]
Artistic depictions of the partition
The partition of India and the associated bloody riots inspired many in India and Pakistan to create literary, cinematic, and artistic depictions of this event.[233] While some creations depicted the massacres during the refugee migration, others concentrated on the aftermath of the partition and the difficulties faced by the refugees in both sides of the border. Works of fiction, films, and art that relate to the events of partition continue to be made to the present day.
Literature
Literature describing the human cost of independence and partition includes, among others:[234][235]
"Terhi Lakir" (The Crooked Line; 1943) by Ismat Chughtai
The novel Lost Generations (2013) by Manjit Sachdeva describes the March 1947 massacre in rural areas of Rawalpindi by the Muslim League, followed by massacres on both sides of the new border in August 1947 seen through the eyes of an escaping 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.
Film
The partition has been a frequent topic in film.[236][237][238] Early films relating to the circumstances of the independence, partition and the aftermath include:
The biographical films Gandhi (1982), Jinnah (1998), Sardar (1993), and Bhaag Milkha Bhaag (2013) also feature independence and partition as significant events in their screenplay.
The Pakistani drama Dastaan, based on the novel Bano, highlights the plight of Muslim girls who were abducted and raped during partition.
The 2013 Google India "Reunion" advertisement, which is about the partition, has had a strong impact in India and Pakistan, leading to hope for the easing of travel restrictions between the two countries.[242][243][244] The advertisement went viral[245][246] and was viewed more than 1.6 million times before officially debuting on television on 15 November 2013.[247]
"Demons of the Punjab", a 2018 episode of British sci-fi show Doctor Who, depicts the events of the partition from the perspective of a family torn apart by their religious differences.
The Disney+ television series Ms. Marvel (2022) depicts a fictional version of the partition, from the perspective of a Muslim family fleeing to Pakistan.
Project Dastaan is a peace-building initiative that reconnects displaced refugees of the partition in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh with their childhood communities and villages through virtual reality digital experiences.[citation needed]
Artist Bindu Mehra has made digital films depicting lived memories of the partition, including The Inaccessible Narrative.[256]
^British India consisted of those regions of the British Raj, or the British Indian Empire, which were directly administered by Britain; other regions of nominal sovereignty that were indirectly ruled by Britain were called princely states.
^"Some 12 million people were displaced in the divided province of Punjab alone, and up to 20 million in the subcontinent as a whole."[128]
^1941: Data for the entirety of Delhi Province, which included Delhi Municipality, New Delhi Municipality, New Delhi Cantonment, Delhi Civil Lines, Shahdara, Narela, Mehrauli, Najafgargh, Delhi Cantonment Fort, and rural outlying areas.[151]: 14
^Fisher, Michael H. (2018), An Environmental History of India: From Earliest Times to the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, doi:10.1017/9781316276044, ISBN 978-1-107-11162-2, LCCN 2018021693, S2CID 134229667, The partition of South Asia that produced India and West and East Pakistan resulted from years of bitter negotiations and recriminations ... The departing British also decreed that the hundreds of princes, who ruled one-third of the subcontinent and a quarter of its population, became legally independent, their status to be settled later. Geographical location, personal and popular sentiment, and substantial pressure and incentives from the new governments led almost all princes eventually to merge their domains into either Pakistan or India. ... Each new government asserted its exclusive sovereignty within its borders, realigning all territories, animals, plants, minerals, and all other natural and human-made resources as either Pakistani or Indian property, to be used for its national development... Simultaneously, the central civil and military services and judiciary split roughly along religious 'communal' lines, even as they divided movable government assets according to a negotiated formula: 22.7 percent for Pakistan and 77.3 percent for India.
^Khan, Yasmin (2017) [2007], The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan (2 ed.), New Haven and London: Yale University Press, p. 1, ISBN 978-0-300-23032-1, South Asians learned that the British Indian empire would be partitioned on 3 June 1947. They heard about it on the radio, from relations and friends, by reading newspapers and, later, through government pamphlets. Among a population of almost four hundred million, where the vast majority live in the countryside, ploughing the land as landless peasants or sharecroppers, it is hardly surprising that many thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, did not hear the news for many weeks afterwards. For some, the butchery and forced relocation of the summer months of 1947 may have been the first that they knew about the creation of the two new states rising from the fragmentary and terminally weakened British empire in India
^"The Dawn of Pakistan". Dawn. 9 June 2017. Retrieved 7 January 2024.
^Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 25: "When the British divided and quit India in August 1947, they partitioned not only the subcontinent with the emergence of the two nations of India and Pakistan, but also the provinces of Punjab and Bengal."
^"Independence Day Special: This is how military assets were divided between India and Pakistan". WION. 15 August 2021. Retrieved 31 December 2023.
^Chatterji, Joya; Washbrook, David (2013), "Introduction: Concepts and Questions", in Chatterji, Joya; Washbrook, David (eds.), Routledge Handbook of the South Asian Diaspora, London and New York: Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-48010-9, Joya Chatterji describes how the partition of the British Indian empire into the new nation states of India and Pakistan produced new diaspora on a vast, and hitherto unprecedented, scale, but hints that the sheer magnitude of refugee movements in South Asia after 1947 must be understood in the context of pre-existing migratory flows within the partitioned regions (see also Chatterji 2013). She also demonstrates that the new national states of India and Pakistan were quickly drawn into trying to stem this migration. As they put into place laws designed to restrict the return of partition emigrants, this produced new dilemmas for both new nations in their treatment of 'overseas Indians'; and many of them lost their right to return to their places of origin in the subcontinent, and also their claims to full citizenship in host countries.
^Metcalf, Barbara D.; Metcalf, Thomas R. (2012), A Concise History of Modern India, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-107-02649-0, The loss of life was immense, with estimates ranging from several hundred thousand up to a million. But, even for those who survived, fear generated a widespread perception that one could be safe only among the members of one's own community; and this in turn helped consolidate loyalties towards the state, whether India or Pakistan, in which one might find a secure haven. This was especially important for Pakistan, where the succour it offered to Muslims gave that state for the first time a visible territorial reality. Fear too drove forward a mass migration unparalleled in the history of South Asia. Within a period of some three or four months in late 1947 a number of Hindus and Sikhs estimated at some 5 million moved from West Punjab into India, while 5.5 million Muslims travelled in the opposite direction. The outcome, akin to what today is called 'ethnic cleansing', produced an Indian Punjab 60 per cent Hindu and 35 per cent Sikh, while the Pakistan Punjab became almost wholly Muslim. A similar, though less extensive, migration took place between east and west Bengal, though murderous attacks on fleeing refugees, with the attendant loss of life, were much less extensive in the eastern region. Even those who did not move, if of the wrong community, often found themselves treated as though they were the enemy. In Delhi itself, the city's Muslims, cowering in an old fort, were for several months after partition regarded with intense suspicion and hostility. Overall, partition uprooted some 12.5 million of undivided India's people.
^Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, p. 189, ISBN 978-0-19-882905-8, The sudden refugee flows related to Partition may at the time have been unsurpassed in modern world history. It is likely that at least 14–18 million people moved. Previous assessments of the mortality associated with Partition have varied between 200,000 and 1 million. The first figure, attributed to Mountbatten (the last Viceroy) smacks of a number that—conveniently from an official perspective—minimizes the loss of life. However, the figure of 1 million may also be too low. The data, however, do not allow for a firmer judgement.
^ a bParanjape, M.R. (2018). The Death & afterlife of Mahatma Gandhi. Penguin Random House India Private Limited. p. 182. ISBN 978-93-5305-335-2.
^ a bJack, H.A. (1994). The Gandhi Reader: A Sourcebook of His Life and Writings. Grove Press Eastern philosophy and literature series. Grove Press. p. 458. ISBN 978-0-8021-3161-4. Retrieved 14 August 2024.
^ a bHatt, C. (2002). Mahatma Gandhi. Judge for yourself. Evans. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-237-52308-4. Revived by the success of his fast, which also helped bring calm to the rest of India, Gandhi resumed his routine of ending the day with a prayer meeting outside Birla House.
^Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. "Nepal." Archived 18 March 2006 at the Wayback Machine, Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. "Bhutan."
^"Sikkim". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Archived from the original on 12 December 2007. Retrieved 23 February 2017.
^ a b cSpear 1990, p. 176
^Spear 1990, p. 176, Stein & Arnold 2010, p. 291, Ludden 2002, p. 193, Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, p. 156
^ a bBandyopadhyay 2004, p. 260
^ a b cLudden 2002, p. 193
^ a bLudden 2002, p. 199
^ a b cLudden 2002, p. 200
^Stein & Arnold 2010, p. 286
^Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 20.
^ a b cLudden 2002, p. 201
^ a b cBrown 1994, pp. 197–198
^Olympic Games Antwerp 1920: Official Report Archived 5 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine, 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 cBrown 1994, pp. 200–201
^ a b c d e f g h iBrown 1994, pp. 205–207
^Stephen P. Cohen (2004). the Idea of Pakistan. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 36. ISBN 9780815797616. Thus the idea of Pakistan rests on the elite Indian muslim sense of being culturally and historically distinct
^Liaquat Ali Khan (1940), Pakistan: The Heart of Asia, Thacker & Co. Ltd., ISBN 978-1443726672, retrieved 6 April 2016, ... 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 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 that are common to both. Nobody can deny that there are rites, customs, and usages based on religion that do divide Hindus and Muslims. The question is, which of these should be emphasized ...
^Cenap Çakmak (2017). Islam: A Worldwide Encyclopedia [4 Volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 866. ISBN 9781610692175.
^Anil Chandra Banerjee (1981). Two Nations: The Philosophy of Muslim Nationalism. Concept.
^"Two-Nation Theory Exists". Pakistan Times. Archived from the original on 11 November 2007.
^ a bAhmed, I. (2020). Jinnah: His Successes, Failures and Role in History. Penguin Random House India Private Limited. pp. 117–118. ISBN 978-93-5305-664-3. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
^Hoodbhoy, P. (2023). Pakistan: Origins, Identity and Future. Taylor & Francis. p. 231. ISBN 978-1-000-85667-5. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
^Bonney, R. (2004). Three Giants of South Asia: Gandhi, Ambedkar, and Jinnah on Self-determination. South Asian history academic papers. Media House. p. 7. ISBN 978-81-7495-174-8. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
^Bapu, Prabhu (2013). Hindu Mahasabha in Colonial North India, 1915-1930: Constructing Nation and History. Online access with subscription: Proquest Ebook Central. Routledge. p. 77. ISBN 978-0-415-67165-1.
^"Savarkar in Ahmedabad 'declared' two-nation theory in 1937, Jinnah followed 3 years later". 24 January 2016.
^Javed Jabbar (21 March 2021). "The Two-Nation Reality versus Theory: Opposition to Partition". Dawn. Retrieved 27 March 2023.
^Shakir, Moin. 1979. "Review: Always in the Mainstream." Economic and Political Weekly 14(33):1424. JSTOR 4367847
"[T]he Muslims are not Indians but foreigners or temporary guests—without any loyalty to the country or its cultural heritage—and should be driven out of the country ..."
^Sankhdher, M. M., and 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 are not Indian citizens, are not Indians: they are citizens of the universal Islamic ummah, of Islamdom ..."
^Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar, and 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) ..."
^Chakravarty, Nikhil, ed. 1990. Mainstream, 28:32–52. ISSN 0542-1462. "'Dharmantar is Rashtrantar' is one of the old slogans of the VHP..."
^Carlo Caldarola (1982), Religions and societies, Asia and the Middle East, Walter de Gruyter, ISBN 978-90-279-3259-4, retrieved 6 April 2016, ... Hindu and 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 in India, DL Publications, ISBN 978-0-9502818-2-7, retrieved 6 April 2016, ... strongly and repeatedly pressed for the transfer of the population between India and Pakistan. At the time of partition, some of the two-nation theory protagonists proposed that the entire Hindu population should migrate to India, and all Muslims should move over to Pakistan, leaving no Hindus in Pakistan and no Muslims in India ...
^M. M. Sankhdher (1992), Secularism in India, dilemmas and challenges, Deep & Deep Publication, ISBN 9788171004096, retrieved 6 April 2016, ... 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, Hindus, and Muslims are one nation and not two ... two nations have no basis in history... they shall continue to live together for another thousand years in united India ...
^Pakistan Constituent Assembly. 1953. "Debates: Official report, Volume 1; Volume 16." Government of Pakistan Press."[S]ay that Hindus and Muslims are one, single nation. It is a very peculiar attitude on the part of the leader of the opposition. If his point of view were accepted, then the very justification for the existence of Pakistan would disappear ..."
^Janmahmad (1989), Essays on Baloch national struggle in Pakistan: emergence, dimensions, repercussions, Gosha-e-Adab, retrieved 6 April 2016, ... would be completely extinct as a people without any identity. This proposition is the crux of the matter, shaping the Baloch attitude towards Pakistani politics. For Baloch to accept the British-conceived two-nation theory for the Indian Muslims would mean losing their Baloch identity in the process ...
^Stephen P. Cohen (2004), The idea of Pakistan, Brookings Institution Press, p. 212, ISBN 978-0-8157-1502-3, retrieved 6 April 2016, [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 ...
^Principal Lecturer in Economics Pritam Singh; Pritam Singh (2008). Federalism, Nationalism and Development: India and the Punjab Economy. Routledge. pp. 137–. ISBN 978-1-134-04946-2. Retrieved 1 August 2017.
^Pritam Singh (2008). Federalism, Nationalism and Development: India and the Punjab Economy. Routledge. pp. 173–. ISBN 978-1-134-04945-5. Retrieved 1 August 2017.
^ a b cTalbot & Singh 2009, p. 31.
^Ayoob, Mohammed (3 May 2018). "The turning point in 1932: on Dalit representation". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 9 November 2020. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
^ a b c d e f g h i j kTalbot & Singh 2009, p. 32.
^Talbot & Singh 2009, pp. 32–33.
^ a b c d e f gTalbot & Singh 2009, p. 33.
^ a b c dTalbot & Singh 2009, p. 34.
^Yasmin Khan (2017). The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan, New Edition. Yale University Press. pp. 18–. ISBN 978-0-300-23364-3. Retrieved 27 April 2018. Although it was founded in 1909 the League had only caught on among South Asian Muslims during the Second World War. The party had expanded astonishingly rapidly and was claiming over two million members by the early 1940s, an unimaginable result for what had been previously thought of as just one of the numerous pressure groups and small but insignificant parties.
^William Roger Louis; Wm. Roger Louis (2006). Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization. I.B. Tauris. pp. 397–. ISBN 978-1-84511-347-6. Retrieved 27 April 2018. He made a serious misjudgment in underestimating Muslim sentiment before the outbreak of the war. He did not take the idea of 'Pakistan' seriously. After the adoption of the March 1940 Lahore resolution, calling for the creation of a separate state or states of Pakistan, he wrote: 'My first reaction is, I confess, that silly as the Muslim scheme for partition is, it would be a pity to throw too much cold water on it at the moment.' Linlithgow surmised that what Jinnah feared was a federal India dominated by Hindus. Part of the purpose of the famous British 'August offer' of 1940 was to assure the Muslims that they would be protected against a 'Hindu Raj' as well as to hold over the discussion of the 1935 Act and a 'new constitution' until after the war.
^L. J. Butler (2002). Britain and Empire: Adjusting to a Post-Imperial World. I.B. Tauris. pp. 41–. ISBN 978-1-86064-448-1. Retrieved 27 April 2018. Viceroy Linlithgow's 'August Offer,' made in 1940, proposed Dominion status for India after the war, and the inclusion of Indians in a larger Executive Council and a new War Advisory Council, and promised that minority views would be taken into account in future constitutional revision. This was not enough to satisfy either the Congress or the Muslim League, who both rejected the offer in September, and shortly afterward Congress launched a fresh campaign of civil disobedience.
^Talbot & Singh 2009, pp. 34–35.
^ a b cTalbot & Singh 2009, p. 35.
^Ayesha Jalal (1994). The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan. Cambridge University Press. p. 81. ISBN 978-1-139-93570-8. Retrieved 27 April 2018. Provincial option, he argued, was insufficient security. Explicit acceptance of the principle of Pakistan offered the only safeguard for Muslim interests throughout India and had to be the precondition for any advance at the center. So he exhorted all Indian Muslims to unite under his leadership to force the British and the Congress to concede 'Pakistan.' If the real reasons for Jinnah's rejection of the offer were rather different, it was not Jinnah but his rivals who had failed to make the point publicly.
^ a bKhan 2007, p. 18.
^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 (2009). "Muslim League Appeals to the Voters of Punjab for Support of Pakistan". In D. Metcalf, Barbara (ed.). Islam in South Asia in Practice. Princeton University Press. pp. 410–. ISBN 978-1-4008-3138-8. Retrieved 23 September 2017. At the all-India level, the demand for Pakistan pitted the League against the Congress and the British.
^ a bBrown 1994, p. 330India had always been a minority interest in British public life; no great body of public opinion now emerged to argue that war-weary and impoverished Britain should send troops and money to hold it against its will in an empire of doubtful value. By late 1946 both Prime Minister and Secretary of State for India recognized that neither international opinion nor their own voters would stand for any reassertion of the raj, even if there had been the men, money, and administrative machinery with which to do so.
^ a bMetcalf & Metcalf 2006, p. 212More importantly, though victorious in war, Britain had suffered immensely in the struggle. It simply did not possess the manpower or economic resources required to coerce a restive India.
^Chandrika Kaul (3 March 2011). "From Empire to Independence: The British Raj in India 1858–1947". History. BBC. Retrieved 2 August 2014.
^Attlee, Clement (1954). As It Happened. Viking Press. p. 254.
^ a bJudd 2004, pp. 172–173
^Karsten, P. (1998). Motivating Soldiers: Morale Or Mutiny. Military and society : a collection of essays / ser. ed. Peter Karsten. Garland Pub. p. 324. ISBN 978-0-8153-2977-0.
^Barbara Metcalf (2012). Husain Ahmad Madani: The Jihad for Islam and India's Freedom. Oneworld Publications. pp. 107–. ISBN 978-1-78074-210-6. Retrieved 26 June 2017.
^Judd 2004, pp. 170–171
^Lebra, J.C. (2003). Indian National Army and Japan. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. p. 217. ISBN 978-981-4515-41-2.
^Brown 1994, pp. 328–329: "Yet these final years of the raj showed conclusively that British rule had lost legitimacy and that among the vast majority of 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 percent 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."
^Barbara D. Metcalf; Thomas R. Metcalf (2012). A Concise History of Modern India. Cambridge University Press. pp. 212–. ISBN 978-1-139-53705-6. Retrieved 1 May 2017.
^Burton Stein (2010). A History of India. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 347–. ISBN 978-1-4443-2351-1. Retrieved 1 May 2017.
^Bose & Jalal 2004, pp. 148–149
^Burton Stein (2010). A History of India. John Wiley & Sons. p. 347. ISBN 978-1-4443-2351-1. Retrieved 1 May 2017. His standing with the British remained high, however, for even though they no more agreed with the idea of a separate Muslim state than the Congress did, government officials appreciated the simplicity of a single negotiating voice for all of India's Muslims.
^Jeffery J. Roberts (2003). The Origins of Conflict in Afghanistan. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 85–. ISBN 978-0-275-97878-5. Retrieved 13 September 2017. Virtually every Briton wanted to keep India united. Many expressed moral or sentimental obligations to leave India intact, either for the inhabitants' sake or simply as a lasting testament to the Empire. The Cabinet Defense Committee and Chiefs of Staff stressed the maintenance of a united India as vital to the defense (and economy) of the region. A unified India, an orderly transfer of power, and a bilateral alliance would, they argued, leave Britain's strategic position undamaged. India's military assets, including its seemingly limitless manpower, naval and air bases, and expanding production capabilities, would remain accessible to London. India would thus remain of crucial importance as a base, training ground, and staging area for operations from Egypt to the Far East.
^Darwin, John (3 March 2011). "Britain, the Commonwealth and the End of Empire". BBC. Archived from the original on 12 November 2020. Retrieved 10 April 2017. But the British still hoped that a self-governing India would remain part of their system of 'imperial defense'. For this reason, Britain was desperate to keep India (and its army) united.
^Barbara D. Metcalf; Thomas R. Metcalf (2002). A Concise History of India. Cambridge University Press. pp. 212–. ISBN 978-0-521-63974-3. Retrieved 10 April 2017. By this scheme, the British hoped they could at once preserve united India desired by the Congress, and by themselves, and at the same time, through the groups, secure the essence of Jinnah's demand for a 'Pakistan'.
^Barbara D. Metcalf; Thomas R. Metcalf (2002). A Concise History of India. Cambridge University Press. pp. 211–213. ISBN 978-0-521-63974-3. Retrieved 18 March 2020. Its proposal for an independent India involved a complex, three-tiered federation, whose central feature was the creation of groups of provinces. Two of these groups would comprise the Muslim majority provinces of east and west; a third would include the Hindu majority regions of the center and south. These groups, given responsibility for most of the functions of government, would be subordinated to a Union government, would be subordinated to a Union government controlling defense, foreign affairs, and communications. Nevertheless, the Muslim League accepted the Cabinet mission's proposals. The ball was now in Congress's court. Although the grouping scheme preserved a united India, the Congress leadership, above all Jawaharlal Nehru, now slated to be Gandhi's successor, increasingly concluded that under the Cabinet mission proposals the Center would be too weak to achieve the goals of the Congress, which envisioned itself as the successor to the Raj. Looking ahead to the future, the Congress, especially its socialist wing headed by Nehru, wanted a central government that could direct and plan for an India, free of colonialism, that might eradicate its people's poverty and grow into an industrial power. India's business community also supported the idea of a strong central government In a provocative speech on 10 July 1946, Nehru repudiated the notion of compulsory grouping or provinces, the key to Jinnah's Pakistan. Provinces, he said, must be free to join any group. With this speech, Nehru effectively torpedoed the Cabinet mission scheme, and with it, any hope for a united India.
^ a bBourke-White, Margaret (1949). Halfway to Freedom: A Report on the New India in the Words and Photographs of Margaret Bourke-White. Simon and Schuster. p. 15.
^Khan 2007, pp. 64–65.
^Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 69: Quote: "Despite the Muslim League's denials, the outbreak was linked with the celebration of Direction Action Day. Muslim procession that had gone to the staging ground of the 150-foot Ochterlony Monument on the maidan to hear the Muslim League Prime Minister Suhrawardy attacked Hindus on their way back. They were heard shouting slogans as 'Larke Lenge Pakistan' (We shall win Pakistan by force). Violence spread to North Calcutta when Muslim crowds tried to force Hindu shopkeepers to observe the day's strike (hartal) call. The circulation of pamphlets in advance of Direct Action Day demonstrated a clear connection between the use of violence and the demand for Pakistan."
^Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 67 Quote: "The signs of 'ethnic cleansing' are first evident in the Great 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 to Bihar, where there were high Muslim casualty figures, and to Noakhali deep in the Ganges-Brahmaputra delta of Bengal. Concerning the Noakhali riots, one British officer spoke of a 'determined and organized' Muslim effort to drive out all the Hindus, who accounted for around a fifth of the total population. Similarly, the Punjab counterparts to this transition of violence were the Rawalpindi massacres of March 1947. The level of death and destruction in such West Punjab villages as Thoa Khalsa was such that communities couldn't live together in its wake."
^Ramesh, Jairam (2019). Chequered Brilliance. Penguin Books India PVT, Limited. ISBN 978-0-670-09232-1.
^Ziegler, Philip (1985). Mountbatten: The Official Biography. London: HarperCollins. p. 359. ISBN 978-0002165433..
^Ayesha Jalal (1994). The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan. Cambridge University Press. p. 250. ISBN 978-0-521-45850-4. Retrieved 25 April 2018. These instructions were to avoid partition and obtain a unitary government for British India and the Indian States and at the same time observe the pledges to the princes and the Muslims; to secure agreement to the Cabinet Mission plan without coercing any of the parties; somehow to keep the Indian army undivided, and to retain India within the Commonwealth. (Attlee to Mountbatten, 18 March 1947, ibid, 972–974)
^Ayesha Jalal (1994). The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan. Cambridge University Press. p. 251. ISBN 978-0-521-45850-4. Retrieved 25 April 2018. When Mountbatten arrived, it was not wholly inconceivable that a settlement on the Cabinet Mission's terms might still be secured limited bloodshed called for a united Indian army under effective control. But keeping the army intact was now inextricably linked with keeping India united, this is why Mountbatten started by being vehemently opposed to 'abolishing the center'.
^Talbot, Ian (2009). "Partition of India: The Human Dimension". Cultural and Social History. 6 (4): 403–410. doi:10.2752/147800409X466254. S2CID 147110854. Mountbatten had intended to resurrect the Cabinet Mission proposals for a federal India. British officials were unanimously pessimistic about a Pakistan state's future economic prospects. The agreement to an Indian Union contained in the Cabinet Mission proposals had been initially accepted by the Muslim League as the grouping proposals gave considerable autonomy in the Muslim majority areas. Moreover, there was the possibility of withdrawal and thus acquiring Pakistan by the backdoor after a ten year interval. The worsening communal situation and extensive soundings with Indian political figures convinced Mountbatten within a month of his arrival that partition was the only way to quickly and smoothly transfer power.
^Menon, V. P. Transfer of Power in India. p. 385.
^Jain, Jagdish Chandra (1 January 1987). Gandhi, the Forgotten Mahatma. Mittal Publications. ISBN 9788170990376. Retrieved 22 May 2020.
^Talbot & Singh 2009, pp. 67–68.
^Farooqui, Tashkeel Ahmed; Sheikh, Ismail (15 August 2016). "Was Pakistan created on August 14 or 15?". The Express Tribune. Archived from the original on 16 August 2016. Retrieved 16 August 2016.
^Heathcote 2002, p. 189.
^Menon, V.P (1957). Transfer of Power in India. Orient Blackswan. p. 512. ISBN 978-8125008842.
^Sankar Ghose, Jawaharlal Nehru, a biography (1993), p. 181
^ a bJagmohan (2005). Soul and Structure of Governance in India. Allied Publishers. p. 49. ISBN 978-8177648317. Retrieved 13 August 2016.
^Gopal, Ram (1991). Hindu Culture During and After Muslim Rule: Survival and Subsequent Challenges. M.D. Publications Pvt. Ltd. p. 133. ISBN 978-8170232056. Retrieved 7 September 2017.
^Ray, Jayanta Kumar (2013). India's Foreign Relations, 1947–2007. Routledge. p. 58. ISBN 978-1136197154. Retrieved 7 September 2017.
^Ishtiaq Ahmed, State, Nation and Ethnicity in Contemporary South Asia (London & New York, 1998), p. 99
^Raju, Thomas G. C. (Fall 1994). "Nations, States, and Secession: Lessons from the Former Yugoslavia". Mediterranean Quarterly. 5 (4): 40–65.
^ a b c dSpate 1947, pp. 126–137
^Vazira Fazila-Yacoobali Zamindar (2010). The Long Partition and the Making of Modern South Asia: Refugees, Boundaries, Histories. Columbia University Press. pp. 40–. ISBN 978-0-231-13847-5. Retrieved 24 April 2018. Second, it was feared that if an exchange of populations was agreed to in principle in Punjab, ' there was likelihood of trouble breaking out in other parts of the subcontinent to force Muslims in the Indian Dominion to move to Pakistan. If that happened, we would find ourselves with inadequate land and other resources to support the influx.' Punjab could set a very dangerous precedent for the rest of the subcontinent. Given that Muslims in the rest of India, some 42 million, formed a population larger than the entire population of West Pakistan at the time, economic rationality eschewed such a forced migration. In divided Punjab, millions of people were already on the move, and the two governments had to respond to this mass movement. Thus, despite these important reservations, the establishment of the MEO led to an acceptance of a 'transfer of populations' in divided Punjab, too, 'to give a sense of security' to ravaged communities on both sides. A statement of the Indian government's position of such a transfer across divided Punjab was made in the legislature by Neogy on November 18, 1947. He stated that although the Indian government's policy was 'to discourage mass migration from one province to another.' Punjab was to be an exception. In the rest of the subcontinent migrations were not to be on a planned basis, but a matter of individual choice. This exceptional character of movements across divided Punjab needs to be emphasized, for the agreed and 'planned evacuations' by the two governments formed the context of those displacements.
^Peter Gatrell (2013). The Making of the Modern Refugee. OUP Oxford. pp. 149–. ISBN 978-0-19-967416-9. Retrieved 24 April 2018. Notwithstanding the accumulated evidence of inter-communal tension, the signatories to the agreement that divided the Raj did not expect the transfer of power and the partition of India to be accompanied by a mass movement of population. Partition was conceived as a means of preventing migration on a large scale because the borders would be adjusted instead. Minorities need not be troubled by the new configuration. As Pakistan's first Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, affirmed, 'the division of India into Pakistan and India Dominions was based on the principle that minorities will stay where they were and that the two states will afford all protection to them as citizens of the respective states'.
^Tucker, S.C. (2017). Modern Conflict in the Greater Middle East: A Country-by-Country Guide. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 241. ISBN 979-8-216-11844-2. Retrieved 1 December 2023.
^Population Redistribution and Development in South Asia. Springer Science & Business Media. 2012. p. 6. ISBN 978-9400953093. Retrieved 7 September 2017.
^Rahman, Shazia (2019). Place and Postcolonial Ecofeminism: Pakistani Women's Literary and Cinematic Fictions. Expanding Frontiers: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality. Nebraska. p. 23. ISBN 978-1-4962-1341-9.
^Brown, J.M. (1991). Gandhi: Prisoner of Hope. Yale University Press. p. 380. ISBN 978-0-300-05125-4.
^Kibriya, M. (1999). Gandhi and Indian Freedom Struggle. APH Publishing Corporation. p. 344. ISBN 978-81-7648-058-1. Retrieved 14 August 2024.
^Rollason, J. (2019). Gandhi. Penguin readers. Pearson Education. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-292-29334-9.
^Wolpert, Stanley (2001). Gandhi's Passion: The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi. Oxford paperbacks. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 254. ISBN 978-0-19-515634-8.
^Roy, Haimanti (2018). The Partition of India. Oxford India Short Introductions. OUP India. p. 76. ISBN 978-0-19-909382-3. Most scholars now accept that approximately 1 million people died from Partition-related violence.
^Talbot, Ian (2009). "Partition of India: The Human Dimension". Cultural and Social History. 6 (4): 403–410. doi:10.2752/147800409X466254. S2CID 147110854. The number of casualties remains a matter of dispute, with figures being claimed that range from 200,000 to 2 million victims.
^Butalia, Urvashi (2000). The Other Side of Silence: Voices From the Partition of India. Duke University Press. p. 3. ISBN 0-8223-2494-6. Archived from the original on 25 March 2016. Retrieved 25 March 2016. Never before or since have so many people exchanged their homes and countries so quickly ... people moved between the new, truncated India and the two wings, East and West, of the newly created Pakistan ... Slaughter sometimes accompanied and sometimes prompted their movement; many others died from malnutrition and contagious diseases. Estimates of the dead vary from 200,000 (the contemporary British figure) to two million (a later Indian estimate) ... despite many warnings, the new governments of India and Pakistan were unprepared for the convulsion: they had not anticipated ...
^Sikand, Yoginder (2004). Muslims in India Since 1947: Islamic Perspectives on Inter-Faith Relations. Routledge. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-134-37825-8. Partition wrought in its wake the greatest forced migration in the history of humankind ... between 1 and 2 million people, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Dalits, were killed.
^"The partition of India and retributive genocide in the Punjab, 1946–47: means, methods, and purposes" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 April 2021. Retrieved 19 December 2006.
^Vazira Fazila-Yacoobali Zamindar (4 February 2013). "India–Pakistan Partition 1947 and forced migration". The Encyclopedia of Global Human Migration. doi:10.1002/9781444351071.wbeghm285. ISBN 9781444334890. Archived from the original on 22 January 2021. Retrieved 16 January 2021.
^"A heritage all but erased". The Friday Times. 25 December 2015. Archived from the original on 24 April 2022. Retrieved 26 June 2017.
^ a bBharadwaj, Prasant; Khwaja, Asim; Mian, Atif (30 August 2008). "The Big March: Migratory Flows after the Partition of India" (PDF). Economic & Political Weekly: 43. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 December 2012. Retrieved 16 January 2016.
^"Sikh Social Warriors". Archived from the original on 23 July 2018. Retrieved 25 July 2018.
^"The 'bloody' Punjab partition – VIII". 27 September 2018. Archived from the original on 25 July 2018. Retrieved 25 July 2018.
^Ahmed, Ishtiaq (31 January 2013). "The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed". Archived from the original on 9 August 2017. Retrieved 1 March 2017.
^Butt, Shafiq (24 April 2016). "A page from history: Dr Ishtiaq underscores need to build bridges". Dawn. Archived from the original on 10 August 2017. Retrieved 1 March 2017.
^Talbot, Ian (1993). "The role of the crowd in the Muslim League struggled for Pakistan". The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History. 21 (2): 307–333. doi:10.1080/03086539308582893. Four thousand Muslim shops and homes were destroyed in the walled area of Amritsar during a single week in March 1947. were these exceptions which prove the rule? It appears that casualty figures were frequently higher when Hindus rather than Muslims were the aggressors.
^Nisid Hajari (2015). Midnight's Furies: The Deadly Legacy of India's Partition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. pp. 139–. ISBN 978-0-547-66921-2. Retrieved 18 December 2017.
^ a b c d e"Census of India 1921. Vol. 15, Punjab and Delhi. Pt. 2, Tables". 1921. JSTOR saoa.crl.25430165. Retrieved 17 February 2024.
^ a b c d e"Census of India 1931. Vol. 17, Punjab. Pt. 2, Tables". 1931. JSTOR saoa.crl.25793242. Retrieved 4 February 2024.
^ a b c d eIndia Census Commissioner (1941). "Census of India, 1941. Vol. 6, Punjab". JSTOR saoa.crl.28215541. Retrieved 22 July 2022.
^ a bChatterji, Joya (2007). The Spoils of Partition: Bengal and India, 1947–1967. Cambridge University Press. pp. 31, 58–60. ISBN 978-0-521-87536-3.
^Khisha, Mukur K. (1998). All That Glisters. Minerva Press. p. 49. ISBN 978-1861060525.
^ a b"Sindhi Voices from the Partition". The HeritageLab.in. 16 August 2020. Archived from the original on 8 June 2020. Retrieved 8 June 2020.
^ a b c dBhavnani, Nandita (2014). The Making of Exile: Sindhi Hindus and the Partition of India. Westland. ISBN 978-93-84030-33-9.
^"Population of Hindus in the World". Pakistan Hindu Council. Archived from the original on 18 May 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
^Abi-Habib, Maria (5 October 2019). "Hard Times Have Pakistani Hindus Looking to India, Where Some Find Only Disappointment". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2 January 2021. Retrieved 10 July 2020.
^ a bIndia Census Commissioner (1941). "Census of India, 1941. Vol. 12, Sind". JSTOR saoa.crl.28215545. Archived from the original on 29 January 2023. Retrieved 5 May 2024.
^"CPopulation According to Religion, Tables-6, Pakistan - Census 1951". Retrieved 28 September 2024.
^Acyuta Yājñika; Suchitra Sheth (2005). The Shaping of Modern Gujarat: Plurality, Hindutva, and Beyond. Penguin Books India. pp. 225–. ISBN 978-0-14-400038-8. Retrieved 16 July 2018.
^ a bBalasubrahmanyan, Suchitra (2011). "Partition and Gujarat: The Tangled Web of Religious, Caste, Community and Gender Identities". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 34 (3). tandfonline: 460–484. doi:10.1080/00856401.2011.620556. S2CID 145404336.
^ a b c"Census of India, 1941 Volume XVI Delhi". Archived from the original on 11 October 2022. Retrieved 16 January 2023.
^Guha, Ramachandra (3 February 2015). Gandhi before India. National Geographic Books. ISBN 978-0-307-47478-0. OCLC 903907799.
^Nisid Hajari (2015). Midnight's Furies: The Deadly Legacy of India's Partition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. pp. 160–. ISBN 978-0-547-66921-2. Retrieved 18 November 2017.
^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.
^Kumari, Amita (2013). "Delhi as Refuge: Resettlement and Assimilation of Partition Refugees". Economic and Political Weekly: 60–67.
^"Capital gains: How 1947 gave birth to a new identity, a new ambition, a new Delhi". Hindustan Times. 24 April 2018. Archived from the original on 13 May 2021. Retrieved 13 May 2021.
^Sharma, Bulbul (2013). Muslims In Indian Cities. HarperCollins Publishers India. ISBN 978-93-5029-555-7.
^ a bVashishta, Lakshmi Chandra; India. Superintendent Of Census Operations, Punjab (1951). "Census of India, 1951: Punjab, Pepsu, Himachal Pradesh, Bilaspur & Delhi". JSTOR saoa.crl.25803729. Retrieved 12 May 2024.
^Copland, Ian (2005). State, Community and Neighbourhood in Princely North India, c. 1900–1950. p. 159.
^Copland, I (2005). State, Community and Neighbourhood in Princely North India, c. 1900–1950. p. 158.
^Copland, Ian (2005). State, Community and Neighbourhood in Princely North India, c. 1900–1950. p. 148.
^Copland, Ian (2002). "The Master and the Maharajas: The Sikh Princes and the East Punjab Massacres of 1947". Modern Asian Studies. 36 (3): 657–704. doi:10.1017/S0026749X02003050. ISSN 0026-749X. JSTOR 3876650. S2CID 146123606. Archived from the original on 20 November 2021. Retrieved 20 November 2021.
^Copland, I. (26 April 2005). State, Community and Neighbourhood in Princely North India, c. 1900–1950. Springer. ISBN 9780230005983. Retrieved 11 March 2021.
^Copland, Ian (2005). State, Community and Neighbourhood in Princely North India, c. 1900–1950. p. 157.
^ a bPandey, Gyanendra (2001). Remembering Partition: Violence, Nationalism and History in India. Cambridge University Press. p. 39. ISBN 978-0-521-00250-9. Retrieved 7 September 2017.
^Marston, Daniel (2014). The Indian Army and the End of the Raj. Cambridge University Press. p. 306. ISBN 978-1139915762. Retrieved 7 September 2017.
^Khan 2007, p. 135
^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 16 February 2016. pp. 179, 183.
^A.G. Noorani (25 February 2012). "Horrors of Partition". Frontline. Archived from the original on 25 February 2014. Retrieved 7 March 2017.
^Snedden, Christopher (2013) [First published 2012 as The Untold Story of the People of Azad Kashmir]. Kashmir: The Unwritten History. HarperCollins India. p. 56. ISBN 978-93-5029-898-5. Retrieved 12 July 2021.; Das Gupta, Jyoti Bhusan (2012) [First published 1968]. Jammu and Kashmir. Springer. p. 97. ISBN 978-94-011-9231-6. Retrieved 12 July 2021.
^Johari, Aarefa. "Facing eviction, residents of a Mumbai Partition-era colony fear they will become homeless again". Scroll.in. Archived from the original on 2 August 2018. Retrieved 20 October 2018.
^"Meet the Bengali refugees who now dominate businesses, farms in Chhattisgarh's tribal belt". Economic Times. 19 January 2020.
^"Over 1 crore Bengali refugees living outside Benga". The Times of India. 2 January 2019. Archived from the original on 5 June 2021. Retrieved 1 August 2021.
^"Why create problems when we live in peace: Marathi-speaking community from Karachi to Shiv Sena". DNA. 22 October 2015. Archived from the original on 26 July 2021. Retrieved 26 July 2021.
^"70 years on, one Pashtun town still safeguards its old Hindu-Muslim brotherhood". Arab News. 30 June 2020. Archived from the original on 1 August 2021. Retrieved 1 August 2021.
^Pushpa (26 November 2017). Statistics of Refugee Camps and Their Administration in Combined Punjab (PDF). 4the International Conference on 'Recent Research Development in Environment, Social Sciences and Humanities'. Chandigarh, India: A.R. Research Publication. pp. 129–130. ISBN 978-93-86171-82-5.
^ a b cChitkara, 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 International Centre Quarterly. 28 (3): 58. JSTOR 23005560.
^ a bChattha 2009, p. 111.
^ a bBharadwaj, Prasant; Khwaja, Asim; Mian, Atif (30 August 2008). "The Big March: Migratory Flows after the Partition of India" (PDF). Economic & Political Weekly: 43. Retrieved 16 January 2016
^Hill, K., Selzer, W., Leaning, J., Malik, S., & Russell, S. (2008). The Demographic Impact of Partition in Punjab in 1947. Population Studies, 62(2), 155–170.
^Perspectives on Modern South Asia: A Reader in Culture, History, and ... – Kamala Visweswara (16 May 2011)
^Borders & boundaries: women in India's partition – Ritu Menon, Kamla Bhasi (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.
^SenGupta, Anwesha (Summer 2012). "Looking Back at Partition and Women: A Factsheet" (PDF). Peace Prints: South Asian Journal of Peacebuilding. 4 (1).
^ a b c d eKhalidi, Omar (Autumn 1998). "From Torrent to Trickle: Indian Muslim Migration to Pakistan, 1947–97". Islamic Studies. 37 (3): 339–352. JSTOR 20837002.
^"Effects of Migration, Socioeconomic Status and Population Policy on Reproductive Behaviour" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 January 2016. Retrieved 15 January 2016.
^ a bHasan, Arif; Mansoor, Raza (2009). Migration and Small Towns in Pakistan; Volume 15 of Rural-urban interactions and livelihood strategies are working paper. IIED. p. 16. ISBN 978-1-84369-734-3.
^ a bHasan, 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 12 January 2016.
^ a bHill, K.; Seltzer, W; Leaning, J.; Malik, S. J.; Russell, S. S. (1 September 2006). "The Demographic Impact of Partition: Bengal in 1947". Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 September 2006. Retrieved 22 May 2020.
^Ben Whitaker, The Biharis in Bangladesh, Minority Rights Group, London, 1971, p. 7.
^Chatterji – Spoils of partition. p. 166
^ a b c dRizvi, Uzair Hasan (10 September 2015). "Hindu refugees from Pakistan encounter suspicion and indifference in India". Dawn. Archived from the original on 14 February 2017. Retrieved 15 January 2016.
^Haider, Irfan (13 May 2014). "5,000 Hindus migrating to India every year, NA told". Dawn. Archived from the original on 29 December 2016. Retrieved 15 January 2016.
^Yagnik, Bharat; Chauhan, Ashish (3 March 2019). "Shivnagar: State's biggest 'ghetto' of '71 war refugees | Ahmedabad News". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 1 August 2021. Retrieved 1 August 2021.
^"Over 54,000 families of PoK, Punjab residing in various parts of Jammu Province". Economic Times. 7 April 2015. Archived from the original on 1 August 2021. Retrieved 1 August 2021.
^P. N. Luthra – Rehabilitation, pp. 18–19
^Aditi Kapoor, A home ... far from home?[usurped], The Hindu, 30 July 2000. During the Bangladesh liberation war, 11 million people from both communities took shelter in India. After the war, 1.5 million decided to stay.
^Chatterji, Joya (September 2007), "'Dispersal' and the Failure of Rehabilitation: Refugee Camp-dwellers and Squatters in WestBengal", Modern Asian Studies, 41 (5): 998, doi:10.1017/S0026749X07002831, JSTOR 4499809, S2CID 145529015
^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. Retrieved 21 March 2017. Undivided India, their magnificent imperial trophy, was besmirched by the creation of Pakistan, and the division of India was never emotionally accepted by many British leaders, Mountbatten among them.
^Niall Ferguson (2003). Empire: how Britain made the modern world. Allen Lane. p. 349. ISBN 9780713996159. Retrieved 17 April 2018. In particular, Mountbatten put pressure on the supposedly neutral Boundary Commissioner, Sir Cyril Radcliffe—cruelly mocked at the time by W.H.Auden—to make critical adjustments in India's favor when drawing the frontier through the Punjab.
^"K. Z. Islam, 2002, The Punjab Boundary Award, In retrospect". Holiday. Archived from the original on 17 January 2006. Retrieved 22 May 2020.
^Partitioning India over lunch, Memoirs of a British civil servant Christopher Beaumont Archived 29 June 2017 at the Wayback Machine. BBC News (10 August 2007).
^Ramone, Jenni (2017). Postcolonial Theories. Transitions. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-230-34407-5.
^Stanley Wolpert, 2006, Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-515198-4
^Symonds, Richard (1950). The Making of Pakistan. London: Faber and Faber. p. 74. OCLC 1462689. At the lowest estimate, half a million people perished and twelve millions became homeless.
^ a bLawrence 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, p. 113; Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-86649-9, 2007
^Lawrence James, Rise and Fall of the British Empire
^Thorpe, Vanessa (16 January 2017). "A British film with a Punjabi heart: director's personal take on partition". The Observer. ISSN 0029-7712. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
^"How Prince Charles influenced Gurinder Chadha's film on the Partition of India and Pakistan". NBC News. 1 September 2017. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
^ a b"Was Pakistan sufficiently imagined before independence?". The Express Tribune. 23 August 2015. Archived from the original on 8 March 2017. Retrieved 8 March 2017.
^ a bAshraf, Ajaz. "The Venkat Dhulipala interview: 'On the Partition issue, Jinnah and Ambedkar were on the same page'". Scroll.in. Archived from the original on 5 December 2016. Retrieved 8 March 2017.
^Long, Roger D.; Singh, Gurharpal; Samad, Yunas; Talbot, Ian (2015). State and Nation-Building in Pakistan: Beyond Islam and Security. Routledge. p. 167. ISBN 978-1317448204. Retrieved 18 November 2020. In the 1940s a solid majority of the Barelvis were supporters of the Pakistan Movement and played a supporting role in its final phase (1940–7), mostly under the banner of the All-India Sunni Conference which had been founded in 1925.
^John, Wilson (2009). Pakistan: The Struggle Within. Pearson Education India. p. 87. ISBN 978-8131725047. Archived from the original on 24 April 2022. Retrieved 18 November 2020. During the 1946 election, Barelvi Ulama issued fatwas in favour of the Muslim League.
^Cesari, Jocelyne (2014). The Awakening of Muslim Democracy: Religion, Modernity, and the State. Cambridge University Press. p. 135. ISBN 978-1107513297. Retrieved 7 September 2017. For example, the Barelvi ulama supported the formation of the state of Pakistan and thought that any alliance with Hindus (such as that between the Indian National Congress and the Jamiat ulama-I-Hind [JUH]) was counterproductive.
^Jaffrelot, Christophe (2004). A History of Pakistan and Its Origins. Anthem Press. p. 224. ISBN 978-1843311492. Retrieved 7 September 2017. Believing that Islam was a universal religion, the Deobandi advocated a notion of a composite nationalism according to which Hindus and Muslims constituted one nation.
^Abdelhalim, Julten (2015). Indian Muslims and Citizenship: Spaces for Jihād in Everyday Life. Routledge. p. 26. ISBN 978-1317508755. Retrieved 7 September 2017. 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 978-1317370994. Retrieved 7 September 2017. Madani makes a crucial distinction between qaum and millat. According to him, qaum connotes a territorial multi-religious entity, while millat refers to the cultural, social and religious unity of Muslims exclusively.
^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
^"The News International: Latest News Breaking, Pakistan News". The News International. Archived from the original on 2 February 2017. Retrieved 22 May 2020.
^"The History Project". The History Project. Archived from the original on 1 March 2018. Retrieved 18 November 2017.
^Sengupta, Somini (13 August 2013). "Potent Memories From a Divided India". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 13 December 2019. Retrieved 22 February 2020.
^Kamal, Neel (11 June 2021). "1947 Partition Archive releases University Access Points in India and Pakistan Universities for Researchers". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 9 July 2021. Retrieved 4 July 2021.
^"Worlds first Partition Museum to be inaugurated in Amritsar, Gulzar's book to be launched". 15 August 2017. Archived from the original on 9 July 2021. Retrieved 4 July 2021.
^Ghosh, Bishwanath (24 August 2019). "'Partition Voices – Untold British Stories' review: The long shadow of Partition". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Archived from the original on 22 February 2020. Retrieved 22 February 2020.
^Mishra, Anodya (15 September 2019). "This collection of Partition interviews gives us new ways to look at migration and refugees". Scroll.in. Archived from the original on 26 January 2020. Retrieved 22 February 2020.
^"BJP & Congress cross swords on horrors of Partition, genesis of 1947 tragedy". The Times of India. 15 August 2022.
^Cleary, Joseph N. (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 figures in a good deal of imaginative writing...
^Bhatia, Nandi (1996). "Twentieth Century Hindi Literature". In Natarajan, Nalini (ed.). Handbook of Twentieth-Century Literatures of India. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 146–147. ISBN 978-0-313-28778-7. Retrieved 27 July 2012.
^ a bRoy, Rituparna (2011). South Asian Partition Fiction in English: From Khushwant Singh to Amitav Ghosh. Amsterdam University Press. pp. 24–29. ISBN 978-90-8964-245-5. Retrieved 27 July 2012.
^ a b cMandal, Somdatta (2008). "Constructing Post-partition Bengali Cultural Identity through Films". In Bhatia, Nandi; Roy, Anjali Gera (eds.). 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. S2CID 70892666. (subscription required)
^Sarkar, Bhaskar (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 cVishwanath, Gita; Malik, Salma (2009). "Revisiting 1947 through Popular Cinema: a Comparative Study of 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.
^McMullen, Ken (5 March 1997), Partition (Drama), Bandung Productions, Channel Four, archived from the original on 29 October 2021, retrieved 29 October 2021
^Naqvi, Sibtain (19 November 2013). "Google can envision Pakistan-India harmony in less than 4 minutes…can we?". The Express Tribune. Archived from the original on 22 November 2013. Retrieved 22 November 2013.
^"Google reunion ad reignites hope for easier Indo-Pak visas". Deccan Chronicle. PTI. 15 November 2013. Archived from the original on 18 November 2013. Retrieved 22 November 2013.
^Chatterjee, Rhitu (20 November 2013). "This ad from Google India brought me to tears". The World. Public Radio International. Archived from the original on 24 November 2013. Retrieved 22 November 2013.
^Peter, Sunny (15 November 2013). "Google Search: Reunion Video Touches Emotions in India, Pakistan; Goes Viral [Video]". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 21 November 2013. Retrieved 22 November 2013.
^"Google's India-Pak reunion ad strikes emotional chord". The Times of India. 14 November 2013. Archived from the original on 17 November 2013.
^Johnson, Kay (15 November 2013). "Google ad an unlikely hit in both India, Pakistan by referring to traumatic 1947 partition". ABC News. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 22 November 2013. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
^Bhattacharya, Ananya (23 August 2018). "Gold fact check: Truth vs fiction in Akshay Kumar film". India Today. Archived from the original on 6 August 2021. Retrieved 22 January 2021. In 1947, when Kishan Lal walked next to Dhyan Chand in East Africa in the Indian colours, the legendary field hockey team from 1936 had all but emptied. With 1947 came the Partition and most of the talented players were partitioned too with many moving to Pakistan
^"Progressive Artists Group of Bombay: An Overview". Artnewsnviews.com. 12 May 2012. Archived from the original on 14 December 2013. Retrieved 18 November 2017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
^Storey, Thomas (7 August 2013). "Traversing Boundaries: Five Bangladeshi Artists Question the Legacy of Partition". Culture Trip. Archived from the original on 8 January 2022. Retrieved 8 January 2022.
^Micieli-Voutsinas, Jacque (2013). ""Subaltern" Remembrances: Mapping Affective Approaches to Partition Memory". Social Transformations: Journal of the Global South. 1 (1): 27–58. doi:10.13185/ST2013.01103 (inactive 10 June 2024).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of June 2024 (link)
^Micieli-Voutsinas, Jacque (3 July 2015). "What the Nation Re-members: Resisting Victim Nationalism in Partition Memorial Project". GeoHumanities. 1 (2): 398–413. doi:10.1080/2373566X.2015.1103196. ISSN 2373-566X. S2CID 147050563. Retrieved 29 October 2021.
^"Partition Art - Pritika Chowdhry's art installations about Partition". Pritika Chowdhry Art. Archived from the original on 8 January 2022. Retrieved 8 January 2022.
^"A Visual History of the Partition of India : A Story in Art • The Heritage Lab". The Heritage Lab. 14 December 2017. Archived from the original on 29 October 2021. Retrieved 29 October 2021.
^Sharma, Ekatmata (17 August 2019). "Revisiting Partition through art". Art Culture Festival. Archived from the original on 29 October 2021. Retrieved 29 October 2021.
^"Artist Bindu Mehra on retelling stories in different voices". The Tribune.
70 Years of the Radcliffe Line: Understanding the Story of Indian Partition
Bibliography
Textbook histories
Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004), From Plassey to partition: a history of modern India, Delhi: Orient Blackswan, ISBN 978-81-250-2596-2, archived from the original on 17 June 2016, retrieved 15 November 2015
Brown, Judith Margaret (1994), Modern India: the origins of an Asian democracy, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-873112-2, archived from the original on 15 August 2020, retrieved 15 November 2015
Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-882905-8, archived from the original on 18 October 2019, retrieved 24 April 2022
Heathcote, Tony (2002). The British Admirals of the Fleet 1734–1995. Havertown: Pen & Sword. ISBN 978-0-85052-835-0.
Ludden, David (2002), India and South Asia: a short history, Oneworld, ISBN 978-1-85168-237-9, archived from the original on 13 December 2016, retrieved 15 November 2015
Markovits, Claude (2004), A history of modern India, 1480–1950, Anthem Press, ISBN 978-1-84331-152-2, archived from the original on 14 September 2015, retrieved 15 November 2015
Peers, Douglas M. (2006), India under colonial rule: 1700–1885, Pearson Education, ISBN 978-0-582-31738-3, archived from the original on 15 August 2020, retrieved 15 November 2015
Robb, Peter (2002), A History of India, Palgrave Macmillan (published 2011), ISBN 978-0-230-34549-2, archived from the original on 22 May 2016, retrieved 15 November 2015
Stein, Burton; Arnold, David (2010), A History of India, John Wiley and Sons, ISBN 978-1-4051-9509-6, archived from the original on 21 May 2016, retrieved 15 November 2015
Talbot, Ian (2016), A History of Modern South Asia: Politics, States, Diasporas, Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-19694-8, archived from the original on 11 April 2021, retrieved 24 April 2022
Talbot, Ian (2015), Pakistan: A New History, Hurst, ISBN 978-1-84904-370-0, archived from the original on 12 February 2020, retrieved 24 April 2022
Talbot, Ian; Singh, Gurharpal (2009), The Partition of India, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-85661-4, retrieved 15 November 2015
Wolpert, Stanley (2008), A new history of India, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-533756-3, archived from the original on 1 May 2016, retrieved 15 November 2015
Monographs
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
Ayub, Muhammad (2005). An army, Its Role and Rule: A History of the Pakistan Army from Independence to Kargil, 1947–1999. RoseDog Books. ISBN 978-0-8059-9594-7..
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 (2014), The Making of Exile: Sindhi Hindus and the Partition of India, Westland, ISBN 978-93-84030-33-9
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 and Assam, 1932-1947: Contour of Freedom. RoutledgeCurzon. ISBN 0-415-32889-6.
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
Chatterji, Joya. 2002. Bengal Divided: 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.
Copland, Ian (1991). "The Abdullah Factor: Kashmiri Muslims and the Crisis of 1947". In D. A. Low (ed.). Political Inheritance of Pakistan. Springer. ISBN 9781349115563. Archived from the original on 30 March 2022. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
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.
Dhulipala, Venkat. 2015. Creating a New Medina: State Power, Islam, and the Quest for Pakistan in Late Colonial North India. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 1-10-705212-2
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
Hansen, Anders Bjørn. 2004. "Partition and Genocide: Manifestation of Violence in Punjab 1937–1947", India Research Press. ISBN 978-81-87943-25-9.
Hasan, Mushirul (2001), India's Partition: Process, Strategy and Mobilization, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-563504-1.
Herman, Arthur. Gandhi & Churchill: The Epic Rivalry that Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age (2009)
Ikram, S. M. 1995. Indian Muslims and Partition of India. Delhi: Atlantic. ISBN 81-7156-374-0
Jain, Jasbir (2007), Reading Partition, Living Partition, Rawat, ISBN 978-81-316-0045-0
Jalal, Ayesha (1993), The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-45850-4
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, archived from the original on 27 April 2016, retrieved 15 November 2015
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 and Pakistan, Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-12078-3, archived from the original on 5 January 2016, retrieved 15 November 2015
Khosla, G. D. Stern reckoning : a survey of the events leading up to and following the partition of 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 978-0-907129-06-6
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 of India (2 vol. 1256 pp)
Moore, R.J. (1983). Escape from Empire: The Attlee Government and the Indian Problem, the standard history of the British position [ISBN missing]
Nair, Neeti. (2010) Changing Homelands: 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 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 (2001). Remembering Partition: Violence, Nationalism and History in India. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-00250-9.
Panigrahi, D. N. (2004). India's Partition: The Story of Imperialism in Retreat. Routledge. ISBN 0-714-65601-1.
Raja, Masood Ashraf. Constructing Pakistan: Foundational Texts and the Rise of 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[ISBN missing]
Talib, Gurbachan Singh, & Shromaṇī Guraduārā Prabandhaka Kameṭī. (1950). Muslim League attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab, 1947. Amritsar: Shiromani Gurdwara Parbankhak Committee.
Talbot, Ian. 1996. Freedom's Cry: The Popular Dimension in the 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 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.
Wolpert, Stanley. 1984. Jinnah of Pakistan[ISBN missing]
Articles
Brass, Paul. 2003. The partition of India and retributive genocide in the Punjab, 1946–47: means, methods, and purposes Archived 14 April 2021 at the Wayback MachineJournal 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, JSTOR 2659304, S2CID 153491691
Gilmartin, David (1998), "A Magnificent Gift: Muslim Nationalism and the Election Process in Colonial Punjab", Comparative Studies in Society and History, 40 (3): 415–436, doi:10.1017/S0010417598001352, JSTOR 179270, S2CID 144603264
Gupta, Bal K. "Death of Mahatma Gandhi and Alibeg Prisoners" www.dailyexcelsior.com
Gupta, Bal K. "Train from Pakistan" www.nripulse.com
Gupta, Bal K. "November 25, 1947, Pakistani Invasion of Mirpur". www.dailyexcelsior.com
Jeffrey, Robin (1974), "The Punjab Boundary Force and the Problem of Order, August 1947", Modern Asian Studies, 8 (4): 491–520, doi:10.1017/s0026749x0000562x, JSTOR 311867, S2CID 145786107
Ravinder Kaur (2014), "Bodies of Partition: Of Widows, Residue and Other Historical Waste", Histories of Victimhood, Ed., Henrik Rønsbo and Steffen Jensen, Pennsylvania University Press, archived from the original on 24 April 2022, retrieved 10 May 2015
Kaur, Ravinder. 2009. 'Distinctive Citizenship: Refugees, Subjects and Postcolonial State in India's Partition' Archived 20 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine, Cultural and Social History.
Kaur, Ravinder. 2008. 'Narrative Absence: An 'untouchable' account of India's Partition Migration Archived 19 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine, Contributions to Indian Sociology.
Kaur Ravinder. 2007. "India and Pakistan: Partition Lessons". Open Democracy.
Kaur, Ravinder. 2006. "The Last Journey: Social Class in the Partition of India" Archived 20 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine. 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 Archived 30 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine". Islamic Studies. 37 (3): 339–352.
Khan, Lal (2003), Partition – Can it be undone?, Wellred Publications, p. 228, ISBN 978-1-900007-15-3
Mookerjea-Leonard, Debali (2005), "Divided Homelands, Hostile Homes: Partition, Women and Homelessness", Journal of Commonwealth Literature, 40 (2): 141–154, doi:10.1177/0021989405054314, S2CID 162056117
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, S2CID 145294986, archived from the original on 20 April 2021, retrieved 27 July 2021
Morris-Jones (1983), "Thirty-Six Years Later: The Mixed Legacies of Mountbatten's Transfer of Power", International Affairs, 59 (4): 621–628, doi:10.2307/2619473, JSTOR 2619473
Noorani, A. G. (22 December 2001), "The Partition of India", Frontline, 18 (26), archived from the original on 2 April 2008, retrieved 12 October 2011
Spate, O. H. K. (1947), "The Partition of the Punjab and of Bengal", The Geographical Journal, 110 (4/6): 201–218, Bibcode:1947GeogJ.110..201S, doi:10.2307/1789950, JSTOR 1789950
Spear, Percival (1958), "Britain's Transfer of Power in India", Pacific Affairs, 31 (2): 173–180, doi:10.2307/3035211, JSTOR 3035211
Talbot, Ian (1994), "Planning for Pakistan: The Planning Committee of the All-India Muslim League, 1943–46", Modern Asian Studies, 28 (4): 875–889, doi:10.1017/s0026749x00012567, S2CID 145250631
Visaria, Pravin M (1969), "Migration Between India and Pakistan, 1951–61", Demography, 6 (3): 323–334, doi:10.2307/2060400, JSTOR 2060400, PMID 21331852, S2CID 23272586
Chopra, R. M., "The Punjab And Bengal", Calcutta, 1999. [ISBN missing]
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 [ISBN missing]
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. [ISBN missing]
Zubrzycki, John. (2006) The Last Nizam: An Indian Prince in the Australian Outback. Pan Macmillan, Australia. ISBN 978-0-330-42321-2.
India Memory Project – 1947 India Pakistan Partition
The Road to Partition 1939–1947 – The National Archives
Indian Independence Bill, 1947 Archived 15 May 2021 at the Wayback Machine
India's Partition: The Forgotten Story British film-maker Gurinder Chadha, directors of Bend It Like Beckham and Viceroy's House, travels from Southall to Delhi and Shimla to find out about the Partition of India – one of the most seismic events of the 20th century. Partition saw India divided into two new nations – Independent India and Pakistan. The split led to violence, disruption, and death.
Sir Ian Scott, Mountbatten's deputy private secretary in 1947, talking about the run up to Partition
India: A People Partitioned oral history interviews by Andrew Whitehead, 1992–2007 Archived 15 May 2021 at the Wayback Machine
.png/1280px-Indian_Empire_(1947).png)
.jpg/1280px-How_India_be_split_up_(1947).jpg)
