Between 14-15 August 1947, the world received two new independent nations – The Dominion of Pakistan and The Dominion of India. The British Raj was divided mainly on the basis of religion, customs and traditions. While on paper this may seem an inevitability, was it really the right decision?

Partitioning of India

The Partition of India is perhaps the most significant outcome of India’s fight for independence. While India’s struggles during the fight is well known, what often gets swept under the rug is the chaos caused by the partition.

Punjab Province

The Punjab Province was divided into the Muslim majority, Pakistan’s Punjab Province and the Hindu and Sikh majority, India’s East Punjab State (present-day Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh). The fears of the Hindus and Sikhs in the West and the Muslims in the East were so great that the partition saw many people displaced and much inter-communal violence which some have described as a retributive genocide. Total migration across Punjab is estimated at 12 million people. Virtually no Muslim survived in East Punjab and virtually no Hindu or Sikh survived in West Punjab. According to the British High Commissioner in Karachi, around 8,00,000 Muslims died trying to enter his Province. Nehru wrote to Gandhi on 22 August that, up to that point, twice as many Muslims had been killed in East Punjab than the Hindus and Sikhs together in West Punjab.

Punjab Division

Bengal Province

The Province of Bengal was split into the separate entities of West Bengal, awarded to the Dominion of India and East Bengal (later East Pakistan and Bangladesh), awarded to the Dominion of Pakistan. Hundreds of thousands of Hindus located in East Bengal found themselves under attack and these persecutions forced them to seek refuge in India. The massive influx of Hindus into Calcutta affected the demographics of the city. Total migration across Bengal is estimated at 3.3 million. While the Muslims faced heavier persecutions in Punjab, the Hindus had it worse in Bengal. Using the data provided by the 1931 and 1951 census, an estimate of 1.3 million Muslims had left western India but never reached Pakistan. The corresponding number for the Hindus and Sikhs is around 0.8 million. Official sources state that 2 million lives were lost during partition although some sources claim the number to be up to 4 million.

India after partition

The partition of India has led to an almost irrepressible hatred among Muslims and Hindus, one that has seen widespread persecution of minorities such as the 2002 Gujarat riots in India and the 1964 East Pakistan riots in Pakistan and seen terrorist acts committed such as the 2008 Mumbai attacks. The two nations have also been involved in outright wars including war of 1965 and the war of 1971. Minorities in these nations have several other struggles such as:

• Identity: Minorities have a different history and background. They often have to grapple with the issue of identity everywhere which gives rise to the problem of adjustment with the majority community.
• Equity: The minority community is deprived of the benefit of opportunities for development as a result of discrimination.
• Representation: In India, 90.4% of MPs in Lok Sabha are Hindus while only 5% are Muslims and other religious minorities represent 4%. In Pakistan, the Senate of Pakistan has only 4 reserved seats for non-Muslims.

In order to analyze the possible outcome of a united India we shall take a brief look into the Lebanese Civil War and the Sudanese Civil War.

Lebanese Civil War

Lebanon gained independence on 22 November 1943 from France after 23 years of years of Mandate rule. Lebanon established a unique confessionalist form of government, with the state’s major religious sects being apportioned specific political powers (President – Maronite Christian, Prime Minister – Sunni Muslim, Speaker – Shi’a Muslim) which caused it to be relatively stable. Sunni Muslims and Christians comprised the majority in the coastal cities, Shia Muslims were primarily in the South and Beqaa valley in the east, and the Druze and Christians lived in the country’s mountainous areas. The parliamentary structure however favoured a leading position for its Christian-majority population due to the political and religious links that had been reinforced under the French Mandate for 23 years. Once the British Mandate for Palestine came to an end, the influx of thousands of Palestinians in Lebanon led to a change in demography in favour of the Muslim population.

Sabri Hamade and Masjid Arslan with the Lebanese flag

Tensions further developed with the start of the Cold War as the Christians sided with the western world while the leftist, Muslims and pan-Arabist sided with the Soviet-aligned Arab countries. Fighting between the Maronite Christians and Palestinian forces began in 1975; leftist, Muslims and pan-Arabist Lebanese groups formed an alliance with the Palestinians in Lebanon. 1,50,000 people were killed, 1,00,000 people were permanently handicapped by injuries and 9,00,000 people, representing one-fifth of the pre-war population, were displaced from their homes over the 14-year duration of the war. The Taif agreement of 1989 officially known as the National Reconciliation Accord marked the beginning of the end of the war. The agreement greatly diminished the power of the President to benefit the Prime Minister and the ratio of Christians to Muslims in the parliament was changed from 6:5 to 1:1.

News outlet on Taif Agreement

Currently, sectarianism shapes Lebanese society. As a consequence, political parties are defined more by religious affiliations than economic or social policy. This is one of the reasons for Lebanon’s economic catastrophe. Every public institution aims for a sectarian balance i.e., certain number of Druze, Christians, Muslims etc. Filling these quotas comes first, competency second. This system has resulted in several skilled people not attaining their rightful occupations simply because they follow a different religion. Protesters in Lebanon say they want more than anything to move beyond this system, pointing to how their leaders have benefited from keeping the masses scared, divided, and dependent.

Partition of Sudan

Until 1956, the British government, in cooperation with the Egyptian government administered Southern Sudan (majority Christian) and Northern Sudan (majority Muslim) as separate regions under international sovereignty. The South was held to be more similar to the other east African colonies like Kenya and Uganda while the North was more similar to the Arab speaking Egypt. The two areas were eventually merged into a single administrative region after political pressure from the northern elites. This act was taken without consultation with the minority Southern leaders who feared being subsumed by the Northern elites. The British colonial administration favoured the Northern elites during the process of decolonisation, granting them a majority of power during the transition to independence.

The Mahdist War between Muslims and British

Arabic was made the language of administration in the south which the Southern elites, trained in English, resented as they were kept out of government. The Northern government committed discriminatory violence against the Southern minorities under the guise of internal turmoil of democratic growth. The First Sudanese Civil War was fought from 1955 to 1972 for more regional autonomy by the Southern Sudan region. During the course of the war, 5,00,000 people are estimated to have been killed. The signing of the Addis Ababa Agreement, which established the Southern Sudan Autonomous Region, marked the end of the civil war. The first violations of the Agreement occurred when President Jaafar Nimeiry attempted to take control of the oil fields straddling the North-South border. Islamic fundamentalists, who resented the Agreement, continued to grow in power and in 1983, President Nimeiry declared all Sudan an Islamic State thus, terminating the Southern Sudan Autonomous Region. The Second Sudanese Civil War lasted almost 22 years (1983-2005) and is one of the longest Civil wars on record. Roughly 2 million people died as a result of war, famine and disease caused by the conflict. Perhaps the most disturbing event within the war was the revival of slavery. The Sudanese army revived the use of enslavement as a weapon against the Christian prisoners of war, on the purported basis that the Islamic law allowed it. Males were executed and the women and children were taken as slaves. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement, signed on 9 January 2005, set a timetable for a Southern Sudanese Independence referendum. South Sudan gained its Independence from Sudan on 9 July 2011 making it the most recent sovereign state.

Sudan Partition

Possibility of a United India

Now that we’ve taken a look at the plight of countries saturated with religious differences, how can we predict India’s predicament? Would India become a sectarian nation like Lebanon? Eventually split into two nations Sudan? Or maybe even end up becoming a prosperous country with religious harmony? Although the above listed events have a common cause being decolonisation, there is one major difference between India and the other two. The religious rivalries in Sudan and Lebanon commenced only towards the end of their respective colonial rules due to power struggles over the new nations. India on the other hand, had the seeds planted at the very beginning of British rule. Markandey Katju, a supporter of Indian reunification, wrote in the Pakistani paper The Nation, ‘Up to 1857, there were no communal riots and animosity. Hindus participated in Eid and Muslims in Holi and Diwali. In 1857, the ‘Great Mutiny’ broke out in which Hindus and Muslims jointly fought against the British. This shocked the British Government so much that they started the policy of divide and rule.

1857 Mutiny

All communal riots began after 1857, artificially engineered by the British authorities. The British collector would secretly call the Hindu Pandit, pay him money, and tell him to speak against Muslims, and similarly he would secretly call the Maulvi, pay him money, and tell him to speak against Hindus. This communal poison was injected into our body politic year after year and decade after decade.’ There were several sections of Muslims and Hindus who despised each other long before the Indian Independence Act was signed. Case in point, during the partition, the Hindus and Muslims residing within the wrong borders, just had to get on their respective trains and cross the border. However, the hatred at this point was so deep-rooted, they ended up committing atrocities on the way out. Hence, the large number of casualties.

Crossing the Borders

Considering Sudan couldn’t hold itself together as a nation and Lebanon had to resort to rigorous sectarianism, it’s safe to assume that partition was the best outcome for India. It simply wouldn’t be possible for a brand new and weak government to tackle horrendous communal riots, leading to the nation eventually tearing itself apart. A similar outcome but increased casualties and greater animosity.

Position of Kashmir

A brief history

In the first half of the first millennium, the Kashmir region became an important centre of Hinduism and later Buddhism. From the 7th to the 14th century, the region was ruled by a series of Hindu dynasties. In 1339, Shah Mir became the first Muslim ruler of Kashmir, inaugurating the Shah Mir dynasty. The region then fell under the Mughal Empire from 1586 to 1751, and then until 1820, the Afghan Durrani Empire.

Portrait of Shah Mir

In 1819, control of Kashmir passed from the Durrani Empire to the conquering Sikh armies of Ranjit Singh of Punjab. Though the Kashmiris initially welcomed the new rulers, the Sikhs governors turned to be hard taskmasters and Sikh rule was generally considered oppressive. The vast Muslim peasantry suffered abject poverty due to the exorbitant taxes under the Sikhs. In 1808, the state of Jammu, which had been on the ascendant after the fall of the Mughal Empire, was fully conquered by Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Gulab Singh, a member of the House of Jammu, rose in power and influence and was anointed, Raja of Jammu in 1822. In 1845, the first Anglo-Sikh war broke out and two treaties were signed post war. The first handed the State of Lahore to the British and the second the Vale of Kashmir to Gulab Singh which led to the establishment of the Princely State of Kashmir and Jammu in 1858.

Maharaja Gulab Singh

In the heavily populated central Kashmir, the population was overwhelmingly Muslim (77%) with a small but influential Hindu minority (20%), the Kashmiri Pandits. Prem Nath Bazaz, a Kashmiri Pandit, stated that the poverty of the Muslim masses was appalling as they were mostly landless labourers while the landlords were Hindus. Under Hindu rule, Muslims faced hefty taxation, discrimination in the legal system and had no political representation until the 1930s.

Partition

According to Burton Stein’s History of India, Kashmir was connected to India through a district of Punjab but 77% of the population was Muslim and it shared a boundary with Pakistan. When the Maharaja hesitated to accede to Pakistan, Pakistan launched a guerrilla onslaught to threaten the Maharaja into submission. The Maharaja however, appealed to Lord Mountbatten for assistance who agreed if the ruler would accede to India. Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the irregulars from all but a small section of the state.

Current Position

While at first glance Pakistan’s attempts at annexation could be viewed as a violation, India too has annexed several princely states and colonies. Hyderabad, Daman and Diu and Goa being the prime examples. The annexation process for these states however, was universally accepted as the general population within these states were culturally assimilated with the Indian identity. Kashmiris however, possessed their own lifestyle which was fundamentally different from that of the Indians or Pakistanis due to the ever-changing rulers across multiple generations. This leads to Kashmir forming its own identity separate from both India and Pakistan, fundamentally separating Pakistan’s attempts at annexation from India’s. The constant attempts of encroachment from Pakistan led to a rift between the two whereas, the supportive but non interfering behaviour of India in the 1940s led the to two forming common ground for a mutual alliance. The provisional state status, provided to Kashmir by India through article 370, solidified the relationship between the two, ensuring protection of Kashmir from Pakistan.

Second Kashmiri War

Kashmiri people themselves, are heavily divided on whether they want to be independent, or join one of the two nations. In 2019, article 370 was eliminated, turning J&K from a provisional state to a Union Territory. This move has had a lot of benefits such as better relationship among Indians and Kashmiris and a boost to their economy as private business owners can establish factories in Kashmir, creating jobs for Kashmiris and Indians. The disadvantages perhaps outweigh the advantages as this was done without consent or warning to the Kashmiris. On August 5th, 2019, the internet was shut off, hundreds of troops were summoned, landlines were disconnected, and even Kashmiri lawmakers were placed under house arrest. The Kashmiris were abruptly forced to accept this decision after being locked inside their homes. Many have viewed this as unconstitutional and comparable to dictatorship.

2019 Protests

The Government of India made the decision keeping in mind the future welfare of the Kashmiri people. The immediate chaos which had ensued happened due to the suddenness of the decision. While seemingly detrimental developments have taken place, it might provide future opportunities to assimilate within the Indian community and help them escape their grey identity.