Masaryk University Faculty of Arts Department of English and American Studies English Language and Literature Martin Hulman Partition of India and its Leading Figures (1935-1947) Bachelor‟s Diploma Thesis Supervisor: Stephen Paul Hardy, Ph.D. 2013 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. …............................................ Author's signature Acknowledgements I would like to thank you my family for unconditional support and ever-present encouragement during my studies. Table of contents Introduction 5-7 1. On the Road to Partition (1935-1939) 8 1.1 1935 Act and Provincial Elections 8-10 1.2 Aftermath of the Elections 11-13 1.3 The Rise of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League 13-16 2. In the Shadow of the War (1939-1945) 16 2.1 The Congress resignation 17-18 2.2 Jinnah-Linlithgow co-operation and 'Lahore Resolution' 18-22 2.3 The British proposals – 'August Offer' and 'Cripps Mission' 22-27 2.4 The Quit India Movement 27-31 2.5 Towards the Peace 31 2.5.1 Gandhi-Jinnah talks 31-33 2.5.2 The Simla Conference 33-35 3. Endgame of the British Raj and Partition (1945-1947) 35 3.1 Elections and the 'Cabinet Mission' 34-44 3.2 The Direct Action 45-48 3.3 The Breakup 48-52 3.4 Mountbatten Plan and Partition of India 52-59 Conclusion 59-60 Bibliography 61-65 Introduction The history of the struggle for independence and partition of India from British stronghold have been subjects of countless studies and academic publications. The fact that it caught the attention of so many scholars and historians certainly speaks volumes about the importance of these events. This thesis concentrates primarily on the latter, even though both events were necessarily interconnected. The emphasis is going to be laid on the timeframe from 1935 to 1947 when the actual partition happened. From the 1935 Government of India Act, which had started the course of events leading to the partition, all the way to the 3 June Plan of 1947 which eventually decided the fate of millions of people. During the process, important figures raised and made crucial decisions behind the negotiating table. Their influence was of huge importance for the history of India and ethnically diverse communities. Therefore, it is going to be studied in detail for the purposes of better understanding of the whole issue of partition which brought about one of the worst human tragedy in modern history. The main aim is to present how the state of Pakistan came into being by a configuration of forces and events. Secondly, to find out whether the partition and enormous suffering of people could have been avoided and thirdly, who is to blame for such drastic operation. Partition of India was one of the most significant events in the history of this vast and multicultural subcontinent. Long-lasting struggle for freedom and independence from the shackles of the British Empire had finally come to an end and two new states emerged on the world map, India and Pakistan. However, the price of freedom and self-rule was enormously high. Resulting in a dislocation of millions of people, countless deaths, rapes and other atrocities which spread across the new-established borders as well as inland. It was, indeed, its hastened nature, imposed implementation by the British authorities, along with seemingly unsolvable differences in attitudes and priorities between the two principal communities of the sub-continent, Hindus and Muslims, which led to colossal communal violence and misery. The discrepancies among these two ethnic groups had existed long before the British arrival but grew out of proportion under the aegis of imperialism. The Indian subcontinent was divided on the forceful demand of the Muslims represented by Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League. They admittedly feared united India, especially after the debacle in 1937 elections, in which Muslims would be a minority. It was neither the goal of the British nor the dream of the Hindu Congress to see India divided. The fact that Pakistan was, nonetheless, created speaks volumes of a leader's perseverance and a nation's will to sacrifice for the cause of independence (Ali 115-16). India was partitioned in August 1947 and power was transferred from the British hands to India and Pakistan on the basis of dominion status in accordance with the 3 June Plan, which was accepted by and acquiesced in by the principal Indian leaders. It was a task of tremendous responsibility and entailed all the complications of partition of territory and division of resources, at a time of heightening tension and turmoil (Mansergh and Moon xi). For this purpose, British government appointed new viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, who played probably the most crucial role in the whole process. As Mushirul Hasan put it: “the destiny of millions light on him” (4). The British decided to divide India mainly along the religious lines and failed to foresee or imagine the consequences of such division. India had never been a homogeneous entity and therefore, not one that could be easily handed over and governed. Actually, majority of common people was for 'One India', but it was this communal divide between the Hindus and the Muslims, which brought matters into cry for partition. After all political negotiations in the early 1940's had reached an impasse, the British started to believe that the partition remained the only option to avoid outright civil war and anarchy, and the only way to conduct a graceful retreat. However, this 'graceful retreat' turned into a tragedy and some scholars, e.g. Gyanendra Pandey or Urvashi Butalia, even use the term 'holocaust' with casualties of around 1 million, some 15 million refugees and thousands of women raped. The critical element in the planning of the partition was time and unsettled disputes between political leaders. Mountbatten established his credibility by designating the precise date - 30 June 1948, by which the British intended to retreat and make a peaceful transfer of power. It gave the British a mere 15 months to wrap up an empire which political, administrative and constitutional decisions were far too tricky to be resolved in such a short period of time. In reality, they even dared to shorten it by almost a year in order to prevent violence and sustain an image of 'peaceful liberators' in the eyes of the world. On the top of that nobody knew where the new borders would be drawn. 1. On the road to Partition (1935-39) First chapter maps the events which set the country on the road to partition, particularly provincial elections and an immediate aftermath which considerably deteriorated Hindu-Muslim relations and undeliberately gave rise to the Muslim League and Muhammad Ali Jinnah who became one of the most influential figures of the partition history. It was the fear of Hindu domination, after its landslide victory in 1937 elections, and Jinnah's insistence that Hindus and Muslims constituted two different nations, that gave the ground for the Pakistan demand. 1.1. 1935 Act and Provincial Elections The early decades of the twentieth century saw a growing demand, from the educated middle class Indians, for power sharing and responsibility to run their own institutions, to which the British response was reluctant and evasive (Panigrahi 1-2). “Protests against British rule and the rise of nationalist consciousness had risen in tandem, bringing with it unintended divisive elements between Hindus and Muslims, which had surfaced with call for unity between these 'two nations' in India” (McMenamin 71). Realizing the need for gradual introduction of parliamentary democracy, the British promulgated a series of bills, reforms and acts guaranteeing increased representation and greater participation of Indians in legislative matters to assuage the common sentiment of the population. Probably the most critical one that sharpened relations between two major forces of political spectrum, the Muslim League and the Indian National Congress, and set the country on the road to Partition, was the 1935 Government of India Act and subsequent provincial elections two years later. The Act provided for the establishment of full responsible Government subject to „safeguards‟ in the eleven provinces of British India; It provided also for a federation of India, comprising both provinces and states, with a federal central Government and legislature for the management of all subjects except foreign affairs and defence (Philips 188). It became operative on 1 April 1937 except its second part, the Federal Structure, which could not function until a specific number of princely states had joined the Federation (Coupland 2). Jawaharlal Nehru, the future leader of the Congress, initially rejected the Act entirely, declaring that the New Constitution offered India only responsibility without power (Shakoor 7) because the principle of autocracy was retained (Menon 14). The Congress, with its avowed nationalist and democratic-socialist view demanded absolute authority in the provinces and at the centre (Shakoor 8). It also stated that the future constitution of India could only be framed by a Constituent Assembly based on adult franchise (Singh 2). Nevertheless, they decided to participate in 1937 elections with the Manifesto dwelt upon the economic crisis in India, poverty, unemployment and resistance to British imperialism with ultimate goal of free united India (Sitaramayya 12-24). With regard to the Muslim League, “it was in a state of hopeless confusion, with interests clashing at all levels, provincial, local and personal” (Shakoor 9). It had existed only 'on the paper' and without a leader until Muhammad Ali Jinnah returned from England in 1936. Despite his tireless effort to unite Muslims in all parts of the country, he could not bring together all the factions of fragmented Muslim politics.