Mohammed Ali Jinnah has been unfairly depicted as the person primarily responsible for the partition of the Indian Subcontinent and the violence that immediately followed.
Along with Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, Mohammed Ali Jinnah fought for the independence of India from the colonizing clutches of the British. As colonization became increasingly bothersome, the British agreed upon the transfer of power. This grant of independence lead to the partition of India as the two leading parties, the Congress, led by Gandhi and Nehru, and the Muslim League, led by Jinnah, had different ideologies on how India should be ruled after independence was obtained (Best et al 2008, p. 249). The Muslim League sought more power in individual provinces so that Muslims in India would not be neglected while the Congress prefered a stronger political centre (Best et al 2008, p.249). This division caused major uproars and violence mainly due to the Muslim League, which was under Jinnah’s leadership. When looked at from a different perspective, it could also be argued that Jinnah may not be totally at fault in his decision to split India into two separate nations because Gandhi, Nehru and the British Empire played crucial roles in the partition of India as well. Even so, this essay would take the stance that Jinnah was primarily responsible for the partition and violence that fell upon the Indian Subcontinent because of his lust for power and the brutal and negative consequences that followed.
Jinnah’s contribution to the partition is unparalleled to the other parties involved due to his hunger for authority, hence Jinnah was fairly depicted as the man who rocked the boat too far. This is claimed as Jinnah was described as someone who had a thirst for power, he demanded the partition of India from the British and the Congress (Roy 2008, p. 394). Jinnah’s true motive was speculated as not to bring equal representation for the Muslims but to gain power for himself as he felt threatened by the political success of his peers, Gandhi and Nehru (Murphy 2006, p. 450). He then shifted his support to the Muslim League and fought for the partition of India in order to secure his political power as the head of the Muslim League and the nation, proving that he had ulterior motives to the partition. This becomes apparent as Jinnah was shown to not follow his religion closely as he was educated in Britain (Murphy 2006, p. 451). This shows that Jinnah’s lack of loyalty to the Muslim religion as a result of his education. According to a study conducted by Roy (2008, p. 390), Jinnah’s lack of commitment to his own religion can be traced when the political motives of Jinnah shifted from equal representation for Muslims to a partition in order to have a separate religious ‘nation’. Thus, Jinnah’s true motives were questioned, making the extreme actions of the Muslim League during and after the partition seem less noble as this could all be due to a power struggle instead of a fight for equality as Jinnah claimed it to be. Aside from that, Jinnah also forged a closer relationship to the British Empire while his peers, Gandhi and Nehru were imprisoned. He campaigned for the partition for 2 years and pushed hard when the Congress party had weak footing with its leading members out of commission. This constant campaigning put the British Government in a difficult predicament as they were unable to turn down the proposition (Qalb-i-Abid, & Abid 2010, p. 51). This establishes that Jinnah used that opportunity to strengthen his political standings which further proves his obsession with power. In addition, Qalb-i-Abid & Abid (2010, p. 52) claimed that Jinnah had continuous meetings with the Viceroy during World War 2 which gave him a commendable reputation amongst the British where Gandhi and Nehru failed to. Qalb-i-Abid & Abid (2010, p. 57) also proved that even though Jinnah had good relations with the British, he commanded his people against joining the war, presumably to preserve their forces for the partition. This indicated a lack of loyalty on the part of Jinnah as he lacked the conviction to participate in endeavours that would not benefit him directly. Hence, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was not unfairly depicted as the person primarily responsible for the partition that divided the Indian Subcontinent as his actions point to hunger for power rather than the well-being of his people.
Furthermore, the violence before, during and immediately after the partition of India can be attributed to the direct actions of Jinnah as he held the helm for most of the violent actions carried out by the Muslim League during this chaotic period. The Two-Nations Theory that Jinnah preached caused the separation and violence that followed in India, which was struggling to gain its independence from the British (Hassan 1997, p. 47-53). Smith (2015) reported that the violence that followed the division was not uncanny as Jinnah was described to have a rivalry with Nehru and often used riots as “ammunition in their blame game”. This rivalry gave way to retaliation and brutality in Punjab due to the partition as Jinnah directed the Muslims to create a form of strength to protect their rights and this manifested in the Muslim League’s formation of armed forces (Qalb-i-Abid, & Abid 2010, p.53). This shows Jinnah’s tendencies to use violence as a means to obtain his objectives. It is also argued that this violent way of settling disputes have to lead to the 3 wars fought over Kashmir to claim it’s provinces in this religious feud (Smith 2015). Besides that, innocent people were caught in the centre of the territorial religious battle between the Muslims and the Hindus. Violence upon the innocents can be attributed to the poor division of land by the British but was mainly instituted and encouraged by Jinnah. Hassan (1997, p. 47-53) noted that this resulted in many people failing to distinguish whether they were in India or Pakistan immediately after the partition. As a consequence, massacres occurred to those who were either too slow for the mass migration or were confused about their position in the newly partitioned land (Hassan 1997, p. 47-53). All these gruesome and tragic events were due to poor execution of Jinnah’s plan and violent ways of solving issues. He spent ample time fighting for the partition but failed to ensure a peaceful transition when it mattered the most. Therefore, it can be argued that Jinnah was primarily responsible for the brutalities that happened as a result of the partition he held on to so adamantly.
Conversely, the claim that Mohammed Ali Jinnah was primarily responsible for the events that followed the transfer of power can be countered as Gandhi, Nehru and the British Empire are important factors in the Indian Subcontinental divide. This is because Gandhi and Nehru failed to provide the Muslim’s equal representation and a sense of belonging. The Congress, led by Gandhi, often used religion, primarily Hinduism, as a driving factor for independence. Though it may be a viable strategy, it alienated the Muslims and caused them to feel discriminated and divided. Nehru also disdained the Muslim League support in the 1937 elections which shows another reason for Jinnah’s ambitions (Smith 2015). The Hindu domination at the time, led by Gandhi and Nehru were all factors in the partition and violence, not just Jinnah’s actions. From this angle, it can be seen that Gandhi and Nehru in fact, instigated the partition even though Jinnah brought it into fruition. Jinnah himself stated that the promotion of Muslim solidarity was a way to protect and give equal rights to the minority (Jinnah 1947). Aside from that, the British also played a crucial role in the violence that followed. This is because Sir Cyril Radcliffe who has never been to India was appointed to divide India in 40 days. This hasty separation pressured Radcliffe to devise a border that cuts through railways, villages and people’s houses. The lack of proper partitioning can also be attributed to the last British Viceroy and first governor-general of India after independence, Lord Mountbatten. Haqqani (1997) noted that Lord Mountbatten disproved the notion of the partition and wanted the division to be done in a reversible manner. This resulted in the mass migration and violence and enveloped the newly independent India (Murphy 2006, p. 452). According to Roy’s research (2017), India’s rushed separation was also due to the fact that the members of the British Government had already planned for the transfer of power of Pakistan to Jinnah as they were worried about leftists leaders such as Nehru forgoing their commonwealth position in support of the Russians. This implies that the British were at fault for the violence due to their own personal and ulterior motives to remain as an influence to India. Therefore, it may be countered that Jinnah may not totally be at fault as Gandhi, Nehru and the British played significant roles in the for the partition and violence.
To conclude, Mohammed Ali Jinnah has not been unfairly depicted as the person primarily responsible for the partition of the Indian Subcontinent and the violence that immediately followed. This is because Jinnah’s hunger for power has been argued to be the main motive of the partition instead of the aim to achieve equal standings for the Muslim minority in India. This caused him to make decisions based on what is best for his political future and not that of the masses, which lead to him forging positive relationships with the British Government during the weakest times of the Congress and therefore getting the partition approved. Aside from that, Jinnah was also the cause of the violence as his hasty and violent actions lead to many deaths. This is claimed as he formed the armed forces of the Muslim League and forced violence on the British for the slow transfer of power and even used it to solve rivalries. Many innocent civilians died in the mass migration that happened due to the partition which was ultimately the whim of Jinnah. The hasty division of land by the British, that was threatened by Jinnah, lead to many poor judgements such as splitting the land even if it is the centre of someone’s house. However, this has been argued by many as the British poor separation of land also caused violent incidents. Hence, as seen in the book South Asia Independence, Jinnah is depicted as the one at fault for these tragic incidents.
(1625 words)
References
Best, A, Hanhimaki, J.M., Maiolo, J.A., Schulze, K.E., International History Of The Twentieth Century And Beyond, 2nd edn, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York.
Haqqani, H 1997, ‘Pakistan 50 Years : The Legacy Of Partition’ Wall Street Journal, A16, (Online ProQuest).
Hassan, M 1997, ‘Partition : The Human Cost’, History Today, vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 47-53, (Online ProQuest).
Jinnah, M.A. 1947, ‘Partition of Bengal and the Punjab’, transcript, National Archive, viewed 22 April 2017, http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/topics/jinnah-on-partition.htm
Murphey, R 2006, A History Of Asia, 5th edn, Pearson Longman, New York.
Roy, A 2017, ‘Whose Partition is it anyway?’, Eastern Eye (1392), vol. 9, (Online ProQuest).
Roy, A 2008, ‘The High Politics of India's Partition: The Revisionist Perspective - The High Politics of India's Partition: The Revisionist Perspective’, Modern Asian Studies, vol 24, no. 2, pp. 390-394, doi: https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/10.1017/S0026749X00010362
Qalb-I-Abid & Abid, M., 2010. ‘United India - A Dream: Jinnah Defending Partition Demand (1940-42)’, Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 51-57, (Online ProQuest).
Smith, W 2015, ‘Were India and Pakistan Doomed at Birth?: Creating separate Pakistani and Indian states with the Partition of 1947, Great Britain sowed the discord and conflict that continue to flourish well over half a century later.’ The Daily Beast, (Online ProQuest).
Comments