The day India freed Goa from Portuguese rule - BBC News
Seventy years after India and Pakistan won their independence, why British rule over India, by far its biggest colony, ended on 15 August Partition poisoned relations between India and Pakistan, and has shaped. 70 years since the partition of India and the end of British colonial rule. The British Raj ruled almost all of present-day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. . central to the testy and violent relationship between the two states. Relations between India and Pakistan have been complex and largely hostile due to a number of historical and political events. Relations between the two.
The provinces would be autonomous but the center would retain control over defence, foreign affairs and communications. Though the proposals did not offer independent Pakistan, the Muslim League accepted the proposals. Even though the unity of India would have been preserved, the Congress leaders, especially Nehru, believed it would leave the Center weak.
On 10 July Nehru gave a "provocative speech", rejected the idea of grouping the provinces and "effectively torpedoed" both the Cabinet mission plan and the prospect of a United India.
However, on the morning of the 16th, armed Muslim gangs gathered at the Ochterlony Monument in Calcutta to hear Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardythe League's Chief Minister of Bengal, who, in the words of historian Yasmin Khan, "if he did not explicitly incite violence certainly gave the crowd the impression that they could act with impunity, that neither the police nor the military would be called out and that the ministry would turn a blind eye to any action they unleashed in the city.
Although India had had outbreaks of religious violence between Hindus and Muslims before, the Calcutta killings were the first to display elements of " ethnic cleansing ", in modern parlance.
The communal violence spread to Bihar where Muslims were attacked by Hindusto Noakhali in Bengal where Hindus were targeted by Muslimsto Garhmukteshwar in the United Provinces where Muslims were attacked by Hindusand on to Rawalpindi in March in which Hindus were attacked or driven out by Muslims.
Mountbatten hoped to revive the Cabinet Mission scheme for a federal arrangement for India. But despite his initial keenness for preserving the center the tense communal situation caused him to conclude that partition had become necessary for a quicker transfer of power. He had been outraged by Jinnah's Direct Action campaign, which had provoked communal violence across India and by the viceroy's vetoes of his home department's plans to stop the violence on the grounds of constitutionality.
Patel severely criticised the viceroy's induction of League ministers into the government and the revalidation of the grouping scheme by the British without Congress approval. Although further outraged at the League's boycott of the assembly and non-acceptance of the plan of 16 May despite entering government, he was also aware that Jinnah did enjoy popular support amongst Muslims, and that an open conflict between him and the nationalists could degenerate into a Hindu-Muslim civil war of disastrous consequences.
The continuation of a divided and weak central government would in Patel's mind, result in the wider fragmentation of India by encouraging more than princely states towards independence.
Menon on the latter's suggestion for a separate dominion of Pakistan created out of Muslim-majority provinces.
Communal violence in Bengal and Punjab in January and March further convinced Patel of the soundness of partition.
Patel, a fierce critic of Jinnah's demand that the Hindu-majority areas of Punjab and Bengal be included in a Muslim state, obtained the partition of those provinces, thus blocking any possibility of their inclusion in Pakistan. Patel's decisiveness on the partition of Punjab and Bengal had won him many supporters and admirers amongst the Indian public, which had tired of the League's tactics, but he was criticised by Gandhi, Nehru, secular Muslims and socialists for a perceived eagerness to do so.
When Lord Louis Mountbatten formally proposed the plan on 3 JunePatel gave his approval and lobbied Nehru and other Congress leaders to accept the proposal. Knowing Gandhi's deep anguish regarding proposals of partition, Patel engaged him in frank discussion in private meetings over the perceived practical unworkability of any Congress-League coalition, the rising violence and the threat of civil war.
I fully appreciate the fears of our brothers from [the Muslim-majority areas]. Nobody likes the division of India and my heart is heavy. But the choice is between one division and many divisions. We must face facts. We cannot give way to emotionalism and sentimentality.
The Working Committee has not acted out of fear. But I am afraid of one thing, that all our toil and hard work of these many years might go waste or prove unfruitful. My nine months in office has completely disillusioned me regarding the supposed merits of the Cabinet Mission Plan. Except for a few honorable exceptions, Muslim officials from the top down to the chaprasis peons or servants are working for the League. The communal veto given to the League in the Mission Plan would have blocked India's progress at every stage.
Faith, fury and fear: The story behind one of history's greatest mass migrations
Whether we like it or not, de facto Pakistan already exists in the Punjab and Bengal. Under the circumstances I would prefer a de jure Pakistan, which may make the League more responsible. We have 75 to 80 percent of India, which we can make strong with our own genius.A Short History of India-Pakistan Relations
The League can develop the rest of the country. However, neither he nor any other Indian leader had foreseen the intense violence and population transfer that would take place with partition. Late inthe Labour government in Britainits exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, decided to end British rule of India, and in early Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June However, with the British army unprepared for the potential for increased violence, the new viceroy, Louis Mountbattenadvanced the date for the transfer of power, allowing less than six months for a mutually agreed plan for independence.
Ambedkar representing the Untouchable community, and Master Tara Singh representing the Sikhsagreed to a partition of the country along religious lines in stark opposition to Gandhi's views. The heartland of support for the Muslim League, however, lay in central north India Uttar Pradesh which was not included within Pakistan.
Muslims from this region had to flee westwards and compete with resident populations for access to land and employment, leading to ethnic conflict, especially in Sindh. Top Post-partition and conflict over Kashmir The death of Muhammed Ali Jinnah inthe conflict with India over the Princely State of Kashmir which both countries claimed at independenceas well as ethnic and religious differences within Pakistan itself, all combined to stymie early attempts to agree on a constitution and an effectively functioning civil administration.
This failure paved the way for a military takeover of the government in and later on, a civil war in This saw the division of the country and the creation of the separate state of Bangladesh. Ever since then, military rule has been more often than not the order of the day in both countries.
India–Pakistan relations - Wikipedia
India has maintained remarkable cohesion since independence, especially considering it is nearly the size of Europe. At independence, in India and in Pakistan, civil unrest as well as ethnic and religious discord threatened the stability of the new country. However, the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi on 30 January by a Hindu fanatic strengthened the hand of secularists within the government.
- The Hidden Story of Partition and its Legacies
- Why India and Pakistan Hate Each Other
- India–Pakistan relations
Indian politicians ratified a constitution, which led to the first democratic elections in This made India the world's largest democracy and consolidated governmental authority over the entire subcontinent. However, major tensions have persisted among both Muslim and Sikh communities, which suffered most from the violence and land loss resulting from partition.
These tensions erupted most seriously in the s in a violent campaign for the creation of a separate Sikh state which led ultimately to the assassination of Indira Gandhi.
Renewed victimisation of Muslims has also occurred, notably with the destruction of the Muslim shrine at Ayodhya in and anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat in With such notable exceptions, however, India has maintained a remarkable level of cohesion since independence, especially if one considers that it is a country nearly the size of Europe. For both India and Pakistan, the most singular conflict unresolved since partition has concerned the former Princely State of Kashmir, whose fate was left undetermined at the time the British left.
Lying as it did on the border, Kashmir was claimed by both countries, which have been to war over this region on numerous occasions. The conflict has wasted thousands of lives and millions of dollars, but is closer to a solution now than at any time since independence.
If achieved, it might finally bring to fruition the dreams of Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Mahatma Gandhi and once more set an example for post-colonial societies elsewhere in Africa, Asia and the Middle East to imitate and follow.
Find out more Books Inventing Boundaries: Oxford University Press, Pakistan as a peasant utopia: Westview, The Sole Spokesman: Kali for Women, Remembering Partition: This was a textbook case of a power vacuum.
Where did the power lie as the British left and the new states formed? The British come out of the story looking ill-prepared, naive and even callous. But could the British have settled the competing nationalist visions in south Asia in the s, and could they have created a constitution to please everybody?
This is the great hypothetical question. Endless rounds of previous negotiations had ended in disappointment and overlaying new nation states over the grid of messy, large, complex empires was a challenge all over the world.
India and Pakistan's rivalry isn't territorial or ideological – it's psychological
Many Muslim Leaguers would have accepted power within a federal, decentralised and unified India inwhile many members of the Indian National Congress resisted power-sharing schemes.
But, ultimately, we just do not know how the alternatives would have worked. In the event, Jinnah pushed for Pakistan, and the final compromise was to create two states by drawing borders across Punjab and Bengal. All the key leaders — including Jinnah, Nehru and Mountbatten — agreed to this plan, and with some relief: The tragedy of partition is that the stories of extreme violence in have provided fodder to opposing perspectives ever since, and myths have crystallised around the origins of India and Pakistan.
This sweeps aside any appreciation of the hybrid, Indo-Islamic world that flourished before the British began their conquest in the 18th century. The land in which vernacular Sanskrit-based languages were cross-pollinated with Turkish, Persian, and Arabic, in which Rajput princesses married Mughal rulers, and musical and artistic styles had thrived on the fusion of influences from central Asia and local courtly cultures.
Partition of India
India, 70 years on from independence: Letters Read more This world of more fluid identities and cultures was gradually dismantled throughout the 19th century under British rule and then smashed by partition. It becomes ever harder, today, to imagine the pre-partitioned Indian subcontinent. In the south Asian case, the historical conflict is now acted out on a different, international stage.
India and Pakistan stand frozen in a cold war, with nuclear missiles pointed at each other. At least one billion people living in the region today were not even born when partition took place and south Asia has many more immediate and far more pressing problems: