Jinnah and Lord Mountbatten

“India has never been a symbol of unity of Hindu-Muslim civilization. It is not possible for the British Government to create homogeneity between Hindu and Muslim culture and civilization as the two systems are distinctively opposed to each other. There is no way other than the partition of India”

Although the Khilafat Movement was the first movement in which Hindus and Muslims worked together, their unity was probably always doomed to failure. The Hindu aim of self-rule was not really an objective of the Muslims (Jinnah spoke out against such a policy) and the Hindus were prepared to support the Muslims in protecting their religious rights only as it helped move India towards self-rule. Gandhi also stressed that by working with Muslims it would also reduce their hostility towards the Hindu religion. As he said; “I’m laying down my life for the Khilafat, I ensure the safety of the

Source 15 is a statement made by Viceroy Linlithgow during discussions with Muhammad Ali Jinnah in August 1940, concerning arrangements for the wartime administration of India. In this source he is both for and

The partition of India and its subsequent independence is the most barbaric incident in the history of India. Millions of people were forced to leave their homes and many were butchered in the worst possible ways. There was an unorganised and unplanned brutality. The unbelievable part was how could our sense of moral righteousness be handicapped by the actions of a few. How could it be that the same people who had driven the Britishers out of 'their' country could in turn start killing each other. The communal politics reached every nook and cranny in India polluting whole of the country with the advertisement of a freedom of a very unique kind than that imagined by many people of India.

Mountbatten traveled to Karachi to exchange energy to the recently made condition of Pakistan on fourteenth August 1947. Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was confirmed as the first Governor General of Pakistan. Liaquat Ali Khan assumed control as the first Prime Minister. Domain of the condition of Pakistan was partitioned into two sections. These two sections known as East Pakistan and West Pakistan, were isolated from one another

The British’s goal to separate the Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs was a total disaster. “The trouble was that Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs were an integrated population so that it was impossible to make a border without widespread dislocation.” This quote states that making a border was impossible because the groups aren’t meant to be spread apart. “By the end of 1947 there were virtually no Hindus or Sikhs living in west India - now part of Pakistan - and no Muslims in the Indian east.” This explains how the British made Pakistan because of the partition. “The British government and Mountbatten must bear a large part of the blame for this tragedy." Therefore, the British caused religious violence and disagreement against each

founder and the first president of Pakistan proposed the idea of a “Two Nation Theory”.

The so-called leaders of the people were much too preoccupied with the pastime of supplanting each other to be able to appreciate the value of unity. And that is what gave Britain the chance to slyly sneak in after the Indians had finally gotten rid of Moghul rule. The British seized this golden opportunity and implemented the scheme termed divide and conquer to take over India.

"Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity," Jinnah, tried seriously to bring about the political union of Hindus and Muslims. It gave him the title of "the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity". It was largely through his efforts that the Congress and

The Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, insisted on a separate Muslim state called Pakistan (Bentley 889). He observed that “[t]he only solution to India’s problem is Pakistan” (Bentley 890). Jinnah believed that the only way to prevent violence between Hindus and Muslims was to segregate them. However, Gandhi and Nehru disagreed with him and demanded an integrated India where national identity, not religion, defined oneself. Nehru declared, “[i]f the division is made so as to separate the predominately Hindu and Muslim areas, the Hindu areas will not be so hard hit.

Felling abused, discontent, and suffering from rash syncretism, the well-established Sepoys of the powerful British East India Company had a lot of motive to rebel against the greedy “empire on which the sun never sets.” It was fitting timing in which, the character and policies of their colonial rule caught up to the storied regime in a sweep of unwavering rebellion. For years, the British conquered the country bit by bit implicating their values stemming from their new feelings of superiority. The Mughal Empire was sent through years of change in policy. British views towards world order created many economic and cultural frictions among these empires in Hindustan. The hostile Indian Rebellion of 1857 was a product of the unpredictable greed and feelings of superiority of the British and led to rash changes in the way empires were operated economically and religiously.

Indeed, the Partition of India and Pakistan, a decision made by lawmakers far from the front-lines, unleashed an episode of brutal depravity that might be unmatched in recent history. Growing tensions between Hindus and Muslims throughout the 1940s gave a ride for the desire for a Muslim state. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who is regarded as the father of Pakistan, believed that a unified nation would only lead to marginalization of Muslims and, eventually, violence and civil war. An independent state seemed a solution to this danger. However looking at the grave situation of Pakistan today, was this a good decision or not is a highly debatable point of discussion running past the minds of

Britain ruled over India and religion was a constitute for nationality in a way they had an ideal of living in harmony with Muslims and Hinduism. As both are separate in their belief and worship, they opposed each other in a form of political background and who should run the country. As religion began to be a big part of the conflict, the creation of the nation was started with wanting independence. As a result, Muslims feared Hinduism would dominate and flee them into another land.

“The argument for Pakistan was simply that Hindus and Muslims were not two different religious communities but two separate nations” (Varshney 434), meaning that this divide was a denser than many might view it. The relations between both groups influenced the judgements of India’s founders and constitution-makers, given that it was one of the most traumatic periods in the history of India’s twentieth-century due to the millions of deaths that were accompanied by partition. These constitution-makers had to face four main issues: the relationship between religion and the state, separate electorates, religiously given personal laws, and educational institutions. The overall goal of the new nation was to put an end to the Hindu-Muslim violence, provide minorities a stake in the new nation and also reduce their fears of losing their identities. They wanted to do so in a way that would not deepen the divide that already existed, but that would unite them instead (Varshney

Not only did Gandhi fail to create a vision for him and his followers, his inability to foster an inclusive environment, led to the lack of support from the Muslim community, which was the largest religious minority in India. This lack of inclusion can be seen in Gandhi’s dealings with Mohammad Ali Jinnah, one of the leaders of the Indian Muslims and the eventual founder of Pakistan. Initially, Jinnah had worked with Gandhi to create a Hindu-Muslim accord and independence for India, but eventually became convinced that the 80 million Muslims in India would be subjugated by a Hindu-dominated India. (Shirer, 1979, pp. 107, 108). This belief was based on the actions of Gandhi, such as Gandhi’s articles advising Hindus how to protect themselves when attacked by Muslims and Gandhi’s failure to perceive the Muslim elite’s longing for power as a distinct religio-political group (Prasad, 1985, p. 76). Opportunities to include Muslim leaders in political positions, such as when provincial ministries were formed, were not utilized. (Prasad, 1985, p. 76). By failing to consider his actions and their effects on the Muslim