Communalism and Politics of Partition

2020-04-27 15:25:20

![[lehs305.pdf |Partition of India NCERT]]

Communal Ideology

believes that people who follow same religion have common interests,
their interests are divergent from the interest of the followers of other religion
in the third stage the interests of each other are seen different and incompatible

Liberal Communalists

believed that the difference of opinion could be accommodated and brought together.
Most communalists ==before 1937== had such views viz Hindu Mahasabha, Muslim League etc.

How Communalism Developed

Communalism is a ==consequence of emergence of modern politics of mass politicisation and mobilisation and an off set of colonialism==.
Some middle classes benefited from communalism especially in govt employment giving it a fillip. They often fluctuated b/w anti-imperialism and communalism based politics.
class interest of various landlords in places such as Punjab, Malabar etc were often used to stir up communal dissensions garbing such differences as imcompatible religious distinctions.
Communal colours in agrarian revolts were a feature in the 20th century. It was absent in such prior struggles
The British policy of divide and rule was used to counter nationalist forces.

Various Ways Used to Encourage Communalism Was

Treating Hindus, Muslims etc as separate entities having different interests.
Official favour and patronage to communalists.
Communal press were tolerated and nationalist press gagged.
Communal demands were accepted which strengthened such organisations.
Communal leaders were seen as the representatives of the minorities.
Hindu extremist leaders brought various religious symbols for mass mobilisation of people. Viz Shivaji and Ganpati festivals of Tilak. Muslims were portrayed as foreigners in various plays, novels etc.
This Hindu tinge was the not a cause but a failure of nationalists to check communalism
Communal, unscientific and distorted view of Indian history contributed to it.

Before 1937

Syed Ahmed Khan

was a liberal communalist.

In his early years he was against communalism and even received funds from Hindus for the formation of his educational institutes.

But after the formation of Congress when its anti-imperialist ideology became clear. He became a loyalist, main reason for this was that Muslims who were in minority and backwards would lose gov jobs, seats in educational institutions etc.

He however wanted Muslims to be politically neutral as Politicisation of Indians was frowned upon by the Gov.

In his later speeches he emphasised difference of interest of Hindus and Muslims.

Muslim nationalists who participated with Congress like in the Swadeshi movement was seen as anti-Islamists.
This however did not stop the spread of nationalist ideas among the Muslims.
Muslim league was formed by Agha Khan and Salimullah in Dhaka. Their ==initial aim was to prevent Muslims from joining the nationalist ranks==.

The Hindu Communalist

led by Zamindars, Landlords etc accepted the communal representation of History.

they declared that Hindi was language of Hindus and Urdu of Muslims.

undertook anti-cow slaughter movements.

Various such institutions that were formed were the Punjab Hindu Sabha by Lal Chand in 1904. All India Hindu Mahasabha in 1915.

But Hindu communalist institutions were sickly compared to Muslimsleague because of its support from the reactionary elements in Zamindars, Beauraucrats etc <- difference b/w Hindu and Muslim Communalists

Lucknow Pact December 1916

Muslim League and Congress jointly put forward :

Common political demands including the demand of self-government of India

It accepted separate electorates and reservation of seats

The pact was a tacit acceptance of communalism.

After the NCM was called back movements such as ==Sangathan and Shuddi for Hindus and Tanzeem and Tablighi for Muslims== started for communal consolidation and religious conversion.
The ==responsivists among Swarajists== wanted to cooperate with the gov for safeguarding Hindu interests. They carried out movts against secular congresspersons. #important
Nationalist leaders tried to make efforts to oppose communalism but were not able to remove it because they often based their measure on compromise.
Pact was led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak from INC and Jinnah from AIML.
It marked the reunion of moderate and radical wings of the congress.
Most of the demands that was put by it was accepted by it in the GOI Act 1919.

Simon Commission

challenged Indian leaders to come out a solution to the constitutional question.

The Muslim communal leaders came out with the Delhi Proposal

Congress came out with the Nehru Report

Distraught with the Nehru Report, ==Jinnah came out with his Fourteen Points which became the basis of all communal propaganda in the future==.

By negotiating with the communal leaders ==congress legitimized their politics==. It also weakened their stance to carry out a hard political and ideological campaign against communalism.
The communal force joined hands with the reactionary element of the British ruling classes during the Round Table Conferences RTC.

After 1937

communalism started assuming a ==virulent, extremist and Fascist form== based on the politics of hatred, fear, psychosis and irrationality.
Acquired a popular base and began to mobilise popular mass opinion.
The ==youth during this phase was turning towards the left== thus as a response the Hindu - Muslim landlords, money lenders, jagirdars etc to save their interest turned towards Communalism.
WW II strengthened the reliance on the communal card. Muslim League was recognised as the sole spokesperson for Muslims and given veto to any political settlement.
interest of other Hindu and Sikh communalist were side lined.
1937 elections the ML and Hindu Mahasabha fared poorly and made them realise that they need to cater a more militant mass based politics.

MA Jinnah

Jinnah was a nationalist when he joined the Congress.

He bitterly opposed the formation of Muslim League in 1906 and called it as ‘dividing the nation against itself’.

He joined the League in 1913 after that his views took a communal term and he became a communal nationalist.

He got the congress to accept demands of Separate electorates and communal reservations.

left INC along with other liberal leaders in 1920 disagreeing with Gandhi’s mass based politics.

He was ==not willing to go into political oblivion so he turned towards Communal Politics==. This was his liberal communalist phase.

After 1937 his speeches became of hatred and venomous.

He ==called for the extermination of Hindus and INC as Fascists==. Emphasising Islam was in danger of extinction if Congress were to rule.

Nationalist Muslims like Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad were termed as show boys of the congress and maligned in speeches.

Hindu Communalists

Lala Lajpat Rai and MM Malviya were the 2 main liberal communal leaders.
MS Gowalkar and VD Savarkar of the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha were Hindu communalists. They wanted the Muslims to live as subordinates in a Hindu nation without privileges and civil rights.

Veer Damodar Savarkar

founded Mitra Mela in 1899, ‘Abhinav Bharat Society’ in Pune & ‘Free IN society’ in London.
- He founded the ‘Free India Society’ to celebrate important Indian dates in the calender viz festivals etc.
mem of Tilaks ‘Swaraj Party’ wrote ‘Indian war of Independence 1857’ was banned;
became Prez of Hindu Mahasabha cooperated w/ M.League to form gov in Sindh, Bengal and NWFP
was against foreign goods and participated in 1905 Swadeshi Movement
was an atheist, disapproved orthodox Hindu belief ex cow worship
worked for abolishing untouchability
President of Hindu Mahasabha 1937-1943
founded the 2 nation theory in his book Hindutva

Could Jinnah Have Been Reconciled?

Two major Controversies around the communal problem Jinnah could have been conciliated and a coalition could have been formed during 1937.
- Jinnah was already a full-fledged communalist by then
- Congress tried all possible efforts to negotiate with him
- Jinnah wanted the Congress to accept that it was Hindu body, which was unacceptable to congress
- Coalition was not possible for the left had threatened to launch a mass campaign if it was done so.

Failure of INC to Contain Communalism

The congress relied too heavily on negotiations with the communal leaders and failed to evolve a viable long term strategy to combat it.
Communal riots due to K movt erupted in Malabar
J Nehru + other leaders emphasised secularist view of IN

PYQs

Write a critical note on: “Gandhiji’s role in solving the communal problem.” [1981, 20m]

After 1937 communalism started assuming a virulent, extremist and Fascist

Gandhiji’s role in solving the communal problem can be viewed as both positive and negative. On one hand, Gandhiji was a strong advocate for Hindu-Muslim unity and he worked tirelessly to bring the two communities together. He advocated for a non-violent approach to resolving the communal problem and he organized several campaigns, such as the Non-Cooperation Movement, to promote Hindu-Muslim unity.

On the other hand, Gandhiji’s efforts to solve the communal problem were often criticized for being inadequate. Some argue that he failed to fully understand the deep-seated issues that were driving the communal problem, and that his focus on non-violence and non-cooperation was ineffective in addressing the problem. Additionally, many Muslim leaders felt that Gandhiji’s approach did not take into account their specific concerns and demands, which led to a growing sense of alienation among Muslims.

Analyze the circumstances, between 1942 and 1947, that led to freedom and partition of India. [1979, 60m]

The period between 1942 and 1947 saw the Indian independence movement reach its peak, leading to the eventual freedom and partition of India. This period was marked by a series of events, both political and social, that shaped the course of Indian history.

The period was marked by the rise of nationalist movements and the emergence of leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. The Indian National Congress, led by these two leaders, played a pivotal role in mobilizing the people of India and unifying them under a common cause. The Congress demanded complete independence from British rule and the establishment of a secular, democratic nation.

The Quit India Movement of 1942 was a major event during this period. Launched by Mahatma Gandhi, the movement called for the immediate withdrawal of British forces from India. The movement was met with a harsh response from the British, with thousands of protesters being arrested and imprisoned. Despite the crackdown, the movement was successful in spreading the message of independence across India.

In 1945, the British government announced its intention to grant India independence. This prompted the Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, to demand a separate homeland for Muslims in India. The League argued that Muslims would not be able to live in peace and harmony in an independent India. This demand led to the formation of the Muslim League in 1946, and the subsequent partition of India in 1947.

The period between 1942 and 1947 saw a number of other events that played a role in the eventual freedom and partition of India. The Royal Indian Navy Mutiny of 1946 was a major event that marked the beginning of the end of British rule in India. The mutiny was a result of the discontent among Indian sailors over discrimination and oppressive policies of the British.

The 1946 elections were also a major event of this period. The elections saw the Congress winning a majority of the seats, further strengthening its position as the leading political party in India. The election results also showed a clear divide between Hindus and Muslims, thus paving the way for the eventual partition of India.

“Please remember, in granting separate electorates, we are sowing dragon’s teeth the harvest will be bitter.” Comment. [1992, 2009, 20m]

India’s independence from British rule marked a momentous occasion in the country’s history, and brought with it a long-awaited sense of freedom and self-determination. However, the process of achieving independence was far from simple, and the struggle for self-rule was fraught with difficult decisions and compromises. One of the most contentious issues that had to be addressed was the question of separate electorates for different religious communities. This decision had the potential to either unite the country under a single, unified system of governance, or to further fracture it along religious lines.

The idea of separate electorates was first proposed in the early 20th century by Indian leaders such as Mohammad Ali Jinnah and B.R. Ambedkar. It was seen as a way of protecting the rights of minority communities, and ensuring that they had a voice in the political process. However, it was also seen as a way of further dividing the country along religious lines, and potentially creating a more divided and fragmented society.

The debate over separate electorates was a major issue during the negotiations for India’s independence. Ultimately, the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League agreed to the idea of separate electorates as a way of appeasing both sides. This decision was met with criticism from many, who warned that it could lead to further fragmentation and division in the country.

The phrase “sowing dragon’s teeth” is an apt metaphor for the decision to implement separate electorates. The phrase originates from Greek mythology, and refers to a story in which the warrior Cadmus sowed dragon’s teeth, which then sprouted into an army of warriors. In the context of India’s independence, the phrase can be seen as a warning that the decision to implement separate electorates could lead to further division and conflict in the country.

The implementation of separate electorates did indeed lead to further division in India. The decision was seen as a betrayal of the secular ideals of the Indian independence movement, and it further entrenched the idea of religious divisions in the country. The separate electorates also led to a weakening of the power of the Indian National Congress, as the Muslim League was able to gain more political power through the separate electorates.

“Both freedom and partition were the work of Indian middle classes.” Comment. [1998, 20m]

The Indian National Movement is often seen as a struggle of the Indian people against the British colonial rule. However, the role of the Indian middle classes in the struggle for independence and the eventual partition of India is often overlooked. The Indian middle classes played a crucial role in the Indian National Movement, both in the fight for freedom and in the eventual partition of India.

The Indian middle classes were the driving force behind the Indian National Movement. They had been educated in the Western education system and were exposed to the ideas of liberalism and democracy. This led them to become strong advocates of freedom and democracy and to challenge the British colonial rule. The Indian middle classes provided the leadership and organisation for the Indian National Movement. They formed numerous organisations such as the Indian National Congress and the All India Muslim League, which were instrumental in the struggle for freedom.

The Indian middle classes were also the main proponents of the idea of partition. The idea of partition was first proposed by the Muslim League in the 1940s. The League argued that the Muslims of India were a separate nation and should have their own state. This idea was supported by the Indian middle classes, who saw it as a way of ensuring that their own interests were protected. The Indian middle classes also played an important role in the negotiations that led to the partition of India.

They were also instrumental in the creation of the Indian Constitution. They were the main architects of the Constitution, which was based on the principles of democracy and freedom. This ensured that the rights and freedoms of the Indian people were protected, and that the country would remain a secular and democratic nation.

“I felt that if we did not accept partition, India would be split into many bits and would be ruined.” Comment. [2006, 20m]

“Please remember, in granting separate electorates we are sowing the dragon’s teeth and harvest will be bitter.” Comment. [2009, 20m]

Discuss as to why the congress accepted the partition of India in 1947. [2009, 30m]

The Congress party, led by leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru, accepted the partition of India in 1947 for several reasons.

Communal Tensions: India at the time was facing widespread communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims, which had been exacerbated by the demands of Muslim political leaders for a separate Muslim state. The Congress leaders believed that partition would be the best way to prevent further violence and communal clashes.
British Pressure: The British government, which was still in control of India at the time, had made it clear that it would grant independence to India only if a plan for partition was accepted. The Congress leaders felt that it was important to gain independence as soon as possible and saw partition as the only way to achieve this.
Lack of Alternative: The Congress leaders believed that partition was the only viable option left on the table. The Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, had made it clear that they would not accept any other solution, and the Congress leaders feared that if partition was not accepted, India would be plunged into a civil war.
Preservation of unity: Nehru and other leaders ultimately agreed to partition in order to prevent further violence and preserve India’s unity as much as possible.
Failure of Cabinet Mission Plan: Cabinet Mission Plan, proposed by the British government in 1946, was an attempt to keep India united with a decentralized government system. However, the plan failed to gain acceptance from both Congress and Muslim League, and the partition became the only available option.
Economic Factors: The Congress leaders also believed that partition would help to resolve economic problems caused by religious differences. The Muslim-majority areas in the northwest and east of the country had different economic structures and resources compared to Hindu-majority areas, and partition would allow each region to develop and manage its own resources more effectively.
Political Realism: Congress leaders such as Nehru and Sardar Patel recognized that the Muslim League, under Jinnah’s leadership, had significant support among India’s Muslim population and that it would be difficult to prevent the creation of a separate Muslim state.

“Why did the British finally quit India on 15th August 1947? The Imperialist answer is that independence was simply the fulfilment of British self-appointed mission to assist the Indian people to self-government.” Examine. [2014, 20m]

The statement is partially true. While it is true that the British government had long claimed that its mission in India was to help the Indian people achieve self-government, there were other factors that contributed to the decision to quit India on August 15, 1947.

Firstly, the statement highlights that the British had a self-appointed mission in India, that is, to assist the Indian people to self-government. This is not entirely true. The British government had long claimed that its mission in India was to help the Indian people achieve self-government, and indeed, over the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the British government implemented a series of political and economic reforms aimed at preparing India for self-government.

However, this mission was not entirely a self-appointed one. The demands for self-rule had been mounting in India for decades, led by figures such as Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. The British government was also facing increasing pressure from the international community to grant independence to India. The end of World War II had also weakened the British empire, and the government was facing financial and military constraints that made it difficult to maintain control over India.

Secondly, the statement implies that the British quit India on 15th August 1947 because they had completed their mission of assisting India to self-government. But this is not entirely accurate. The British quit India in 1947 because of a combination of factors. For example, the British government was facing increasing pressure from the international community to grant independence to India, as well as mounting domestic pressure from the Indian nationalist movement led by figures such as Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. Additionally, the end of World War II had weakened the British empire, and the government was facing financial and military constraints that made it difficult to maintain control over India.

Critically examine the turns and twists in the politics of partition in 1930’s and 1940’s. [2018, 20 Marks]

[Communal ideology believes that that people who follow same religion](onenote: [[Communalism]] %20and%20Politics%20of%20Partition&section-id={18C94A1F-03BF-42B0-AF70-3A5A6D981645}&page-id={8F486E88-D86C-4252-985D-B3AF48BEE81E}&object-id={6D3E47B3-624D-4E06-88DF-6996BE2DAEFA}&C&base-path= https://d.docs.live.net/bbc8be5bd337910c/Documents/History%20Optional/Modern%20History/Part%20II/Politics%20of%20Separatism.one )