Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kavindra History EE
Kavindra History EE
Research Question:
To what extent was Muhammad Ali Jinnah rather than
Jawaharlal Nehru responsible for the partition of India in 1947?
International Baccalaureate: Diploma Program
Session: May/June 2020
Word Count: 3848
The conference in New Delhi, where Lord Mountbatten revealed Britain's plan for the
Partition of India, to Jawaharlal Nehru and Muhammad Ali Jinnah1.
1
Daniel, Vaihayasi Pande. “'Nehru Was as Much to Blame as Jinnah for Partition'.” Rediff, Rediff.com, 29Jan.
2008, www.rediff.com/news/interview/nehru-was-as-much-to-blame-as-jinnah-for-partition/20150813.htm.
1
Table of Contents
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..3
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………….15
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………….16
2
Introduction
The most significant change in the Indian subcontinent post World War II was the Independence
of India from British colonial rule and the subsequent Partition of the country into two, namely
India and Pakistan. “Freedom came, but with it partition.2” Although the demand for
independence from British rule was unanimous throughout the subcontinent, the partition of the
country into two was not a consistent decision. While many favored it on religious grounds,
others wanted India to stay united as it had before the advent of the British. Ultimately the
country was divided into two parts - India and Pakistan, due to the rising tensions between the
two communities, namely the Hindus and the Muslims and the leaders of the respective groups.
However, post-independence and also currently, the tensions have never ceased showing that
partition has not been a solution. India and Pakistan continue to remain foes with four wars being
fought post-independence. Even in recent times, due to military and militant activities, there have
been conflicts. This has made me research the history and reasons behind the creation of the two
countries. On analyzing this, I realize that modern Indian history is a history of personalities.
Many strong characters played an essential role in the partition. Prominent among them are
leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru3and Mohammed Ali Jinnah4. Mohammed Ali Jinnah was
initially secular, but with time started to feel that the Muslim minorities were being
overshadowed. This, along with the fact that he rose in status as a leader for all the Muslims of
the subcontinent, made him think on the lines of a separate nation for the Muslims. His role in
the partition is paramount and stark. Nehru remained a secular leader throughout his life.
However, with time the clashes between the Muslim leaders, especially Jinnah and secular
2
Mahajan, Sucheta. Independence And Partition The Erosion Of Colonial Power In India. Sage Publications, 2000,
p. 392.
3
The first Prime Minister of Free India
4
The first Governor General of Free Pakistan
3
leaders such as himself, became so unbearable leading to stalemates in all discussions of national
importance. This finally drove Nehru to accede to the idea of partition in the end. Other factors
amply assisted both these leaders, foremost among them, were the vested interests of the British.
I want to study and analyze the pre-partition years and understand the circumstances as well as
factors and decisions taken by these two leaders during the time of partition. This led to the
question: To what extent was Muhammad Ali Jinnah rather than Nehru responsible for the
This research topic is worthy of investigation as the partition of India displaced about 12 million
people and caused the death of about 2 million people. It has also led to the deep hostility
To finally reach a question that piqued my interest, an extensive research task was undertaken. I
consulted books like Jinnah: India-Partition Independence by Jaswant Singh, India: From Curzon
To Nehru & After by Durga Das, Sardar Patel and Partition Of India by Neha Arora, Partition of
India A Cold War Strategy by T.L. Sharma, Jinnah and Gandhi: Their Role in India’s Quest for
freedom by S.K Majumdar, Oxford India Short Introductions: Partition of India by Haimanth
Roy and From Naoroji to Nehru: Glimpses of the freedom Movement By N.G.Rajurkar. All
these books offered me various and insightful perspectives, stages of planning, and also an in-
depth analysis of the events that unfolded so that I gained a holistic view. Apart from these, I
browsed books like Freedom at Midnight by Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins, Mohammed
Ali Jinnah- An Ambassador of Unity His Speeches and Writings 1912-1917 and Independence
and Partition - The erosion of colonial power in India by Sucheta Mahajan to get a broad picture.
4
I also read some online newspaper articles from “The Dawn”, Pakistan’s oldest English
newspaper to get to their side of the story too. The information from the “Dawn” newspaper gave
a further more detailed interpretation on who had more impact on the process of partitioning
India. Furthermore, I read a memoir called Mohammed Ali Jinnah- An Ambassador of Unity His
Speeches and Writings 1912- 1917. This gave me insight into Jinnah’s personal views and
showed me how he wanted his motives and actions to be viewed by the public.
The Indian National Congress [INC], which spearheaded the Indian freedom movement from
1885, was a secular force, which believed that Hindus and Muslims could live in harmony.
Initially, even Jinnah was a member of the INC. Later, he also joined the All India Muslim
League [Muslim League] while continuing to have nationalistic ideals. However, in later years,
especially after the early 1920s, fearing oppression from the Hindu majority and prejudice, the
Muslim League desired to divide the land and form their own “Muslim” country. The British
found this to their strategic advantage as they already believed in this policy of ‘Divide and
Rule’5. In the end, all three major groups, namely the British, INC, and the Muslim League,
agreed to the partition for their own aims and intentions. During the partition period, Nehru was
the president of the INC and an influential leader, while Jinnah was also the president of the
Muslim League and even more prominent as a recognized “head” of Muslims in the Indian
subcontinent. Therefore, both played important roles. This essay will focus on the clash of
ideologies and the essential parts of Nehru and Jinnah in the partition game. The period of study
would be from the 1920s until 1947, the year of independence. It was vital for me to analyze
events in chronological sequence to understand how events and happenings unfolded, leading to
the partition.
5
Policy of dividing people into factions based on religion in this instance
5
Jinnah’s political life began along with his legal practice in Bombay High court in 1904. At that
point, Jinnah was part and parcel of the Indian National Congress (INC), and nationalism, as well
as Hindu-Muslim unity, was a significant priority for him. In 1904 when he participated in a
Congress reception committee, his ideology was one that “refused to be drawn into any
controversy over the issue of forming a separate political body for the Muslims6”. Even after the
formation of the Muslim League of which he became a member, he attended their meetings as a
loyal member of the Congress party; his Muslim stand “would in no way imply disloyalty to the
national cause to which he [Jinnah] had surrendered himself to 7”. “In 1913, Jinnah formally
joined the All India Muslim League8”. By the year 1914, Jinnah’s role as a freedom fighter and a
leader had been solidified. In December 1916, Jinnah became president of the Muslim League.
In this same year, Mahatma Gandhi returned from South Africa to continue the struggle against
In 1920, Gandhi proposed a resolution of non-cooperation, which was later passed. Gandhi also
became president of the Home Rule League9. This marked the beginning of a clash of ideologies
between Gandhi and Jinnah. That same year in the thirty-fifth session of the INC at Nagpur, the
Congress confirmed a changed creed to Home Rule. However, Jinnah was the only one to
dissent.” His objection to the creed centered on the lack of clarity on the issue of ‘Swaraj’10, as to
what it meant. As to non-cooperation being a weapon for attaining Swaraj, he found it not only
6
Singh, Jaswant. Jinnah: India-Partition, Independence. Rupa, 2012, p. 75.
7
Singh, Jaswant. Jinnah: India-Partition, Independence. Rupa, 2012, p. 76.
8
Jinnah, Mohammed Ali, and Sarojini Naidu. Mohammed Ali Jinnah- An Ambassador Of Unity His Speeches And
Writings 1912-1917. Atish Fishan Publications, 1989, p. 11.
9
A movement created to establish self-government for India within the British colonial structure
10
Self-rule
6
practically unsound but also illogical 11 ”. It is said that his priorities on Hindu-Muslim unity
changed after that when he refused to follow Gandhi’s footsteps.” Jinnah’s most significant fault
was his obsessive egoism. 12 ”After the 1921 annual session of the INC under Gandhi’s
leadership, Jinnah even quit the INC. “Everyone had to sit on the ground. People wore
khadi…Jinnah was also present…where he was attending for the last time. He was the only
individual to be seen in foreign clothes, complete with collar, tie...13” The early 1920s saw petty
issues and differences arise between the Hindus and Muslims; this included many communal
movements in the sub-continent. “From 1923 onwards, India then witnessed a series of
communal riots that further vitiated the political atmosphere. 14 ” By 1927, the relationship
between the INC and the Muslim League turned sour as a result of all these developments. What
irked Jinnah the most was when he was not included in 1932, third round table conference 15.
“Once he separated in ideology from INC and took up a communal platform, he did not stop
until he became the undisputed communal head of the Muslims.16” “In the provincial elections of
1937, the Congress emerged victorious in the Hindu-majority provinces. However, the League
did not win even Muslim-majority provinces except for those who were former Congressmen.
Jinnah expected the INC to form a coalition with the League… thereby giving his party a
national stature. When the Congress wanted the League to acknowledge the Congress platform,
Jinnah’s couldn’t accept it and started accusing the Congress as being overtly oppressive
Hindus17”. This event was the turning point in Jinnah’s beliefs and his ideals. From this point,
Jinnah was against the INC’s apparent despotism and went on “to gather evidence of
11
Singh, Jaswant. Jinnah: India-Partition, Independence. Rupa, 2012, p. 91.
12
Rajurkar, N.G. From Naoroji To Nehru: Glimpses Of The Freedom Movement. p. 113.
13
Singh, Jaswant. Jinnah: India-Partition, Independence. Rupa, 2012, p. 91.
14
Singh, Jaswant. Jinnah: India-Partition, Independence. Rupa, 2012, p. 119.
15
One of many peace conferences held between the British and INC
16
Rajurkar, N.G. From Naoroji To Nehru: Glimpses Of The Freedom Movement. p. 113.
17
Das, Durga. India From Curzon To Nehru & After. Rupa & Co., 2004, p. 191.
7
wrongdoings on the Muslims in the Muslim majority province of Uttar Pradesh which was under
Congress rule.18” A report was eventually produced due to Jinnah’s efforts, which was useful to
all who wanted to scold the INC for their “oppressive Hindu tyranny”. From then, there was no
On the other hand, Jawaharlal Nehru’s role in Indian politics pre-independence increased after
his meeting with Gandhi, whom he met for the first time in 1916. He, too, like Jinnah, was
educated in the western world and stood for Hindu-Muslim unity. “Stories of atrocities
committed by British troops made Nehru turn into an anti-British authority in India.19” Young
Nehru greatly inspired by Gandhi, worked closely with him after 1916 and was able to appreciate
his political insight, fearlessness, and wisdom. Gandhi, in-turn, admired Nehru’s vision
concerning the future and his modern political vision. He saw the makings of a great leader in
Nehru, and despite some conflicts, this mutual respect continued till the end. Gandhi’s ideas and
that of Jinnah started clashing in the 1920s when Jinnah criticized the former for his lack of
clarity in formulating Self-rule or Home Rule. Nehru, who was considered as a disciple of
Gandhi, started to look at Jinnah as a troublemaker from around this time. Nehru’s status rose in
the coming years, and he eventually became the president of the INC in 1929 demanding ‘Poorna
Swaraj’20. By the mid-1930s, communal differences were very stark and the INC under Nehru
presenting itself as a secular body and having many Muslim members tried to portray an image
of solidarity. The Muslim League under Jinnah’s leadership, by then, identified itself as the sole
keeper of Muslim interests and tried to portray the INC as a Hindu majority body. Nehru disliked
such a portrayal, as it would rival his stand and ideal as a secular leader. Because of this, Nehru
18
Das, Durga. India From Curzon To Nehru & After. Rupa & Co., 2004, p. 192.
19
Rajurkar, N.G. From Naoroji To Nehru: Glimpses Of The Freedom Movement. p. 71.
20
Complete Independence
8
openly favored and preferred to consider Maulana Azad, another member of the INC, as the head
of Muslims, which angered Jinnah. As the Muslim League and Jinnah became inseparable,
Nehru’s differences with Jinnah lead him to ignore the Muslim league as well. This became
Nehru’s biggest flaw as he took his differences very seriously, and it also reflected in all issues
concerning the League.“…the Congress High Command’s refusal to acknowledge the League’s
demands as politically credible would be the turning point on which the road to independence
would also veer towards Pakistan and Partition.21” Nehru felt that the INC was quite capable of
taking care of the interests of both communal groups as they had notable Muslim leaders in their
midst too. What he failed to take seriously was the fact that he was provoking Jinnah by
everything he did against the Muslim League. Jinnah, once he became stronger in later years,
would hit back at Nehru with more force than Nehru expected. In the 1937 Provincial elections,
the INC had sweeping victories in all regions except in the northeast province of Uttar Pradesh
and the western province of Bombay. “…however, he tried to make his presence felt in UP and
Bombay by putting forth the idea of a ‘United Front’.22” Nehru by then had declared that the
only two parties that mattered in India were the British colonial authorities and the INC.
two Muslim league members in the newly formed UP government was what angered Jinnah the
most…24”. “… this unwise move on the part of Nehru of which Mr. Jinnah took full advantage
…and started an aggressive movement which led to the creation of Pakistan.”25 “Whatever the
reason, politically it was unwise not to include the Muslim league nominees in the Ministry…26”.
21
Roy, Haimanti. Oxford India Short Introductions: Partition Of India. Oxford, 2018, p. 19.
22
Rajurkar, N.G. From Naoroji To Nehru: Glimpses Of The Freedom Movement. p. 116.
23
A writer who was very critical of Congress’ action in 1937
24
Rajurkar, N.G. From Naoroji To Nehru: Glimpses Of The Freedom Movement. p. 116.
25
Rajurkar, N.G. From Naoroji To Nehru: Glimpses Of The Freedom Movement. p. 117.
26
"Jinnah, Nehru And Partition". DAWN.COM, 2009, https://www.dawn.com/news/881269/jinnah-nehru-and-
partition. Accessed 19 Dec 2019.
9
After this episode, Jinnah took it upon himself to criticize every move of the Congress and to call
them as Hindu oppressors. “From 1937 onwards…Jinnah was completely occupied with
slandering the Congress Ministries regarding ill-treatment of the Muslims and also rousing their
religious sentiments in all ways possible. 27 ” By now, Jinnah’s enmity with Nehru and the
Congress was at its peak. Nehru, too allowed this enmity to fog his vision and seemed to
disagree with any plans, which gave equal representation between INC and Muslim league after
that. Many historians feel that because of Nehru’s insensitivity towards Jinnah, separatist
tendencies in Jinnah were instigated. By then, Jinnah was a formidable figure who couldn’t be
pushed to the shadows. Had Nehru placed Nationalism above personality clashes, Partition may
have been avoided is one argument. Until 1946 all talks between Nehru and Jinnah ended in a
stalemate. Nehru finally agreed to only the second Cabinet Mission plan of 1946. “… the plan
proposed that India be divided into two independent countries, one Muslim majority, and the
other Hindu majority. Nehru agreed to this.28” “Without mincing his words, Nehru said he had
“no doubt” in his mind “that this is the right course.” Yet he did not hide his grief because “for
generations, we have dreamt and struggled for a free and independent united India 29” Nehru and
Jinnah had finally brought it to that end. Another argument is that the INC and Nehru were
finding it very hard to deal with criticisms at every front from Jinnah, who, with British support,
27
Rajurkar, N.G. From Naoroji To Nehru: Glimpses Of The Freedom Movement. p. 120.
28
Singh, Harbir. "The Bitter Truth Is That Nehru Was Right To Choose Partition". Swarajyamag.Com, 2018,
https://swarajyamag.com/politics/the-bitter-truth-is-that-nehru-was-right-to-choose-partition. Accessed 24 Nov
2019.
29
Mukhopadhyay, Nilanjan. "Past Continuous: Those Who Think Nehru Was Power Hungry Should Review Events
Leading To Independence". The Wire, 2017, https://thewire.in/history/past-continuous-nehru-independence.
Accessed 28 Dec 2019.
10
Besides Nehru and Jinnah, other factors include the British/Western interests and the partition
mentality of the people themselves. The British had always taken advantage of the many
differences in Indian society, especially with regard to the community. They took sides for their
strength and played politics so that they could always have the upper hand at governance. “The
British policy in India was pro-Hindu and anti-Muslim almost up to 1870…The British however
brought about a change in their policy after the Great revolt in 1857... They realised that it was
easier to have the minority community on their side, as the people …would have feelings of
insecurity which the rulers could take advantage of.30” When it became apparent at a point that
the country was heading towards independence, the British thought it would suit their interests if
the country remained partitioned in the backdrop of the cold war. They added fuel to the fire in
the battle between Nehru (INC) and Jinnah (Muslim League). The last three Viceroys of India,
namely Lord Linlithgow, Lord Wavell, and Lord Mountbatten, all played up to this strategy. All
the Indian leaders were quite aware of western intentions. “But Jinnah was a nationalist at heart...
He was offended when the Congress elected a Muslim leader - Azad as its President… in order
to give an alternate leader to the Muslims of the subcontinent… If only Gandhi would
acknowledge me, the separatist plans of the colonial powers could be foiled .31” This exactly
happened in 1940 when Nehru demanded independence after WW2; if India was to help in the
war efforts, Linlithgow conspired with Jinnah and gave him a constitutional right, namely a veto,
to oppose proposals made by the law-making body namely the INC. Linlithgow thereby created
an elevated status for Jinnah by treating him as a representative of all Muslims in the country,
well aware of his enmity with Nehru. This had two advantages to the British – one, to buy time
till the war gets over and two, to create divisions between the two main political groups creating
30
Rajurkar, N.G. From Naoroji To Nehru: Glimpses Of The Freedom Movement. p. 107.
31
Das, Durga. India From Curzon To Nehru & After. Rupa & Co., 2004, p. 194.
11
partition mentality. “But it had the effect of pointing to partition.32”. “In 1940, Jinnah called for
the creation of an independent state … in which Muslims could live away from Hindus. This, he
argued, would bring stability to the nation and end any potential for religious violence. Jinnah
supported the British in World War Two, whereas Congress failed to form any form of
collaboration.33” “Soon after Jinnah articulated the idea of Pakistan in the Lahore Resolution of
1940, the British endorsed the essence of it, thereby pushing the idea further into the realm of
reality.34”
When Gandhi started the ‘quit India movement’ in 1942, Jinnah countered it with a ‘Divide and
quit’ movement as he had no faith that the country would be divided once the British left.
Although Wavell tried to maintain the geographic Unity of the country, he did not understand the
political undercurrents between Nehru, Jinnah, and the Churchill government in England.
Around the same time, Churchill strategically was able to offer to Jinnah - ‘Pakistan on a platter’.
“Pakistan was expected to give them a foothold in the sub-continent35”. Mountbatten came with
a clear intention of giving India its independence but at the cost of partition. By 1946, the INC
under Nehru had formulated a very fair cabinet share for the Muslim league so that the country
could stay unified after independence. Jinnah, by then, was not going to be moved from his
stand. “There was no argument that could move him from his consuming determination to realize
the impossible dream of Pakistan.36” In the end, Nehru, too, hungry for independence and happy
32
Das, Durga. India From Curzon To Nehru & After. Rupa & Co., 2004, p. 253.
33
"Muhammed Jinnah". Historylearningsite.Co.Uk, 2015, https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-
history-1918-to-1980/india-1900-to-1947/muhammed-jinnah/. Accessed 17 Jan 2020.
34
Sudarshan, V. "Congress And Partition". The Hindu, 2019, https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/congress-
and-partition/article30270109.ece. Accessed 6 Jan 2020.
35
Das, Durga. India From Curzon To Nehru & After. Rupa & Co., 2004, p. 255.
36
S. Ahmed, Akbar. Jinnah, Pakistan And Islamic Identity: The Search For Saladin. Taylor And
Francis, 2012, p. 129
12
to get rid of Jinnah and his opposition, accepted the division of the country as proposed by
Mountbatten. “The plan for partition offered a way out, and we took it. We expected that
partition would be temporary, that Pakistan was bound to come back to us37”. “Vallabhai Patel38
and Nehru, accept partition on the understanding that by conceding Pakistan to Jinnah, they will
have no more of him and eliminate his nuisance value or, as Nehru put it privately, that by
Another factor considered is the people of the country. The leaders are ultimately only a
reflection of the people they head. Communal and religious clashes played the most prominent
role in the partition. The people demonstrated time and again through riots that Hindus and
Muslims could not stay united. The separation thus became inevitable. In Gandhi’s words, “The
British are not responsible for the partition…the Viceroy is as opposed to division as Congress
itself, but if both the Hindus and Moslems - cannot agree on anything else, then the Viceroy is
While there can be many reasons for the Partition, it is evident that two leaders, namely Jinnah
and Nehru, played a key role. From the early 1920s up to 1937, one can see how events led to a
partition mind-set between the two. There were lots of differences also between the two. Jinnah
disliked Gandhi and failed to see the greatness in him, while Gandhi greatly enamoured Nehru.
This itself placed them in different camps. Jinnah considered himself as a senior and equal only
37
Sharma, T.L. Partition Of India A Cold War Strategy. Delhi : B.R. Publishing Corporation, 2017, p. 46.
38
A senior most leader in INC during partition who gave up prime ministership to Nehru
39
Majumdar, S K. Jinnah And Gandhi: Their Role In India’S Quest For Freedom. Calcutta, K.L. Mukhopadhyay,
1966., 1966, p. 235.
40
Majumdar, S K. Jinnah And Gandhi: Their Role In India’S Quest For Freedom. Calcutta, K.L. Mukhopadhyay,
1966., 1966, p. 237.
13
to Gandhi. Nehru, due to his dislike for Jinnah, considered Maulana Azad as a leader of the
Muslims while not even considering The Muslim League as a party of importance. Had Jinnah
joined hands with Gandhi at the beginning itself, partition could have been avoided. Also, if
Nehru had embraced Jinnah by including two members from the League in the 1937 elections,
the partition psychology could have been avoided. Even in 1940, when Jinnah wanted Nehru and
the INC to accept him as the sole representative of the Muslims, he was ignored. So it was a
power/ego struggle between the two. The British played to this advantage, and when they offered
partition, Jinnah was too happy to accept it. At a point, Gandhi even suggested that Jinnah should
remain the leader of unified India to keep India united. The fight between Nehru and Jinnah was
everlasting, and it seemed the partition was inevitable “as neither Nehru nor Jinnah could ever
agree to take a step back in the newly formed government; partition became inevitable, he
said.41” However, before the partition, Nehru tried to give a fair representation to the Muslim
League. This after thought on the part of Nehru fell on Jinnah’s deaf years, as he preferred by
Conclusion
The primary responsibility of the partition of India is attributed to Jinnah, Nehru, and the British.
Although the goals of the three had various origins, the result was the same and shared by all. So,
in terms of responsibility, my research question -to what extent was Muhammad Ali Jinnah
rather than Nehru responsible for the partition of India in 1947, despite situations and
circumstances, Jinnah’s role in the partition was much more significant. When one analyzes the
41
Das, Durga. India From Curzon To Nehru & After. Rupa & Co., 2004, p. 193.
14
situation, it seems as though Jinnah’s obstacles and struggle for face gave rise to the Muslim
separatist mentality. It can also be seen that the barriers he overcame led to a change in his
ideals. Jinnah was initially a nationalist at heart who was always side-lined, which ultimately led
On the other hand, Nehru continuously put his beliefs and trust in Gandhi. Gandhi wasn’t for the
partition and even claimed that it would only take place over his dead body. In the end the
leaders of the National Congress and the Muslim League did not take into account the judgment
of Gandhi. By then the enmity and ego clashes had gone past a limit of not recovering ever. In a
unified country power had to be shared between the two leaders and this was not preferred by
both. Nehru main goal was Independence and if he achieved it at the cost of partition, he was for
it. In a way he was happy to get Jinnah out of the way. By partitioning the country, Jinnah gained
added stature among “His Men”, as “partition” had always been an ideological goal of the
Muslim League, although not supported by Jinnah initially. He became an immortal of sorts by
completing this mission in the end. Jinnah had more to gain, as he would have an independent
and free hand in Independent Pakistan. He was therefore more directly responsible for the
partition amply assisted by other factors including Nehru and the British.
15
Bibliography:
Scholarly Books:
• Das, Durga. India from Curzon to Nehru & After. Rupa & Co., 2004.
• Gautier, François. A History Of India As It Happened: Not As It Has Been Written. Har-
• Mahajan, Sucheta. Independence and Partition the Erosion of Colonial Power in India.
• Majumdar, S K. Jinnah And Gandhi: Their Role In India’S Quest For Freedom. Calcutta,
• Naidu, Sarojini, and Mohomed Ali Jinnah. Mohomed Ali Jinnah, an Ambassador of
16
• S. Ahmed, Akbar. Jinnah, Pakistan And Islamic Identity: The Search For Saladin. Taylor
2017.
Newspaper articles:
Memoirs:
• Jinnah, Mohammed Ali, and Sarojini Naidu. Mohammed Ali Jinnah- An Ambassador Of
Unity His Speeches And Writings 1912-1917. Atish Fishan Publications, 1989.
E-sources:
• Ali Jinnah, Muhammad. "Jinnah On Partition - The National Archives". The National
17
• Balakrishnan, Uday. "Who’S Responsible For India’S Partition?". @Businessline, 2018,
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/uday-balakrishnan/whos-
• Cheeran, John. "Who Divided India? Jinnah Or Nehru?". Times Of India Blog, 2020,
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/Arrackistan/who-divided-india-jinnah-or-
• Dalymple, William. "The Great Divide: The Violent Legacy Of Indian Partition, By
https://www.theculturediary.com/stories/great-divide-violent-legacy-indian-partition-
• Daniel, VaihayasiPande. “'Nehru Was as Much to Blame as Jinnah for Partition'.” Rediff,
blame-as-jinnah-for-partition/20150813.htm.
congress-who-partitioned-india-in-bjp-book-of-history-1627030-2019-12-10. Accessed 2
Jan 2020.
18
• Ketchell, Misha. "How The Partition Of India Happened – And Why Its Effects Are Still
https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/india-1900-
• Mukhopadhyay, Nilanjan. "Past Continuous: Those Who Think Nehru Was Power
• Nayyar, Sanjeev. "So Who Was Really Responsible For Partition?". Rediff, 2009,
https://www.rediff.com/news/column/so-who-was-really-responsible-for-
19
• Sharma, Kavita. "Role Of Jinnah In Partition Of India- Pakistan". Neliti.Com, 2020,
https://www.neliti.com/publications/263018/role-of-jinnah-in-partition-of-india-pakistan.
• Singh, Harbir. "The Bitter Truth Is That Nehru Was Right To Choose
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/congress-and partition/article30270109.ece.
• Tunzelmann, Alex Von. "Opinion | Who Is To Blame For Partition? Above All, Imperial
20