ROLE OF MUHAMMAD ALI JINNAH IN

THE PARTION OF INDIA

NAME: SHREYASI KUNDU

CU REGISTRATION NUMBER: 013-1211-0034-20

CU ROLL NUMBER: 202013-11-0029

COLLEGE ROLL NUMBER: 20/BAH/0273

SUBJECT: HISTORY

PAPER: CC13
The partition of India is one of the most painful chapters in the history of modern India. Discussed
over a long period, the resolution was finally put into a concrete form at the Lahore Session of the
Muslim League in 1940. The partition of India has been called the largest migration in human
history, apart from wars and famines. Over 20 million people were displaced and up to 1 million
people lost their lives. Families were uprooted from the land they had inhabited for generations.
Starting in August 1947, people now had to make their way through hostile territory and cross
the new, arbitrarily drawn border into a completely unknown land. When the geographical
details of the newly drawn border arrived, law and order broke down. Large-scale looting and
massacres occurred based on religion. Women were raped and children killed. The partition thus
brought horrors that devastated the newly independent India.

HOW FAR WAS JINNAH RESPONSIBLE?

Previous studies have concentrated and put forward a view point where they held the Muslim
League's propagation of separatist politics amongst Muslim minorities in India, solely
responsible for the partition. Many historians emphasize that the determination and obstinacy of
Muhammad Ali Jinnah were primarily responsible for the disastrous partition. They believe that
if Jinnah had been liberal enough, partition could have been avoided.

However recent researches and re-evaluations show a different perspective. Historian Ayesha
Jalal addressed the dynamics of the Pakistan movement and Jinnah's role in her book, "The Sole
Spokesman". She argued that "Jinnah did not want Partition, in case people have forgotten
that... When the United Bengal plan was floated, Jinnah said it was better that Bengal remained
united." Referring to the Lahore Resolution, she further stated that Partition and Pakistan were
never mentioned. It was Jinnah's tactical move to put forward the idea of Pakistan and use it as a
bargaining chip to secure Muslim autonomy in a loose Indian federation. The ideal constitutional
arrangement Jinnah favored for India was a weak federal structure with a strong emphasis on
provincial autonomy and Hindu-Muslim parity at the center. His only optimism was that the
Congress would seek a strong unitary center and would thus eventually give in to his demand
and avoid his aggressive scheme of a Separate Muslim Nation, which he himself did not want.
But unfortunately, the Congress lacked imagination. Gandhi over-emphasized on Jinnah and the
Muslim League, while the latter's only hope was that Gandhi would never accept partition.
Therefore, when the Congress accepted the Partition Resolution and a separate Muslim state, it
was a great shock for Jinnah as well. Men like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad held to the last, saying
that the Muslim question was psychological rather than political. When Nehru made a plea for
partition rather than sharing power, Azad argued that the Congress should make some
concessions to keep the Muslims within India. But his arguments were brushed aside by the
leading members of the Congress at that time.
DEMAND FOR A SECOND PARTITION BY THE BHADRALOKS OF BENGAL

Professor Joya Chatterji, in her book "Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition,
1932-1947," argues from a different perspective. She focuses on the political and social processes
that led to the demand for partition in the Muslim-majority province of Bengal and traces the rise
of Hindu communalism. The most startling revelation in her book is that the demand for a
separate homeland was supported by a large and powerful section of Hindu society in Bengal. It
is generally assumed that partition was a consequence of the separatist politics of the Muslim
minorities, but in the case of Bengal, the Hindus developed a parallel separatism of their own. It
was not only the Indian National Congress who was willing to pay the price of partition to
strengthen its hold over a unitary India, but the Bengal Congress also successfully lobbied for the
partition of its province along communal lines. The United Bengal Plan is cited as evidence that
Bengalis actively fought against a second partition. But this version is far from the truth. In fact,
the plan for United Bengal did not find favour at home, the culture was used as a sign of
difference rather than as evidence of the region's traditional unity. The Bhadralok Bengalis, far
from agitating partition, actually fought for the it and asked for a separate homeland. Partition
was not imposed forcibly on Bengal by the Center but in contrast, the policymakers at the Centre
met a reciprocal dynamic for partition from Bengal.

IN THE GAME OF POLITICS, THE SUFFERERS WERE THE COMMON MASS

Sir Barney White-Spunner, in his book "Partition: The Story of Indian Independence and the
Creation of Pakistan in 1947, drew on recently accessible archives of oral histories to describe how
otherwise reasonable and humane people turned overnight into brutal murderers of their own
friends and neighbours. Not only did an estimated one million people die in this ethnic cleansing,
but many of them were hacked to pieces in a gruesome orgy of blood-lust. Thousands of men and
women were mutilated, their breasts and genitals cut off, pregnant women's stomachs cut open,
and brains of babies bashed out. Sir Barney spares us no details because his purpose is to remind
us of the human cost of the new lines so callously drawn on India's map by politicians and
bureaucrats.
REFERNCES:

▪ Herald. “Jinnah did not want partition: Ayesha Jalal”, Ali Usman Qasmi.
https://herald.dawn.com/news/1153717

▪ The Daily Star. “Was Jinnah the real villain in the story of partition?”, Muhammad Nurul
Huda. https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/straight-line/news/was-muhammad-ali-
jinnah-the-real-villain-the-story-partition-3038771

▪ THE WIRE. “New Book on Partition Takes a Critical Look at the Role of the Congress”,
Zareer Masani. https://thewire.in/books/new-book-partition-takes-critical-look-role-
congress

▪ Joya Chatterji. “Bengal divided: Hindu communalism and partition, 1932-1947",

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1994. p. 266.