Partition of India - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

9/19/2015 Partition of India Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Partition of India
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Partition of India was the partition of the British Indian Empire[1] that led to the creation of the
sovereign states of the Dominion of Pakistan (it later split into Pakistan and Bangladesh) and the Union
of India (later Republic of India) on 15 August 1947. "Partition" here refers not only to the division of
the Bengal province of British India into East Pakistan and West Bengal (India), and the similar partition
of the Punjab Province into Punjab (West Pakistan) and Punjab, India, but also to the respective
divisions of other assets, including the British Indian Army, the Indian Civil Service and other
administrative services, the railways, and the central treasury.
In the riots which preceded the partition in the Punjab region, between 200,000 and 500,000 people were
killed in the retributive genocide between the religions.[2][3] UNHCR estimates 14 million Hindus, Sikhs
and Muslims were displaced during the partition; it was the largest mass migration in human
history.[4][5][6]
The secession of Bangladesh from Pakistan in 1971 is not covered by the term Partition of India, nor is
the earlier separation of Burma (now known as Myanmar) from the administration of British India, or
the even earlier separation of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka).The Coastal area of Ceylon was part of the
Madras Presidency of British India from 1795 until 1798 when it became a separate Crown Colony of
the Empire. Burma, gradually annexed by the British during 1826–86 and governed as a part of the
British Indian administration until 1937, was directly administered thereafter.[7] Burma was granted
independence on 4 January 1948 and Ceylon on 4 February 1948. (See History of Sri Lanka and History
of Burma.)
Bhutan, Nepal and the Maldives, the remaining countries of presentday South Asia, were unaffected by
the partition. The first two, Nepal and Bhutan, having signed treaties with the British designating them
as independent states, were never a part of the British Indian Empire, and therefore their borders were
unaffected by the partition of India.[8] The Maldives, which had become a protectorate of the British
crown in 1887 and gained its independence in 1965, was also unaffected by the partition.
Contents
1 Background
1.1 Partition of Bengal (1905)
1.2 World War I, Lucknow Pact: 1914–1918
1.3 Montague–Chelmsford Reforms: 1919
1.4 Two nation theory
1.5 Muslim homeland, provincial elections, World War II, Lahore resolution: 1930–1945
1.6 Cabinet Mission, Direct Action Day, Plan for Partition, Independence 1946–1947
2 Geographic partition, 1947
2.1 Mountbatten Plan
2.2 Radcliffe Line
3 Independence, population transfer, and violence
3.1 Punjab
3.2 Bengal
3.3 Sindh
4 Resettlement of refugees in India: 1947–1957
5 Resettlement of refugees in Pakistan: 1947–1957
6 Rehabilitation of women
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India 1/25
6 Rehabilitation of women
7 Perspectives
8 Artistic depictions of the Partition
9 See also
10 Notes
11 Further reading
12 External links
Background
Partition of Bengal (1905)
1909 Percentage of Hindus. 1909 Percentage of Muslims. 1909 Percentage of Sikhs,

Buddhists and Jains.
In 1905, the viceroy, Lord Curzon, who was considered by some to be both brilliant and indefatigable,
and who in his first term had built an impressive record of archaeological preservation and
administrative efficiency, now, in his second term, divided the largest administrative subdivision in
British India, the Bengal Presidency, into the Muslimmajority province of East Bengal and Assam and
the Hindumajority province of Bengal (presentday Indian states of West Bengal, Bihār, Jharkhand and
Odisha).[9] Curzon's act, the Partition of Bengal—which some considered administratively felicitous,
and, which had been contemplated by various colonial administrations since the time of Lord William
Bentinck, but never acted upon—was to transform nationalist politics as nothing else before it.[9] The
Hindu elite of Bengal, among them many who owned land in East Bengal that was leased out to Muslim
peasants, protested fervidly. The large Bengali Hindu middleclass (the Bhadralok), upset at the prospect
of Bengalis being outnumbered in the new Bengal province by Biharis and Oriyas, felt that Curzon's act
was punishment for their political assertiveness.[9] The pervasive protests against Curzon's decision took
the form predominantly of the Swadeshi ("buy Indian") campaign led by twotime Congress president,
Surendranath Banerjee, and involved boycott of British goods. Sporadically—but flagrantly—the
protesters also took to political violence that involved attacks on civilians.[10] The violence, however,
was not effective, most planned attacks were either preempted by the British or failed.[11] The rallying
cry for both types of protest was the slogan Bande Mataram (Bengali, lit: "Hail to the Mother"), the title
of a song by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, which invoked a mother goddess, who stood variously for
Bengal, India, and the Hindu goddess Kali.[12] The unrest spread from Calcutta to the surrounding
regions of Bengal when Calcutta's Englisheducated students returned home to their villages and
towns.[13] The religious stirrings of the slogan and the political outrage over the partition were combined
as young men, in groups such as Jugantar, took to bombing public buildings, staging armed robberies,[11]
and assassinating British officials.[12] Since Calcutta was the imperial capital, both the outrage and the
slogan soon became nationally known.[12]
The overwhelming, but predominantly Hindu, protest against the partition of Bengal and the fear, in its
wake, of reforms favouring the Hindu majority, now led the Muslim elite in India, in 1906, to meet with
the new viceroy, Lord Minto, and to ask for separate electorates for Muslims. In conjunction, they
demanded proportional legislative representation reflecting both their status as former rulers and their
record of cooperating with the British. This led, in December 1906, to the founding of the AllIndia
Muslim League in Dacca. Although Curzon, by now, had resigned his position over a dispute with his
military chief Lord Kitchener and returned to England, the League was in favour of his partition plan.
The Muslim elite's position, which was reflected in the League's position, had crystallized gradually over
the previous three decades, beginning with the 1871 Census of British India, which had first estimated
the populations in regions of Muslim majority.[14] (For his part, Curzon's desire to court the Muslims of
East Bengal had arisen from British anxieties ever since the 1871 census—and in light of the history of
Muslims fighting them in the 1857 Mutiny and the Second AngloAfghan War—about Indian Muslims
rebelling against the Crown.[14]) In the three decades since that census, Muslim leaders across northern
India, had intermittently experienced public animosity from some of the new Hindu political and social
groups.[14] The Arya Samaj, for example, had not only supported Cow Protection Societies in their
agitation,[15] but also—distraught at the 1871 Census's Muslim numbers—organized "reconversion"
events for the purpose of welcoming Muslims back to the Hindu fold.[14] In UP, Muslim became anxious
when, in the late 19th century, political representation increased, giving more power to Hindus, and
Hindus were politically mobilized in the HindiUrdu controversy and the anticowkilling riots of
1893.[16] In 1905, when Tilak and Lajpat Rai attempted to rise to leadership positions in the Congress,
and the Congress itself rallied around symbolism of Kali, Muslim fears increased.[14] It was not lost on
many Muslims, for example, that the rallying cry, "Bande Mataram," had first appeared in the novel
Anand Math in which Hindus had battled their Muslim oppressors.[17] Lastly, the Muslim elite, and
among it Dacca Nawab, Khwaja Salimullah, who hosted the League's first meeting in his mansion in
Shahbag, was aware that a new province with a Muslim majority would directly benefit Muslims
aspiring to political power.[17]
World War I, Lucknow Pact: 1914–1918
Indian medical orderlies Mohandas Karamchand Muhammad Ali Jinnah,

attending to wounded Gandhi (seated in carriage, seated, third from the left,
soldiers with the on the right, eyes downcast, was a supporter of the
Mesopotamian Expeditionary with black flattop hat) Lucknow Pact, which, in
Force in Mesopotamia during receives a big welcome in 1916, ended the threeway
World War I. Karachi in 1916 after his rift between the Extremists,

return to India from South the Moderates and the
Africa. League.
World War I would prove to be a watershed in the imperial relationship between Britain and India. 1.4
million Indian and British soldiers of the British Indian Army would take part in the war and their
participation would have a wider cultural fallout: news of Indian soldiers fighting and dying with British
soldiers, as well as soldiers from dominions like Canada and Australia, would travel to distant corners of
the world both in newsprint and by the new medium of the radio.[18] India's international profile would
thereby rise and would continue to rise during the 1920s.[18] It was to lead, among other things, to India,
under its own name, becoming a founding member of the League of Nations in 1920 and participating,
under the name, "Les Indes Anglaises" (British India), in the 1920 Summer Olympics in Antwerp.[19]
Back in India, especially among the leaders of the Indian National Congress, it would lead to calls for
greater selfgovernment for Indians.[18]
The 1916 Lucknow Session of the Congress was also the venue of an unanticipated mutual effort by the
Congress and the Muslim League, the occasion for which was provided by the wartime partnership
between Germany and Turkey. Since the Turkish Sultan, or Khalifah, had also sporadically claimed
guardianship of the Islamic holy sites of Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem, and since the British and their
allies were now in conflict with Turkey, doubts began to increase among some Indian Muslims about the
"religious neutrality" of the British, doubts that had already surfaced as a result of the reunification of
Bengal in 1911, a decision that was seen as illdisposed to Muslims.[20] In the Lucknow Pact, the League
joined the Congress in the proposal for greater selfgovernment that was campaigned for by Tilak and
his supporters; in return, the Congress accepted separate electorates for Muslims in the provincial
legislatures as well as the Imperial Legislative Council. In 1916, the Muslim League had anywhere
between 500 and 800 members and did not yet have its wider following among Indian Muslims of later
years; in the League itself, the pact did not have unanimous backing, having largely been negotiated by a
group of "Young Party" Muslims from the United Provinces (UP), most prominently, two brothers
Mohammad and Shaukat Ali, who had embraced the PanIslamic cause;[20] however, it did have the
support of a young lawyer from Bombay, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who was later to rise to leadership
roles in both the League and the Indian independence movement. In later years, as the full ramifications
of the pact unfolded, it was seen as benefiting the Muslim minority élites of provinces like UP and Bihar
more than the Muslim majorities of Punjab and Bengal, nonetheless, at the time, the "Lucknow Pact,"
was an important milestone in nationalistic agitation and was seen so by the British.[20]
Montague–Chelmsford Reforms: 1919
Montague and Chelmsford presented their report in July 1918 after a long factfinding trip through India
the previous winter.[21] After more discussion by the government and parliament in Britain, and another
tour by the Franchise and Functions Committee for the purpose of identifying who among the Indian
population could vote in future elections, the Government of India Act of 1919 (also known as the
Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms) was passed in December 1919.[21] The new Act enlarged both the
provincial and Imperial legislative councils and repealed the Government of India's recourse to the
"official majority" in unfavorable votes.[21] Although departments like defense, foreign affairs, criminal
law, communications, and incometax were retained by the Viceroy and the central government in New
Delhi, other departments like public health, education, landrevenue, local selfgovernment were
transferred to the provinces.[21] The provinces themselves were now to be administered under a new
dyarchical system, whereby some areas like education, agriculture, infrastructure development, and local
selfgovernment became the preserve of Indian ministers and legislatures, and ultimately the Indian
electorates, while others like irrigation, landrevenue, police, prisons, and control of media remained
within the purview of the British governor and his executive council.[21] The new Act also made it easier
for Indians to be admitted into the civil service and the army officer corps.
A greater number of Indians were now enfranchised, although, for voting at the national level, they
constituted only 10% of the total adult male population, many of whom were still illiterate.[21] In the
provincial legislatures, the British continued to exercise some control by setting aside seats for special
interests they considered cooperative or useful. In particular, rural candidates, generally sympathetic to
British rule and less confrontational, were assigned more seats than their urban counterparts.[21] Seats
were also reserved for nonBrahmins, landowners, businessmen, and college graduates. The principal of
"communal representation," an integral part of the MintoMorley Reforms, and more recently of the
CongressMuslim League Lucknow Pact, was reaffirmed, with seats being reserved for Muslims, Sikhs,
Indian Christians, AngloIndians, and domiciled Europeans, in both provincial and Imperial legislative
councils.[21] The MontagueChelmsford reforms offered Indians the most significant opportunity yet for
exercising legislative power, especially at the provincial level; however, that opportunity was also
restricted by the still limited number of eligible voters, by the small budgets available to provincial
legislatures, and by the presence of rural and special interest seats that were seen as instruments of
British control.[21]
Two nation theory
In 1937 at the open session of the Hindu Mahasabha held at Ahmedabad, Savarkar in his presidential
address asserted : "India cannot be assumed today to be Unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the
contrary there are two nations in the main the Hindus and the Muslims. In 1945, he had stated "I have
no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah's two nation theory. We, the Hindus are a nation by ourselves, and it is a
historical fact that the Hindus and the Muslims are two nations." He pronounced the twonation theory,
first, in 1923 in his essay Hindutva and next in 1937 in his presidential address to the Mahasabha. In
1923 he wrote: "We Hindus are bound together not only by the love we bear to a common fatherland and
by the blood that courses through our veins... but also by the tie of the common homage we pay to our
great civilization our Hindu culture... we are one because we are a nation, a race and own a common
Sanskriti (civilization)."
It is one of the deep ironies of South Asian history that the two figures crucial to the ideology of
religious nationalism in the subcontinent Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar
were themselves nonbelievers, and militantly so. Savarkar arguably first peddled the twonation theory
some years before the idea of Pakistan was mooted and then put into action by Jinnah and the Muslim
League. In his seminal text 'Hindutva', published in 1923, Savarkar gave a territorial and racial spin to
the word Hindu.
"Dharma of a Hindu being so completely identified with the land of the Hindus, this land to him is not
only a Pitribhu but a Punyabhu, not only a fatherland but a holyland," he famously wrote. The essentials
of Hindutva, in Savarakar's mind, had nothing to do with religion per se but were predicated on a
common nation (rashtra), a common race (jati) and a common civilisation (sanskriti). This was of a piece
with Savarkar's personal life, in which he was fiercely atheist. He had publicly said there was nothing
sacred about cows and advised Hindus to give up vegetarianism. Jinnah's tryst with religion had
similarities to Savarkar's. In 1940, Jinnah told 100, 000 cheering Muslim League followers in Lahore:
"The Musalmans are not a minority (but) a nation. The problem in India is not of an intercommunal but
manifestly of an international character, and it must be treated as such." Savarkar was not in
disagreement, and a few years later had this to say: "I have no quarrel with Mr Jinnah's twonation
theory. We Hindus are a nation by ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two
nations."
However, in an earlier avatar, Jinnah the chainsmoking, nattilydressed, Londoneducated barrister
had impeccable liberal credentials. Gopal Krishna Gokhale had once hailed Jinnah as the "best
ambassador of HinduMuslim unity". Historian Ayesha Jalal writes that in the wake of the Khilafat
movement in 1920, Jinnah "derided the false and dangerous religious frenzy which had confused Indian
politics, and the zealots, both Hindu and Muslim, who were harming the national cause". But that did not
stop him from using religion to advocate Muslim separatism. Jinnah kept the ulema at a distance
throughout his life, but was perfectly willing to use them to advance the cause of a separate homeland
for South Asian Muslims. Exactly as Savarkar, despite all his antiMuslim rhetoric and passion for
united India, not only established coalitions in Sindh and Bengal with the Muslim League, fighting for
Pakistan, but was proud of these alliances.
The contradiction between Jinnah's personal beliefs and his political use of religion became apparent in
his later years. Thus, in 1946, Jinnah had no qualms about asking Muslims to launch 'Direct Action'
which led to widespread rioting and bloodshed in the name of religion. But a year later, in his famous
speech in the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947 where he spoke of a secular and inclusive
Pakistan, Jinnah tried to put the religious genie back in the bottle. However, the damage had already
been done.
Savarkar had no such second thoughts. Though he was receptive to the idea that Muslims should have
their own nation, his hostility towards them remained undimmed. Even at the age of 82, he wrote during
the 1965 IndoPakistan war, "Pakistan's barbaric acts such as kidnapping and raping Indian women
would not be stopped unless Pakistan was given tit for tat." Apposite words, perhaps, from someone who
used religion only for instrumental purposes.
Muslim homeland, provincial elections, World War II, Lahore resolution: 1930–
1945
Allama Muhammad Iqbal, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sarojini Chaudhari Khaliquzzaman

fifth from left, arriving at the Naidu, Khan Abdul Ghaffar (left) seconding the 1940
1930 session of the All India Khan, and Maulana Azad at Lahore Resolution of the All
Muslim League, where he the 1940 Ramgarh session of India Muslim League with
delivered his presidential the Congress in which Azad Jinnah (right) presiding, and
address outlining his plan for was elected president for the Liaquat Ali Khan centre.
a homeland for the Muslims second time.
of British India.
Although Choudhry Rahmat Ali had in 1933 produced a pamphlet, Now or never, in which the term
"Pakistan," "the land of the pure," comprising the Punjab, North West Frontier Province (Afghania),
Kashmir, Sindh, and Balochistan, was coined for the first time, the pamphlet did not attract political
attention.[22] A little later, a Muslim delegation to the Parliamentary Committee on Indian Constitutional
Reforms, gave short shrift to the Pakistan idea, calling it "chimerical and impracticable."[22]
Two years later, the Government of India Act 1935 introduced provincial autonomy, increasing the
number of voters in India to 35 million.[23] More significantly, law and order issues were for the first
time devolved from British authority to provincial governments headed by Indians.[23] This increased
Muslim anxieties about eventual Hindu domination.[23] In the Indian provincial elections, 1937, the
Muslim League turned out its best performance in Muslimminority provinces such as the United
Provinces, where it won 29 of the 64 reserved Muslim seats.[23] However, in the Muslimmajority
regions of the Punjab and Bengal regional parties outperformed the League.[23] In the Punjab, the
Unionist Part of Sikandar Hayat Khan, won the elections and formed a government, with the support of
the Indian National Congress and the Shiromani Akali Dal, which lasted five years.[23] In Bengal, the
League had to share power in a coalition headed by A. K. Fazlul Huq, the leader of the Krishak Praja
Party.[23]
The Congress, on the other hand, with 716 wins in the total of 1585 provincial assemblies seats, was
able to form governments in 7 out of the 11 provinces of British India.[23] In its manifesto the Congress
maintained that religious issues were of lesser importance to the masses than economic and social issues,
however, the election revealed that the Congress had contested just 58 out of the total 482 Muslim seats,
and of these, it won in only 26.[23] In UP, where the Congress won, it offered to share power with the
League on condition that the League stop functioning as a representative only of Muslims, which the
League refused.[23] This proved to be a mistake as it alienated the Congress further from the Muslim
masses. In addition, the new UP provincial administration promulgated cow protection and the use of
Hindi.[23] The Muslim elite in UP was further alienated, when they saw chaotic scenes of the new
Congress Raj, in which rural people who sometimes turned up in large numbers in Government
buildings, were indistinguishable from the administrators and the law enforcement personnel.[24]
The Muslim League conducted its own investigation into the conditions of Muslims under Congress
governed provinces.[25] Although its reports were exaggerated, it increased fear among the Muslim
masses of future Hindu domination.[25] The view that Muslims would be unfairly treated in an
independent India dominated by the Congress was now a part of the public discourse of Muslims.[25]
With the outbreak of World War II in 1939, the viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, declared war on India's behalf
without consulting Indian leaders, leading the Congress provincial ministries to resign in protest.[25] The
Muslim League, which functioned under state patronage,[26] in contrast, organized "Deliverance Day,"
celebrations (from Congress dominance) and supported Britain in the war effort.[25] When Linlithgow,
met with nationalist leaders, he gave the same status to Jinnah as he did to Gandhi, and a month later
described the Congress as a "Hindu organization."[26]
In March 1940, in the League's annual threeday session in Lahore, Jinnah gave a twohour speech in
English, in which were laid out the arguments of the Twonation theory, stating, in the words of
historians Talbot and Singh, that "Muslims and Hindus ... were irreconcilably opposed monolithic
religious communities and as such no settlement could be imposed that did not satisfy the aspirations of
the former."[25] On the last day of its session, the League passed, what came to be known as the Lahore
Resolution, sometimes also "Pakistan Resolution,"[25] demanding that, "the areas in which the Muslims
are numerically in majority as in the NorthWestern and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to
constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign." Though
it had been founded more than three decades earlier, the League would gather support among South
Asian Muslims only during the Second World War.[27]
In March 1942, with the Japanese fast moving up the Malayan Peninsula after the Fall of Singapore,[26]
and with the Americans supporting independence for India,[28] Winston Churchill, the wartime Prime
Minister of Britain, sent Sir Stafford Cripps, the leader of the House of Commons, with an offer of
dominion status to India at the end of the war in return for the Congress's support for the war effort.[29]
Not wishing to lose the support of the allies they had already secured—the Muslim League, Unionists of
the Punjab, and the Princes—the Cripps offer included a clause stating that no part of the British Indian
Empire would be forced to join the postwar Dominion. As a result of the proviso, the proposals were
rejected by the Congress, which, since its founding as a polite group of lawyers in 1885,[27] saw itself as
the representative of all Indians of all faiths.[29] After the arrival in 1920 of Gandhi, the preeminent
strategist of Indian nationalism,[30] the Congress had been transformed into a mass nationalist movement
of millions.[27] In August 1942, the Congress launched the Quit India Resolution which asked for drastic
constitutional changes, which the British saw as the most serious threat to their rule since the Indian
rebellion of 1857.[29] With their resources and attention already spread thin by a global war, the nervous
British immediately jailed the Congress leaders and kept them in jail until August 1945,[31] whereas the
Muslim League was now free for the next three years to spread its message.[26] Consequently, the
Muslim League's ranks surged during the war, with Jinnah himself admitting, "The war which nobody
welcomed proved to be a blessing in disguise."[32] Although there were other important national Muslim
politicians such as Congress leader Ab'ul Kalam Azad, and influential regional Muslim politicians such
as A. K. Fazlul Huq of the leftist Krishak Praja Party in Bengal, Sikander Hyat Khan of the landlord
dominated Punjab Unionist Party, and Abd alGhaffar Khan of the proCongress Khudai Khidmatgar
(popularly, "red shirts") in the North West Frontier Province, the British were to increasingly see the
League as the main representative of Muslim India.[33]
Cabinet Mission, Direct Action Day, Plan for Partition, Independence 1946–1947
Members of the 1946 Cabinet An aged and abandoned An old Sikh man carrying his

Mission to India meeting Muslim couple and their wife. Over 10 million people
Muhammad Ali Jinnah. On grand children sitting by the were uprooted from their
the extreme left is Lord roadside on this arduous homeland and travelled on
Pethick Lawrence; on the journey. "The old man is foot, bullock carts and trains
extreme right, Sir Stafford dying of exhaustion. The to their promised new home.
Cripps. caravan has gone on," wrote
BourkeWhite.
Gandhi in Bela, Bihar, after
attacks on Muslims, 28
March 1947.
In January 1946, a number of mutinies broke out in the armed services, starting with that of RAF
servicemen frustrated with their slow repatriation to Britain.[34] The mutinies came to a head with
mutiny of the Royal Indian Navy in Bombay in February 1946, followed by others in Calcutta, Madras,
and Karachi. Although the mutinies were rapidly suppressed, they had the effect of spurring the new
Labour government in Britain to action, and leading to the Cabinet Mission to India led by the Secretary
of State for India, Lord Pethick Lawrence, and including Sir Stafford Cripps, who had visited four years
before.[34] Also in early 1946, new elections were called in India. Earlier, at the end of the war in 1945,
the colonial government had announced the public trial of three senior officers of Subhas Chandra
Bose's defeated Indian National Army who stood accused of treason. Now as the trials began, the
Congress leadership, although ambivalent towards the INA, chose to defend the accused officers.[35] The
subsequent convictions of the officers, the public outcry against the convictions, and the eventual
remission of the sentences, created positive propaganda for the Congress, which only helped in the
party's subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces.[36] The negotiations between the
Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition.
Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully,
the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. However, on the morning of the 16th armed
Muslim gangs gathered at the Ochterlony Monument in Calcutta to hear Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy,
the 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."[37] That very evening, in Calcutta, Hindus were attacked by returning
Muslim celebrants, who carried pamphlets distributed earlier showing a clear connection between
violence and the demand for Pakistan, and implicating the celebration of Direct Action day directly with
the outbreak of the cycle of violence that would be later called the "Great Calcutta Killing of August
1946".[38] The next day, Hindus struck back and the violence continued for three days in which
approximately 4,000 people died (according to official accounts), Hindus and Muslims in equal
numbers. Although India had had outbreaks of religious violence between Hindus and Muslims before,
the Calcutta killings was the first to display elements of "ethnic cleansing," in modern parlance.[39]
Violence was not confined to the public sphere, but homes were entered, destroyed, and women and
children attacked.[40] Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the
course of events, in September, a Congressled interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru
as united India's prime minister.
The communal violence spread to Bihar (where Muslims were attacked by Hindus), to Noakhali in
Bengal (where Hindus were targeted by Muslims), in Garhmukteshwar in the United Provinces (where
Muslims were attacked by Hindus), and on to Rawalpindi in March 1947 in which Hindus were attacked
or driven out by Muslims.[39]
Vallabhbhai Patel was one of the first Congress leaders to accept the partition of India as a solution to
the rising Muslim separatist movement led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah. 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 nonacceptance 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 HinduMuslim 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 600 princely states towards
independence.[43] Between the months of December 1946 and January 1947, Patel worked with civil
servant V. P. Menon on the latter's suggestion for a separate dominion of Pakistan created out of
Muslimmajority provinces. Communal violence in Bengal and Punjab in January and March 1947
further convinced Patel of the soundness of partition. Patel, a fierce critic of Jinnah's demand that the
Hindumajority 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 June 1947, Patel 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 CongressLeague
coalition, the rising violence and the threat of civil war. At the All India Congress Committee meeting
called to vote on the proposal, Patel said:
I fully appreciate the fears of our brothers from [the Muslimmajority 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. 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. Freedom is coming. We have
75 to 80 percent of India, which we can make strong with our own genius. The League can develop the
rest of the country.[44]
Following Gandhi's denial but Congress' approval of the plan, Patel represented India on the Partition
Council, where he oversaw the division of public assets, and selected the Indian council of ministers
with Nehru. However, neither he nor any other Indian leader had foreseen the intense violence and
population transfer that would take place with partition.
Late in 1946, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded
World War II, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of
transferring power no later than June 1948. However, with the British army unprepared for the potential
for increased violence, the new viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, advanced the date for the transfer of power,
allowing less than six months for a mutually agreed plan for independence. In June 1947, the nationalist
leaders, including Nehru and Patel on behalf of the Congress, Liyaqat Ali and Suhrawardhy representing
the Muslim League, and Master Tara Singh representing the Sikhs Tara Singh joined as 5th member
representing Akalis later on)agreed to a partition of the country along religious lines in stark opposition
to Gandhi's views. The predominantly Hindu and Sikh areas were assigned to the new India and
predominantly Muslim areas to the new nation of Pakistan; the plan included a partition of the Muslim
majority provinces of Punjab and Bengal. The communal violence that accompanied the announcement
of the Radcliffe Line, the line of partition, was even more horrific.
Of the violence that accompanied the Partition of India, historians Ian Talbot and Gurharpal Singh write:
There are numerous eyewitness accounts of the maiming and mutilation of victims. The
catalogue of horrors includes the disembowelling of pregnant women, the slamming of
babies' heads against brick walls, the cutting off of victims limbs and genitalia and the
display of heads and corpses. While previous communal riots had been deadly, the scale and
level of brutality was unprecedented. Although some scholars question the use of the term
'genocide' with respect to the Partition massacres, much of the violence manifested as
having genocidal tendencies. It was designed to cleanse an existing generation as well as
prevent its future reproduction."[41]
On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn
in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller
Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and
with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten,
staying on as its first Governor General; Gandhi, however, remained in Bengal, preferring instead to
work among the new refugees of the partitioned subcontinent.
Geographic partition, 1947
Mountbatten Plan
The actual division of British India between the two new dominions was accomplished according to
what has come to be known as the 3 June Plan or Mountbatten Plan. It was announced at a press
conference by Mountbatten on 3 June 1947, when the date of independence was also announced – 15
August 1947. The plan's main points were:
Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims in Punjab and Bengal legislative assemblies would meet and vote for
partition. If a simple majority of either group wanted partition, then these provinces would be
divided.
Sindh was to take its own decision.
The fate of North West Frontier Province and Sylhet district of Assam was to be decided by a
referendum.
India would be independent by 15 August 1947.
The separate independence of Bengal was ruled out.
A boundary commission to be set up in case of partition.
The Indian political leaders accepted the Plan on 2 June. It did
not deal with the question of the princely states, but on 3 June
Mountbatten advised them against remaining independent and
urged them to join one of the two new dominions.[42]
The Muslim League's demands for a separate state were thus
conceded. The Congress' position on unity was also taken into
account while making Pakistan as small as possible.
Mountbatten's formula was to divide India and at the same time
retain maximum possible unity.
On June 3, 1947 the Congress Working Committee passed the
resolution accepting the Partition of India. There was communal
tension but no communal riots to speak of in Punjab. Gandhi
observed 'maun vrat' (day of silence) on that occasion. He was Mountbatten with a countdown
reportedly isolated by Nehru and Patel and was unhappy. calendar to the Transfer of Power in
Mountbatten visited him and said he hoped that Gandhi would the background
not oppose the Partition under the Mountbatten Plan.
Mountbatten also noted that he was surprised that Gandhi should have observed his day of silence on
such a crucial occasion. Gandhi wrote on a scrap of paper his reply: 'Have I ever opposed you?'
Mountbatten preserved that paper as historical evidence and it is still there in the Mountbatten papers.
Within British India, the border between India and Pakistan (the Radcliffe Line) was determined by a
British Governmentcommissioned report prepared under the chairmanship of a London barrister, Sir
Cyril Radcliffe. Pakistan came into being with two noncontiguous enclaves, East Pakistan (today
Bangladesh) and West Pakistan, separated geographically by India. India was formed out of the majority
Hindu regions of British India, and Pakistan from the majority Muslim areas.
On 18 July 1947, the British Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act that finalized the
arrangements for partition and abandoned British suzerainty over the princely states, of which there were
several hundred, leaving them free to choose whether to accede to one of the new dominions. The
Government of India Act 1935 was adapted to provide a legal framework for the new dominions.
Following its creation as a new country in August 1947, Pakistan applied for membership of the United
Nations and was accepted by the General Assembly on 30 September 1947. The Dominion of India
continued to have the existing seat as India had been a founding member of the United Nations since
1945.[43]
Radcliffe Line
Further information: Radcliffe Line
A map of the Punjab
region c. 1947.
The Punjab – the region of the five rivers east of Indus: Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej —
consists of interfluvial doabs, or tracts of land lying between two confluent rivers. These are the Sind
Sagar doab (between Indus and Jhelum), the Jech doab (Jhelum/Chenab), the Rechna doab
(Chenab/Ravi), the Bari doab (Ravi/Beas), and the Bist doab (Beas/Sutlej) (see map). In early 1947, in
the months leading up to the deliberations of the Punjab Boundary Commission, the main disputed areas
appeared to be in the Bari and Bist doabs, although some areas in the Rechna doab were claimed by the
Congress and Sikhs. In the Bari doab, the districts of Gurdaspur, Amritsar, Lahore, and Montgomery
(Sahiwal) were all disputed.[44]
All of these disputed districts (other than Amritsar, which was 46.5% Muslim) had Muslim majorities;
albeit, in Gurdaspur, the Muslim majority, at 51.1%, was slender. At a smaller areascale, only three
tehsils (subunits of a district) in the disputed section of the Bari doab had nonMuslim majorities. These
were: Pathankot (in the extreme north of Gurdaspur, which was not in dispute), and Amritsar and Tarn
Taran in Amritsar district. In addition, there were four Muslimmajority tehsils east of BeasSutlej (with
two where Muslims outnumbered Hindus and Sikhs together).[44]
Before the Boundary Commission began formal hearings, governments were set up for the East and the
West Punjab regions. Their territories were provisionally divided by "notional division" based on simple
district majorities. In both the Punjab and Bengal, the Boundary Commission consisted of two Muslim
and two nonMuslim judges with Sir Cyril Radcliffe as a common chairman.[44]
The mission of the Punjab commission was worded generally as the following: "To demarcate the
boundaries of the two parts of the Punjab, on the basis of ascertaining the contiguous majority areas of
Muslims and nonMuslims. In doing so, it will take into account other factors."[44]
Each side (the Muslims and the Congress/Sikhs) presented its claim through counsel with no liberty to
bargain. The judges too had no mandate to compromise and on all major issues they "divided two and
two, leaving Sir Cyril Radcliffe the invidious task of making the actual decisions."[44]
Independence, population transfer, and violence
Massive population exchanges occurred between the two newly formed states in the months
immediately following Partition. "The population of undivided India in 1947 was approx 390 million.
After partition, there were 330 million people in India, 30 million in West Pakistan, and 30 million
people in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh)." Once the lines were established, about 14.5 million people
crossed the borders to what they hoped was the relative safety of religious majority. The 1951 Census of
Pakistan identified the number of displaced persons in Pakistan at 7,226,600, presumably all Muslims
who had entered Pakistan from India. Similarly, the 1951 Census of India enumerated 7,295,870
displaced persons, apparently all Hindus and Sikhs who had moved to India from Pakistan immediately
after the Partition. The two numbers add up to 14.5 million. Since both censuses were held about 3.6
years after the Partition, the enumeration included net population increase after the mass migration.
About 11.2 million ( 77.4% of the displaced persons) were in the west, with the Punjab accounting for
most of it: 6.5 million Muslims moved from India to West Pakistan, and 4.7 million Hindus and Sikhs
moved from West Pakistan to India; thus the net migration in the west from India to West Pakistan (now
Pakistan) was 1.8 million.
The remaining 3.3 million (22.6% of the displaced persons) were in the east: 2.6 million moved from
East Pakistan to India and 0.7 million moved from India to East Pakistan (now Bangladesh); thus net
migration in the east was 1.9 million into India. The newly formed governments were completely
unequipped to deal with migrations of such staggering magnitude, and massive violence and slaughter
occurred on both sides of the border. Estimates of the number of deaths vary, with low estimates at
200,000 and high estimates at 1,000,000.[45]
Punjab
The Indian state of East Punjab was created in 1947, when the
Partition of India split the former British province of Punjab
between India and Pakistan. The mostly Muslim western part of
the province became Pakistan's Punjab province; the mostly Sikh
and Hindu eastern part became India's East Punjab state. Many
Hindus and Sikhs lived in the west, and many Muslims lived in
the east, and the fears of all such minorities were so great that the
Partition saw many people displaced and much intercommunal
violence.
Lahore and Amritsar were at the centre of the problem; the
Boundary Commission was not sure where to place them – to
make them part of India or Pakistan. The Commission decided to
give Lahore to Pakistan, whilst Amritsar became part of India.
Some areas in Punjab, including Lahore, Rawalpindi, Multan, A crowd of Muslims at the Old Fort
and Gujrat, had a large Sikh and Hindu population, and many of (Purana Qila) in Delhi, which had
the residents were attacked or killed. On the other side, in East been converted into a vast camp for
Punjab, cities such as Amritsar, Ludhiana, Gurdaspur, and Muslim refugees waiting to be
Jalandhar had a majority Muslim population, of which thousands transported to Pakistan. Manchester
were killed or emigrated. Guardian, 27 September 1947.
Bengal
Main article: Partition of Bengal (1947)
The province of Bengal was divided into the two separate entities of West Bengal belonging to India,
and East Bengal belonging to Pakistan. East Bengal was renamed East Pakistan in 1955, and later
became the independent nation of Bangladesh after the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971.
While the Muslim majority districts of Murshidabad and Malda were given to India, the Hindu majority
district of Khulna and the majority Buddhist, but sparsely populated Chittagong Hill Tracts was given to
Pakistan by the award.
Sindh
Hindu Sindhis were expected to stay in Sindh following Partition, as there were good relations between
Hindu and Muslim Sindhis. At the time of Partition there were 1,400,000 Hindu Sindhis, though most
were concentrated in cities such as Hyderabad, Karachi, Shikarpur, and Sukkur. However, because of an
uncertain future in a Muslim country, a sense of better opportunities in India, and most of all a sudden
influx of Muslim refugees from Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajputana (Rajasthan) and other parts of
India, many Sindhi Hindus decided to leave for India.
Problems were further aggravated when incidents of violence instigated by Muslim refugees broke out in
Karachi and Hyderabad. According to the 1951 Census of India, nearly 776,000 Sindhi Hindus fled to
India.[46] Unlike the Punjabi Hindus and Sikhs, Sindhi Hindus did not have to witness any massive scale
rioting; however, their entire province had gone to Pakistan and thus they felt like a homeless
community. Despite this migration, a significant Sindhi Hindu population still resides in Pakistan's
Sindh province where they number at around 2.28 million as per Pakistan's 1998 census; the Sindhi
Hindus in India were at 2.57 million as per India's 2001 Census. Some bordering districts in Sindh were
Hindu Majority like Tharparkar District, Umerkot, Mirpurkhas, Sanghar and Badin, but their population
is decreasing and they consider themselves a minority in decline. In fact, only Umerkot still has a
majority of Hindus in the district.[47]
Resettlement of refugees in India: 1947–1957
Many Sikhs and Hindu Punjabis fled Western Punjab and settled in the Indian parts of Punjab and Delhi.
Hindus fleeing from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) settled across Eastern India and Northeastern
India, many ending up in neighboring Indian states such as West Bengal, Assam, and Tripura. Some
migrants were sent to the Andaman islands where Bengalis today form the largest linguistic group.
Delhi received the largest number of refugees for a single city – the population of Delhi grew rapidly in
1947 from under 1 million (917,939) to a little less than 2 million (1,744,072) during the period 1941–
1951.[48] The refugees were housed in various historical and military locations such as the Purana Qila,
Red Fort, and military barracks in Kingsway Camp (around the present Delhi University). The latter
became the site of one of the largest refugee camps in northern India with more than 35,000 refugees at
any given time besides Kurukshetra camp near Panipat. The camp sites were later converted into
permanent housing through extensive building projects undertaken by the Government of India from
1948 onwards. A number of housing colonies in Delhi came up around this period like Lajpat Nagar,
Rajinder Nagar, Nizamuddin East, Punjabi Bagh, Rehgar Pura, Jangpura and Kingsway Camp. A
number of schemes such as the provision of education, employment opportunities, and easy loans to start
businesses were provided for the refugees at the allIndia level.[49]
Resettlement of refugees in Pakistan: 1947–1957
In the aftermath of partition, a huge population exchange occurred between the two newly formed states.
About 14.5 million people crossed the borders, including 7,226,000 Muslims who came to Pakistan from
India while 7,295,000 Hindus and Sikhs moved to India from Pakistan. Of the 6.5 million Muslims that
came to West Pakistan (now Pakistan), about 5.3 million settled in Punjab, Pakistan and around 1.2
million settled in Sindh. The other 0.7 million Muslims went to East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).
Most of those migrants who settled in Punjab, Pakistan came from the neighbouring Indian regions of
Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh while others were from Jammu and Kashmir and Rajasthan. On
the other hand, most of those migrants who arrived in Sindh were primarily of Urduspeaking
background (termed the Muhajir people) and came from the northern and central urban centres of India,
such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Rajasthan via the Wahgah and Munabao
borders; however a limited number of Muhajirs also arrived by air and on ships. People who wished to
go to India from all over Sindh awaited their departure to India by ship at the Swaminarayan temple in
Karachi and were visited by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan.[50]
Later in 1950s, the majority of Urdu speaking refugees who migrated after the independence were
settled in the port city of Karachi in southern Sindh and in the metropolitan cities of Hyderabad, Sukkur,
Nawabshah and Mirpurkhas. In addition, some Urduspeakers settled in the cities of Punjab, mainly in
Lahore, Multan, Bahawalpur and Rawalpindi. The number of migrants in Sindh was placed at over
1,167,000 of whom 617,000 went to Karachi alone. Karachi grew from a population of around 400,000
in 1947 into more than 1.3 million in 1953.
Rehabilitation of women
See also: Violence against women during the partition of India
Both sides promised each other that they would try to restore women abducted during the riots. The
Indian government claimed that 33,000 Hindu and Sikh women were abducted, and the Pakistani
government claimed that 50,000 Muslim women were abducted during riots. By 1949, there were
governmental claims that 12,000 women had been recovered in India and 6,000 in Pakistan.[51] By 1954
there were 20,728 recovered Muslim women and 9,032 Hindu and Sikh women recovered from
Pakistan.[52] Most of the Hindu and Sikh women refused to go back to India fearing that they would
never be accepted by their family, a fear mirrored by Muslim women.[53]
Perspectives
The Partition was a highly controversial arrangement, and
remains a cause of much tension on the Indian subcontinent
today. The British Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten of Burma has not
only been accused of rushing the process through, but also is
alleged to have influenced the Radcliffe Line in India's
favour.[54][55] The commission took longer to decide on a final
boundary than on the partition itself. Thus the two nations were
granted their independence even before there was a defined
boundary between them.
Refugees on train roof during
Some critics allege that British haste led to increased cruelties Partition
during the Partition.[56] Because independence was declared
prior to the actual Partition, it was up to the new governments of
India and Pakistan to keep public order. No large population movements were contemplated; the plan
called for safeguards for minorities on both sides of the new border. It was a task at which both states
failed. There was a complete breakdown of law and order; many died in riots, massacre, or just from the
hardships of their flight to safety. What ensued was one of the largest population movements in recorded
history. According to Richard Symonds: At the lowest estimate, half a million people perished and
twelve million became homeless.[57]
However, many argue that the British were forced to expedite the Partition by events on the ground.[58]
Once in office, Mountbatten quickly became aware if Britain were to avoid involvement in a civil war,
which seemed increasingly likely, there was no alternative to partition and a hasty exit from India.[58]
Law and order had broken down many times before Partition, with much bloodshed on both sides. A
massive civil war was looming by the time Mountbatten became Viceroy. After the Second World War,
Britain had limited resources,[59] perhaps insufficient to the task of keeping order. Another viewpoint is
that while Mountbatten may have been too hasty he had no real options left and achieved the best he
could under difficult circumstances.[60] The historian Lawrence James concurs that in 1947 Mountbatten
was left with no option but to cut and run. The alternative seemed to be involvement in a potentially
bloody civil war from which it would be difficult to get out.[61]
Conservative elements in England consider the partition of India to be the moment that the British
Empire ceased to be a world power, following Curzon's dictum: "the loss of India would mean that
Britain drop straight away to a third rate power."[62]
A crossborder student initiative, The History Project, was launched in 2014 to explore the differences in
perception of the events during the British era which led to the partition. The project resulted in a book
that explains both interpretations of the shared history in Pakistan and India.[63][64]
Artistic depictions of the Partition
Main article: Artistic depictions of the partition of India
The partition of India and the associated bloody riots inspired many in India and Pakistan to create
literary/cinematic depictions of this event.[65] While some creations depicted the massacres during the
refugee migration, others concentrated on the aftermath of the partition in terms of difficulties faced by
the refugees in both side of the border. Even now, more than 60 years after the partition, works of fiction
and films are made that relate to the events of partition. The early members of the Progressive Artist's
Group of Bombay cite "The Partition" of India and Pakistan as a key reason for its founding in
December 1947. They included FN Souza, MF Husain, SH Raza, SK Bakre, HA Gade and KH Ara went
on to become some of the most important and influential Indian artists of the 20th Century.[66]
Literature describing the human cost of independence and partition comprises Bal K. Gupta's memoirs
Forgotten Atrocities (2012), Khushwant Singh's Train to Pakistan (1956), several short stories such as
Toba Tek Singh (1955) by Saadat Hassan Manto, Urdu poems such as SubheAzadi (Freedom's Dawn,
1947) by Faiz Ahmad Faiz, Bhisham Sahni's Tamas (1974), Manohar Malgonkar's A Bend in the Ganges
(1965), and Bapsi Sidhwa's IceCandy Man (1988), among others.[67][68] Salman Rushdie's novel
Midnight's Children (1980), which won the Booker Prize and the Booker of Bookers, weaved its
narrative based on the children born with magical abilities on midnight of 14 August 1947.[68] Freedom
at Midnight (1975) is a nonfiction work by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre that chronicled the
events surrounding the first Independence Day celebrations in 1947.
There is a paucity of films related to the independence and partition.[69][70][71] Early films relating to the
circumstances of the independence, partition and the aftermath include Nemai Ghosh's Chinnamul
(Bengali) (1950),[69] Dharmputra (1961)[72] Lahore (1948), Chhalia (1956), Nastik (1953). Ritwik
Ghatak's Meghe Dhaka Tara (Bengali) (1960), George Cukor's Bhowani Junction (1956), Komal
Gandhar (Bengali) (1961), Subarnarekha (Bengali) (1962);[69][73] later films include Garm Hava (1973)
and Tamas (1987).[72] From the late 1990s onwards, more films on this theme were made, including
several mainstream ones, such as Earth (1998), Train to Pakistan (1998) (based on the aforementined
book), Hey Ram (2000), Gadar: Ek Prem Katha (2001), Khamosh Pani (2003), Pinjar (2003), Partition
(2007) and Madrasapattinam (2010).[72] The biographical films Gandhi (1982), Jinnah (1998) and
Sardar (1993) also feature independence and partition as significant events in their screenplay. A
Pakistani drama Daastan, based on the novel Bano, tells the tale of Muslim girls during partition.
The novel Lost Generations (2013) by Manjit Sachdeva describes March 1947 massacre in rural areas of
Rawalpindi by Muslim League, followed by massacres on both sides of the new border in August 1947
seen through the eyes of an escaping Sikh family, their settlement and partial rehabilitation in Delhi, and
ending in ruin (including death), for the second time in 1984, at the hands of mobs after a Sikh
assassinated the prime minister.
The 2013 Google India advertisement Reunion (about the Partition of India) has had a strong impact in
India and Pakistan, leading to hope for the easing of travel restrictions between the two
countries.[74][75][76] It went viral[77][78] and was viewed more than 1.6 million times before officially
debuting on television on 15 November 2013.[79]
See also
List of princely states of India
Indian independence movement
Pakistan Movement
History of Bangladesh
History of India
History of Pakistan
IndoPakistani War of 1947
Indian annexation of Goa
Notes
1. Khan 2007, p. 1.
2. Paul R. Brass (2003). "The partition of India and retributive genocide in the Punjab, 1946–47: means,
methods, and purposes" (http://faculty.washington.edu/brass/Partition.pdf) (PDF). Journal of Genocide
Research. p. 75 (5(1), 71–101). Retrieved 20140816.
3. "20thcentury international relations (politics) :: South Asia"
(http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/291225/20thcenturyinternationalrelations/32936/South
Asia#ref304573). Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 20140816.
4. "Rupture in South Asia" (http://www.unhcr.org/3ebf9bab0.pdf) (PDF). UNHCR. Retrieved 20140816.
5. Dr Crispin Bates (20110303). "The Hidden Story of Partition and its Legacies"
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/partition1947_01.shtml). BBC. Retrieved 20140816.
6. Tanya Basu (15 August 2014). "The Fading Memory of South Asia's Partition"
(http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/thefadingmemoryofpartitionindiapakistan
bangladesh/376120/). The Atlantic. Retrieved 20140816.
7. Sword For Pen (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,788006,00.html), Time, 12 April 1937
8. "Nepal." (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article23632) Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia
Britannica. 2008. "Bhutan." (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article25008)
9. (Spear 1990, p. 176)
10. (Spear 1990, p. 176), (Stein 2001, p. 291), (Ludden 2002, p. 193), (Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, p. 156)
11. (Bandyopadhyay 2005, p. 260)
12. (Ludden 2002, p. 193)
13. (Ludden 2002, p. 199)
14. (Ludden 2002, p. 200)
15. (Stein 2001, p. 286)
16. Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 20.
17. (Ludden 2002, p. 201)
18. Brown 1994, pp. 197–198
19. Olympic Games Antwerp 1920: Official Report
(http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1920/1920.pdf), Nombre de bations representees, p. 168.
Quote: "31 Nations avaient accepté l'invitation du Comité Olympique Belge: ... la Grèce – la Hollande Les
Indes Anglaises – l'Italie – le Japon ..."
20. Brown 1994, pp. 200–201
21. Brown 1994, pp. 205–207
22. Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 31.
23. Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 32.
24. Talbot & Singh 2009, pp. 32–33.
25. Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 33.
26. Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 34.
27. Khan 2007, p. 18.
28. Talbot & Singh 2009, pp. 34–35.
29. Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 35.
30. Stein & Arnold 2010, p. 289: Quote: "Gandhi was the leading genius of the later, and ultimately successful,
campaign for India's independence"
31. Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, p. 209.
32. Khan 2007, p. 43.
33. (Robb 2002, p. 190)
34. (Judd 2004, pp. 172–173)
35. (Judd 2004, pp. 170–171)
36. (Judd 2004, p. 172)
37. Khan 2007, pp. 64–65.
38. Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 69: Quote: "Despite the Muslim League's denials, the outbreak was clearly linked
with the celebration of Direction Action Day. Muslim processionists who had gone to the staging ground of
the 150feethigh Ochterlony Monument on the maidan to hear the Muslim League Prime Minister
Suhrawardy, attacked Hindus on their way back. They were heard shouting slogans as 'Larke Lenge Pakistan'
(We shall win Pakistan by force). Violence spread to North Calcutta when Muslim crowds tried to force
Hindu shopkeepers to observe the day's strike (hartal) call. The circulation of pamphlets in advance of Direct
Action Day made a clear connection with the use of violence and the demand for Pakistan."
39. Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 67: Quote: "The signs of 'ethnic cleansing' are first evident in the Great Calcutta
Killing of 16–19 August 1946."
40. Talbot & Singh 2009, p. 68.
41. Talbot & Singh 2009, pp. 67–68.
42. Sankar Ghose, Jawaharlal Nehru, a biography (1993), p. 181
43. Thomas R. G. C., 'Nations, States, and Secession: Lessons from the Former Yugoslavia', in Mediterranean
Quarterly, Volume 5 Number 4 (Duke University Press, Fall 1994), pp. 40–65
44. (Spate 1947, pp. 126–137)
45. Death toll in the partition (http://necrometrics.com/20c300k.htm#India#India). Users.erols.com.
46. Markovits, Claude (2000). The Global World of Indian Merchants, 1750–1947. Cambridge University Press.
p. 278. ISBN 0521622859.
47. "Population of Hindus in the World" (http://pakistanhinducouncil.org/hindupopulation.asp). Pakistan Hindu
Council.
48. Census of India, 1941 and 1951.
49. Kaur, Ravinder (2007). Since 1947: Partition Narratives among Punjabi Migrants of Delhi. Oxford
University Press. ISBN 9780195683776.
50. Vazira FazilaYacoobali Zamindar (2007). The long partition and the making of modern South Asia
(http://books.google.com/?id=EfhqQLr96VgC&dq=). Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231138468.
Retrieved 22 May 2009. Page 52
51. Perspectives on Modern South Asia: A Reader in Culture, History, and ... – Kamala Visweswara
(http://books.google.co.in/books?id=m
EYXNnvMugC&pg=PA125&dq=muslim,+hindu+sikh+women+recovered&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TPoiT77rH5Hzr
Qf1lvnYBg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAzgU#v=onepage&q=12000&f=false). nGoogle Books.in (16 May 2011).
52. Borders & boundaries: women in India's partition – Ritu Menon, Kamla Bhasi
(http://books.google.co.in/books?
id=yNN4SE7cL60C&pg=PA99&dq=muslim+hindu+women+recovered+1947+riots&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dfYiT
7TMHYTrrQfn8Pm7CA&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=muslim%20hindu%20women%20recovered
%201947%20riots&f=false). nGoogle Books.in (24 April 1993).
53. Jayawardena, Kumari; de Alwi, Malathi (1996). Embodied violence: Communalising women's sexuality in
South Asia (http://books.google.com/?
id=i2AObmt7Z8wC&pg=Ptheir=muslim+hindu+women+recovered+1947+riots#v=onepage&q=muslim%20hi
ndu%20women%20recovered%201947%20riots&f=false). Zed Books. ISBN 9781856494489.
54. K. Z. Islam, 2002, The Punjab Boundary Award, Inretrospect
(http://www.weeklyholiday.net/150202/inret.html)
55. Partitioning India over lunch, Memoirs of a British civil servant Christopher Beaumont
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6926464.stm). BBC News (10 August 2007).
56. Stanley Wolpert, 2006, Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India, Oxford University
Press, ISBN 0195151984
57. Richard Symonds, 1950, The Making of Pakistan, London, OCLC 245793264, p 74
58. Lawrence J. Butler, 2002, Britain and Empire: Adjusting to a PostImperial World, p. 72
59. Lawrence J. Butler, 2002, Britain and Empire: Adjusting to a PostImperial World, p 72
60. Ronald Hyam, Britain's Declining Empire: The Road to Decolonisation, 1918–1968, page 113; Cambridge
University Press, ISBN 0521866499, 2007
61. Lawrence James, Rise and Fall of the British Empire
62. Judd, Dennis, The Lion and the Tiger: The rise and Fall of the British Raj,1600–1947. Oxford University
Press: New York. (2010) p. 138.
63. One history, two narratives, Beena Sarwar, The News (http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysNews9235344
Onehistorytwonarratives)
64. http://thehistoryproject.org/
65. Cleary, Joseph N. (3 January 2002). Literature, Partition and the NationState: Culture and Conflict in
Ireland, Israel and Palestine (http://books.google.com/books?id=omFqtDGADfYC). Cambridge University
Press. p. 104. ISBN 9780521657327. Retrieved 27 July 2012. "The partition of India figures in a goo deal
of imaginative writing..."
66. http://www.artnewsnviews.com/viewarticle.php?article=progressiveartistsgroupofbombayan
overview&iid=29&articleid=800
67. Bhatia, Nandi (1996). "Twentieth Century Hindi Literature". In Natarajan, Nalini. Handbook of Twentieth
Century Literatures of India (http://books.google.com/books?id=1lTnv6od_oC). Greenwood Publishing
Group. pp. 146–147. ISBN 9780313287787. Retrieved 27 July 2012.
68. Roy, Rituparna (15 July 2011). South Asian Partition Fiction in English: From Khushwant Singh to Amitav
Ghosh (http://books.google.com/books?id=HCQfRFr6iMgC). Amsterdam University Press. pp. 24–29.
ISBN 9789089642455. Retrieved 27 July 2012.
69. Mandal, Somdatta (2008). "Constructing Postpartition Bengali Cultural Identity through Films". In Bhatia,
Nandi; Roy, Anjali Gera. Partitioned Lives: Narratives of Home, Displacement, and Resettlement
(http://books.google.com/books?id=YWB0GmmoOSMC). Pearson Education India. pp. 66–69. ISBN 978
8131714164. Retrieved 27 July 2012.
70. Dwyer, R. (2010). "Bollywood's India: Hindi Cinema as a Guide to Modern India". Asian Affairs 41 (3):
381–398. doi:10.1080/03068374.2010.508231 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F03068374.2010.508231).
(subscription required)
71. Sarkar, Bhaskar (29 April 2009). Mourning the Nation: Indian Cinema in the Wake of Partition
(http://books.google.com/books?id=wghFNlpM3PIC). Duke University Press. p. 121. ISBN 97808223
44117. Retrieved 27 July 2012.
72. Vishwanath, Gita; Malik, Salma (2009). "Revisiting 1947 through Popular Cinema: a Comparative Study of
India and Pakistan"
(http://www.careerlauncher.com/lstcontent/plansuppliments/attachments/40/62/REVISITING%201947%20TH
ROUGH%20popular%20cinema.pdf) (PDF). Economic and Political Weekly XLIV (36): 61–69. Retrieved
27 July 2012.
73. Raychaudhuri, Anindya (2009). "Resisting the Resistible: Rewriting Myths of Partition in the Works of
Ritwik Ghatak". Social Semiotics 19 (4): 469–481. doi:10.1080/10350330903361158
(https://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F10350330903361158).(subscription required)
74. Naqvi, Sibtain (19 November 2013). "Google can envision PakistanIndia harmony in less than 4 minutes…
can we?" (http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/19647/googlecanenvisionpakistanindiaharmonyinlessthan
4minutescanwe/). The Express Tribune.
75. PTI (15 November 2013). "Google reunion ad reignites hope for easier IndoPak visas"
(http://www.deccanchronicle.com/131115/newscurrentaffairs/article/googleadreigniteshopeeasierindo
pakvisas). Deccan Chronicle.
76. Chatterjee, Rhitu (20 November 2013). "This ad from Google India brought me to tears"
(http://www.pri.org/stories/20131120/adgoogleindiamaybringyoutears). Public Radio International,.
77. Peter, Sunny (15 November 2013). "Google Search: Reunion Video Touches Emotions in India, Pakistan;
Goes Viral [Watch VIDEO]" (http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/522379/20131115/googleindiareunionpakistan
partition1947suman.htm#.UoZyWR4ZAt). International Business Times.
78. "Google's IndiaPak reunion ad strikes emotional chord" (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/201311
14/internet/44072930_1_yusufsweetshopad). The Times of India. 14 November 2013.
79. Johnson, Kay (15 November 2013). "Google ad an unlikely hit in both India, Pakistan by referring to
traumatic 1947 partition" (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/indiapakistanagreeemotional
googleadhit20898645). ABC News/Associated Press.
Further reading
Textbook histories
Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (2004). From Plassey to partition: a history of modern India
(http://books.google.com/books?id=0oVra0ulQ3QC). Delhi: Orient Blackswan. ISBN 9788125025962.
Retrieved 5 November 2011
Bose, Sugata; Jalal, Ayesha (2004). Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political economy: second edition
(http://books.google.com/books?id=WJ7BNOmQvwcC). Routledge. ISBN 9781134397150. Retrieved
5 November 2011
Brown, Judith Margaret (1994). Modern India: the origins of an Asian democracy
(http://books.google.com/books?id=Eq7tAAAAMAAJ). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198731122.
Ayub, Muhammad (2005). An army, Its Role and Rule: A History of the Pakistan Army from Independence
to Kargil, 1947–1999. RoseDog Books. ISBN 9780805995947.
Judd, Denis (2010). The lion and the tiger: the rise and fall of the British Raj, 1600–1947
(http://books.google.com/books?id=hlf9u1asHTAC). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192805799.
Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (2004). A history of India (http://books.google.com/books?
id=V73N8js5ZgAC). Routledge. ISBN 9780415329200. Retrieved 5 November 2011
Ludden, David (2002). India and South Asia: a short history (http://books.google.com/books?
id=wQJuAAAAMAAJ). Oneworld. ISBN 9781851682379. Retrieved 5 November 2011
Markovits, Claude (2004). A history of modern India, 1480–1950 (http://books.google.com/books?
id=uzOmy2y0Zh4C). Anthem Press. ISBN 9781843311522. Retrieved 5 November 2011
Metcalf, Barbara Daly; Metcalf, Thomas R. (2006). A concise history of modern India
(http://books.google.com/books?id=iuESgYNYPl0C). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978052186362
9. Retrieved 5 November 2011
Peers, Douglas M. (2006). India under colonial rule: 1700–1885 (http://books.google.com/books?
id=6iNuAAAAMAAJ). Pearson Education. ISBN 9780582317383. Retrieved 5 November 2011
Robb, Peter (2011). A History of India (http://books.google.com/books?id=GQ2VH1LO_EC). Palgrave
Macmillan. ISBN 9780230345492. Retrieved 5 November 2011
Spear, Percival (1990). A history of India, Volume 2 (http://books.google.com/books?id=CDwwAQAAIAAJ).
Penguin Books. ISBN 9780140138368. Retrieved 5 November 2011
Stein, Burton; Arnold, David (2010). A History of India (http://books.google.com/books?
id=0K3GZfqCabsC). John Wiley and Sons. ISBN 9781405195096. Retrieved 5 November 2011
Wolpert, Stanley (2008). A new history of India (http://books.google.com/books?id=JT0wAQAAIAAJ).
Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195337563. Retrieved 5 November 2011
Monographs
Ishtiaq Ahmed, Ahmed, Ishtiaq. 2011. The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed: Unravelling the 1947
Tragedy through Secret British Reports and First Person Account. New Delhi: RUPA Publications. 808
pages. ISBN 9788129118622
Ansari, Sarah. 2005. Life after Partition: Migration, Community and Strife in Sindh: 1947—1962. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press. 256 pages. ISBN 019597834X.
Butalia, Urvashi. 1998. The Other Side of Silence: Voices from the Partition of India. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press. 308 pages. ISBN 0822324946
Butler, Lawrence J. 2002. Britain and Empire: Adjusting to a PostImperial World. London: I.B.Tauris. 256
pages. ISBN 186064449X
Chakrabarty; Bidyut. 2004. The Partition of Bengal and Assam: Contour of Freedom (RoutledgeCurzon,
2004) online edition (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108233199)
Chatterji, Joya. 2002. Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition, 1932—1947. Cambridge and New
York: Cambridge University Press. 323 pages. ISBN 0521523281.
Chester, Lucy P. 2009. Borders and Conflict in South Asia: The Radcliffe Boundary Commission and the
Partition of Punjab. (http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/catalogue/book.asp?id=1204410)
Manchester University Press. ISBN 9780719078996.
Daiya, Kavita. 2008. Violent Belongings: Partition, Gender, and National Culture in Postcolonial India.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 274 pages. ISBN 9781592137442.
Gilmartin, David. 1988. Empire and Islam: Punjab and the Making of Pakistan. Berkeley: University of
California Press. 258 pages. ISBN 0520062493.
Gossman, Partricia. 1999. Riots and Victims: Violence and the Construction of Communal Identity Among
Bengali Muslims, 1905–1947. Westview Press. 224 pages. ISBN 0813336252
Gupta, Bal K. 2012 "Forgotten Atrocities: Memoirs of a Survivor of 1947 Partition of India". lulu.com
Hansen, Anders Bjørn. 2004. "Partition and Genocide: Manifestation of Violence in Punjab 1937–1947", India
Research Press. ISBN 9788187943259.
Harris, Kenneth. Attlee (1982) pp 355–87
Hasan, Mushirul (2001). India's Partition: Process, Strategy and Mobilization. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 444 pages. ISBN 0195635043.
Herman, Arthur. Gandhi & Churchill: The Epic Rivalry that Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age
(2009)
Ikram, S. M. 1995. Indian Muslims and Partition of India. Delhi: Atlantic. ISBN 8171563740
Jain, Jasbir (2007). Reading Partition, Living Partition. Rawat Publications, 338 pages. ISBN 8131600459
Jalal, Ayesha (1993). The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 334 pages. ISBN 0521458501
Kaur, Ravinder. 2007. "Since 1947: Partition Narratives among Punjabi Migrants of Delhi". Oxford
University Press. ISBN 9780195683776.
Khan, Yasmin (2007). The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan
(http://books.google.com/books?id=i9WdQp2pwOYC). Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300120783.
Retrieved 2 October 2013
Khosla, G. D. Stern reckoning : a survey of the events leading up to and following the partition of India New
Delhi: Oxford University Press:358 pages Published: February 1990 ISBN 0195624173
Lamb, Alastair (1991). Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy, 1846–1990. Roxford Books. ISBN 0907129064
Metcalf, Barbara; Metcalf, Thomas R. (2006). A Concise History of Modern India (Cambridge Concise
Histories). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp. xxxiii, 372. ISBN 0521682258
Moon, Penderel. (1999). The British Conquest and Dominion of India (2 vol. 1256pp)
Moore, R.J. (1983). Escape from Empire: The Attlee Government and the Indian Problem, the standard
history of the British position
Nair, Neeti. (2010) Changing Homelands: Hindu Politics and the Partition of India
Page, David, Anita Inder Singh, Penderel Moon, G. D. Khosla, and Mushirul Hasan. 2001. The Partition
Omnibus: Prelude to Partition/the Origins of the Partition of India 19361947/Divide and Quit/Stern
Reckoning. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195658507
Pal, Anadish Kumar. 2010. World Guide to the Partition of INDIA. Kindle Edition: Amazon Digital Services.
282 KB. ASIN B0036OSCAC
Pandey, Gyanendra. 2002. Remembering Partition:: Violence, Nationalism and History in India. Cambridge
University Press. 232 pages. ISBN 0521002508 online edition (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?
a=o&d=105038993)
Panigrahi; D.N. 2004. India's Partition: The Story of Imperialism in Retreat London: Routledge. online
edition (http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?
act=adv&contributors=D.%20N.%20Panigrahi&dcontributors=D.%20N.%20Panigrahi)
Raja, Masood Ashraf. Constructing Pakistan: Foundational Texts and the Rise of Muslim National Identity,
1857–1947, Oxford 2010, ISBN 9780195478112
Raza, Hashim S. 1989. Mountbatten and the partition of India. New Delhi: Atlantic. ISBN 8171560598
Shaikh, Farzana. 1989. Community and Consensus in Islam: Muslim Representation in Colonial India, 1860
—1947. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 272 pages. ISBN 0521363284.
Singh, Jaswant. (2011) Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence
Talbot, Ian and Gurharpal Singh (eds). 1999. Region and Partition: Bengal, Punjab and the Partition of the
Subcontinent. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 420 pages. ISBN 0195790510.
Talbot, Ian. 2002. Khizr Tiwana: The Punjab Unionist Party and the Partition of India. Oxford and New
York: Oxford University Press. 216 pages. ISBN 0195795512.
Talbot, Ian. 2006. Divided Cities: Partition and Its Aftermath in Lahore and Amritsar. Oxford and Karachi:
Oxford University Press. 350 pages. ISBN 0195472268.
Wolpert, Stanley. 2006. Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India. Oxford and New
York: Oxford University Press. 272 pages. ISBN 0195151984.
Talbot, Ian; Singh, Gurharpal (2009). The Partition of India (http://books.google.com/books?
id=utKmPQAACAAJ). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521856614. Retrieved 2 October 2013
Wolpert, Stanley. 1984. Jinnah of Pakistan
Articles
Brass, Paul. 2003. The partition of India and retributive genocide in the Punjab,1946–47: means, methods,
and purposes (http://faculty.washington.edu/brass/Partition.pdf) Washington University
Gilmartin, David. 1998. "Partition, Pakistan, and South Asian History: In Search of a Narrative." The Journal
of Asian Studies, 57(4):1068–1095.
Gupta, Bal K. "Death of Mahatma Gandhi and Alibeg Prisoners" www.dailyexcelsior.com
Gupta, Bal K. "Train from Pakistan" www.nripulse.com
Gupta, Bal K. "November 25, 1947, Pakisatni Invasion of Mirpur". www.dailyexcelsior.com
Jeffrey, Robin. 1974. "The Punjab Boundary Force and the Problem of Order, August 1947"
(http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026749X(1974)8%3A4%3C491%3ATPBFAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2Z) –
Modern Asian Studies 8(4):491–520.
Ravinder Kaur (2014). "Bodies of Partition: Of Widows, Residue and Other Historical Waste"
(https://www.academia.edu/5044993/Bodies_of_Partition_Of_Widows_Residue_and_Other_Historical_Waste
).
Kaur, Ravinder. 2009. 'Distinctive Citizenship: Refugees, Subjects and Postcolonial State in India's Partition'
(http://www.academia.edu/3195375/Distinctive_Citizenship_Refugees_Subjects_and_Post
colonial_State_in_Indias_Partition), Cultural and Social History.
Kaur, Ravinder. 2008. 'Narrative Absence: An 'untouchable' account of India's Partition Migration
(http://www.academia.edu/3195344/Narrative_absence_An_Untouchableaccount_of_Partition_migration),
Contributions to Indian Sociology.
Kaur Ravinder. 2007. "India and Pakistan: Partition Lessons"
(http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/conflicts/india_pakistan/partition). Open Democracy.
Kaur, Ravinder. 2006. "The Last Journey: Social Class in the Partition of India"
(http://www.academia.edu/3195382/The_Last_Journey_Exploring_Social_Class_in_the_1947_Partition_Migra
tion). Economic and Political Weekly, June 2006. epw.org.in
Khan, Lal (2003). Partition – Can it be undone?. Wellred Publications. p. 228. ISBN 1900007150.
MookerjeaLeonard, Debali. 2005. "Divided Homelands, Hostile Homes: Partition, Women and
Homelessness". Journal of Commonwealth Literature, 40(2):141–154.
MookerjeaLeonard, Debali. 2004. "Quarantined: Women and the Partition". Comparative Studies of South
Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 24(1): 35–50.
MorrisJones. 1983. "ThirtySix Years Later: The Mixed Legacies of Mountbatten's Transfer of Power".
International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs), 59(4):621–628.
Noorani, A. G. (22 Dec 2001 – 4 Jan 2002). "The Partition of India"
(http://hindu.com/fline/fl1826/18260810.htm). Frontline 18 (26). Retrieved 12 October 2011.
Spate, O. H. K. (1947). "The Partition of the Punjab and of Bengal". The Geographical Journal 110 (4/6):
201–218. doi:10.2307/1789950 (https://dx.doi.org/10.2307%2F1789950)
Spear, Percival. 1958. "Britain's Transfer of Power in India." Pacific Affairs, 31(2):173–180.
Talbot, Ian. 1994. "Planning for Pakistan: The Planning Committee of the AllIndia Muslim League, 1943–
46". Modern Asian Studies, 28(4):875–889.
Visaria, Pravin M. 1969. "Migration Between India and Pakistan, 1951–61" Demography, 6(3):323–334.
Chopra, R. M., "The Punjab And Bengal", Calcutta, 1999.
Primary sources
Mansergh, Nicholas, and Penderel Moon, eds. The Transfer of Power 1942–47 (12 vol., London: HMSO .
1970–83) comprehensive collection of British official and private documents
Moon, Penderel. (1998) Divide & Quit
Narendra Singh Sarila, "The Shadow of the Great Game: The Untold Story of India's Partition", Publisher:
Carroll & Graf
Popularizations
Collins, Larry and Dominique Lapierre: Freedom at Midnight. London: Collins, 1975. ISBN 0006388515
Zubrzycki, John. (2006) The Last Nizam: An Indian Prince in the Australian Outback. Pan Macmillan,
Australia. ISBN 9780330423212.
Memoirs and oral history
Bonney, Richard; Hyde, Colin; Martin, John. "Legacy of Partition, 1947–2009: Creating New Archives from
the Memories of Leicestershire People," Midland History, (Sept 2011), Vol. 36 Issue 2, pp 215–224
Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam: India Wins Freedom, Orient Longman, 1988. ISBN 8125005145
Mountbatten, Pamela. (2009) India Remembered: A Personal Account of the Mountbattens During the
Transfer of Power
HistoricalFiction
Mohammed, Javed: Walk to Freedom, Rumi Bookstore, 2006. ISBN 9780970126122
External links
The Indian Subcontinent Partition Documentation (ISPaD)
Wikimedia Commons has
Project (http://www.ispad1947.org/)
media related to Partition of
The Indian Subcontinent Partition Documentation (ISPaD) British India.
Project YouTube
(https://www.youtube.com/user/ispad1947/) Wikimedia Commons has
1947 Partition Archive media related to Partition of
(http://www.1947partitionarchive.org/) India.
1947 Partition Archive YouTube
(https://www.youtube.com/user/1947PartitionArchive)
India Memory Project 1947 India Pakistan Partition
(http://www.indianmemoryproject.com/category/battleandconflict/1947partition/)
The Road to Partition 19391947 The National Archives
(http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/theroadtopartition/)
INDIAN INDEPENDENCE BILL, 1947
(http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1947/jul/16/indianindependencebill)
Bibliographies
Select Research Bibliography on the Partition of India
(http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Independent/partition_bibliography.html),
Compiled by Vinay Lal, Department of History, UCLA; University of California at Los Angeles
A select list of Indian Publications on the Partition of India (Punjab & Bengal)
(http://www.lib.virginia.edu/areastudies/SouthAsia/Lib/man08par97.html); University of Virginia
South Asian History: Colonial India
(http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/SSEAL/SouthAsia/india_colonial.html) — University of California,
Berkeley Collection of documents on colonial India, Independence, and Partition
Indian Nationalism
(http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/india/indiasbook.html#Indian%20Nationalism) — Fordham
University archive of relevant publicdomain documents
Other links
Clip from 1947 newsreel showing Indian independence ceremony
(http://www.harappa.com/wall/india.html)
Through My Eyes Website (http://www.throughmyeyes.org.uk/server/show/nav.22207) Imperial
War Museum – Online Exhibition (including images, video and interviews with refugees from the
Partition of India)
A People Partitioned (http://www.andrewwhitehead.net/indiaapeoplepartitioned.html) Five
radio programmes broadcast on the BBC World Service in 1997 containing the voices of people
across South Asia who lived through Partition.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Partition_of_India&oldid=681449392"
Categories: British Empire Divided regions History of Bengal History of West Bengal

History of Bangladesh History of Kolkata Partition (politics) Forced migration
Ethnic cleansing in Asia Independent India Pakistan Movement Partition of India
This page was last modified on 17 September 2015, at 08:31.
Text is available under the Creative Commons AttributionShareAlike License; additional terms
may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a
registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit organization.

Partition of India - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Partition of India - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

9/19/2015 Partition of India Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1909 Percentage of Hindus. 1909 Percentage of Muslims. 1909 Percentage of Sikhs,

Indian medical orderlies Mohandas Karamchand Muhammad Ali Jinnah,

World War I. Karachi in 1916 after his rift between the Extremists,

Allama Muhammad Iqbal, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sarojini Chaudhari Khaliquzzaman

Members of the 1946 Cabinet An aged and abandoned An old Sikh man carrying his

Categories: British Empire Divided regions History of Bengal History of West Bengal

S-ar putea să vă placă și

Partition of India - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Partition of India - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

9/19/2015 Partition of India ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1909 Percentage of Hindus. 1909 Percentage of Muslims. 1909 Percentage of Sikhs,

Indian medical orderlies Mohandas Karamchand Muhammad Ali Jinnah,

World War I. Karachi in 1916 after his rift between the Extremists,

Allama Muhammad Iqbal, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sarojini Chaudhari Khaliquzzaman

Members of the 1946 Cabinet An aged and abandoned An old Sikh man carrying his

Categories: British Empire Divided regions History of Bengal History of West Bengal

S-ar putea să vă placă și

9/19/2015 Partition of India Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia