Religion vs Illusion- What divided the Subcontinent?
The Indian subcontinent is known for its diversity in culture, languages, and religions. A wide variety of ethnic groups, civilizations, and empires influenced it over the course of its history. However, this diversity also brings the question of the division of the subcontinent into two separate states. Can the divide between Hindus and Muslims in the subcontinent be attributed only to religion, or were there other underlying factors at play? In today’s world, where religious tensions and conflicts persist, the essay provides a useful perspective on the role that religion had in the separation of the subcontinent. Although it was unquestionably a factor, religion was not the only reason for the separation. Additionally, it may inspire readers to think critically about the elements that shape today’s world and to challenge glib interpretations of historical events.
On 14 August 1947, the subcontinent was torn apart not only by borders and politics but also by a fundamental clash between religion and illusion, leaving scars that haunt the region to this day. As said by Dr. Gareth Price, at the UK-based Chatham House foreign-policy institute, “It would have taken a long time to get agreement about how a united India would work. Partition seemed to be a quick solution” [1].
The division of the Indian subcontinent in 1947 was not solely caused by religious differences between Hindus and Muslims, but also by the failure of political leaders to address the complex interplay of religious, cultural, and economic factors that fueled communal tensions. Nationalist movements such as the All-India Muslim League and the Indian National Congress, and their illusions of cultural superiority and political power, played a significant role in exacerbating these tensions, leading to violence and ultimately to the division of the subcontinent.
The partition was a result of a long and complex history of colonization, nationalism, religious tensions, and political maneuvering. When the British East India Company started to establish a presence in the Indian subcontinent in the 17th century, it gradually extended its dominance over the region. They had direct control over the majority of the Indian subcontinent by the middle of the 19th century. As the Indian nationalist movement gained momentum in the early 20th century, religious tensions also grew more intense. While Muslims, who made up a sizeable minority, worried that their interests would be marginalized in an independent India dominated by Hindus, Hindus, who made up most of the population, demanded greater representation and political power. The Muslim League, a political party that was established in 1906, began to advocate for the establishment of a distinct Muslim state in the northwest and northeastern regions of India. The subcontinent was finally partitioned in August 1947 after the British administration advocated it in 1947 in response to growing pressure from nationalist and religious parties.
The partition was marked by widespread violence, as millions of people were displaced, and communal tensions boiled over into riots and massacres. According to Nisid Hajari, in “Midnight’s Furies”, “Gangs of killers set whole villages aflame, hacking to death men and children and the aged while carrying off young women to be raped”.
The partition of India in 1947 was greatly influenced by the Two-Nation Theory, which called for the split of the Indian subcontinent based on religious identity. The Muslim League in India was a major proponent of this theory. This ideology held that Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations with unique religions, cultures, and civilizations and could not cohabit in the same state. This notion sowed the seeds of a profound rift between Hindus and Muslims, who had previously coexisted happily for millennia. In the end, it resulted in the founding of Pakistan in 1947, a country with a majority of Muslims. Pakistan was established as a result of Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s demand for a separate state for the Muslims of the subcontinent. As a result, the idea of the two-nation hypothesis based on religious identity had a significant impact on how the subcontinent was divided.
Objectives Resolution, passed by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on March 12, 1949, explicitly states: “Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah” [2](Objectives Resolution). This lays the foundation for the Islamic values to be upheld in Pakistan and declares that religion was the primary cause of the subcontinent’s division.
Religious identity creates a sense of belonging and exclusivity among its followers. This can lead to the creation of separate communities that may view each other with suspicion and distrust. The Indian subcontinent had a long history of religious conflicts between Hindus and Muslims, which dates to the Mughal era. From the 16th until the 19th century, the Mughal Empire dominated a large portion of the Indian subcontinent. This era was characterized by a complex relationship between its Muslim rulers and the largely Hindu population. For instance: the construction of the Babri Masjid, a mosque erected by Mughal emperor Babur in the city of Ayodhya in present-day Uttar Pradesh, was one of the most significant religious conflicts during the Mughal Empire. The mosque was constructed in the place of a demolished Hindu temple, which infuriated certain Hindu nationalists and caused racial tensions in the area. Hindu mobs destroyed the mosque in 1992, sparking significant violence and ongoing hostilities between the Muslim and Hindu communities.
Similarly, the Marathas, a predominantly Hindu group, rebelled against Aurangzeb’s religious policies and his attempts to impose Islamic law on the Hindu population. The uprising sparked a protracted war that lasted for several decades between the Marathas and the Mughal Empire. As said by Abraham Early, an Indian writer of history, “The Mughals were Muslim, and the Hindus were, of course, not, so there was always a tension between the two communities” [3] (Early 25).
Hence, it shows that Muslims and Hindus were two entirely different nations with separate religions and cultures who had fought in the past too and cannot live in harmony with each other. Thus, religion was the primary cause that partitioned the subcontinent.
Now that two very strong for arguments have been presented about the role of religion. On the flip side, it is believed that the subcontinent was split by political leaders’ disparate self-interests and strategies for gaining power. In a short survey of non-Muslim respondents, it came to light that they believe that the Indian subcontinent was divided by various political, economic, cultural, and personal objectives of the leaders. Ayesha Jalal also takes the same stance. As said by Jalal – the Pakistani American historian – the idea of Pakistan was “the product of a small group of elites” who used the Muslim League to achieve their political goals [4]. She also emphasizes how British colonization influenced the political climate of the Indian subcontinent and ultimately led to India’s division. British tactics of divide-and-rule, which set various religious and ethnic groups against one another, fueled communal strife that ultimately resulted in the division of India and the foundation of Pakistan.
British India’s 1946 elections were a key factor in the foundation of Pakistan, which was established on August 14, 1947. To win these elections, Muslim League targeted landlords because of their economic and influential power, pirs who would galvanize their followers to vote for the Muslim league, and the shrines to use Islam to attract people so it could strengthen their ‘Islamic’ manifesto. According to Talbot, the Muslim League sought the backing of the Islamic clergy or ulemas, during the 1946 Punjab elections in order to improve its chances of winning [5]. To this end, the Muslim League leadership encouraged prominent ulemas to issue fatwas in favor of the party. Consequently, in the elections, the Muslim League won 425 out of a total of 496 Muslim seats which granted them the right to form a government of their own. This validates the argument that it was not only religion that divided the subcontinent, but also the selfish interests of power of some elites.
Moreover, the British had exploited the Indian subcontinent for centuries, and as a result, the region had become economically weak, so the partition of India was seen as an opportunity for both India and Pakistan to chart their economic course and develop their respective economies. In May 1942, Gandhi called on Britain to “leave India to God. If this is too much, then leave her to anarchy” [6]. Because of colonial rule, India was left with inadequate infrastructure, limited industrialization, and an agricultural sector that was focused on producing raw resources for export to Britain because of colonial control.
Furthermore, the British developed programs that prioritized communities over others, which widened economic inequality. For example, the land revenue system imposed taxes on agricultural land. This system favored the large landowners, who were mostly Muslims, and had access to resources and political power, while small farmers, who were mostly Hindus, were burdened with heavy taxes, leading to their economic exploitation [7]. The uneven economic development and neglect of certain regions in India, such as East Bengal and Punjab, contributed to the demand for two separate states to avoid economic disparities.
In conclusion after giving due weightage to each factor behind the separation of subcontinent, it is evident that the issue lies in the historical accounts that get distorted or manipulated by those in power for their own purposes. No one factor, but rather a number of them, played a role in Pakistan’s creation. Diverse political, economic, and cultural issues contributed to the division of the subcontinent, in addition to religion. There have been a number of conflicting narratives surrounding the partition of India, with each nation creating its own account of the events leading up to and following the division.
In a brief study of Muslim citizens of Pakistan, a shocking pattern emerged that almost all respondents believed that religion was the only factor in the subcontinent’s division. Extremist examples of unjustly killing non-Muslims and false blasphemy accusations emerge when people are told that two nations were unable to coexist because of different religions. This is because we believe that we cannot coexist with someone who practices a different religion. Therefore, we should examine the divergent ways in which Indian and Pakistani perspectives interpret and represent the event of partition and not just limit ourselves to the study of only one author.
The scope of this essay is limited to a smaller sample size and only a few perspectives. The essay might reflect my biases and preconceptions as the Pakistan Studies book, I studied in past ten years in the school, only showed one side of the story and failed to take into account the narrative of the other side. As said by Ismat Riaz, who is an educational consultant, “Pakistan’s first education minister, Fazalur Rehman, set up the Historical Society of Pakistan in 1948 so that history for the new nation could be rewritten in a fair and balanced manner using authentic and reliable sources”[8]. But I have tried by best to carefully asses for and against arguments keeping preconceived narratives aside. It is more important than ever to discuss the nonreligious factors that divided the subcontinent so that we can learn how people of different religions can live in peace and harmony, how to value diversity, and how to put an end to extremist incidents and the killing of non-Muslims in Pakistan. We also need to educate ourselves on historical events so that we can avoid repeating the same mistakes.
[1] Reference: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-62467438
[2] Reference: http://[2] Reference: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20839154
[3] Reference: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25210917
[6] Reference: https://historypak.com/elections-of-1945-46/
[7] Reference: https://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/gandhi-comes-alive/quit-india.html
[8] Reference: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45194066
The author is and Accounting and Finance student at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS).
This essay reflects an unbiased and facts based approach. The conscience of the writer gives us a true picture of subcontinent partition. She gave viable references for every argument to vindicate it. This essay cleared many of misconceptions I had been having for many years. From Mughals’ role in extending religious dispersion to personal interests of Muslim elites of 20th century, breaks many stereotypes of a common man who’s just grown up with believing that religion was the sole incendiary.
Well done!
Good luck to the writer for her future endeavours!