Has anyone here read Ambedkar's book "Pakistan, or, The Partition of India"?

Oct 2015
1,106
India
#23
Excellent points, Rajeev! BTW, I wonder if partition might have ultimately been cancelled had Mountbatten stuck to the original date of June 1948. I mean, by that time, Jinnah was even more ill and I'm not sure that he would have been able to continue hiding his symptoms at that point in time. If it becomes clear that Jinnah is dying, is Mountbatten going to try stalling partition even further, and, if so, is there ultimately going to be a deal between the INC and the ML after Jinnah's death to cancel partition?
It is difficult to say whether partition would have taken place if Jinnah died. We need to look at interests of involved parties:

1. Surhawarthy: In case of Jinnah's death Surhawarthy would have succeeded. He did not have a clear stand. He was okay without Partition and wanted a coalition government in Bengal. later, he was the man who had spearheaded the 'Direct Action Day'. After that he lead the preparation of attack on Kashmir (Jan-Oct 1947). It is not impossible that may have agreed to forego partition.

2. Patel-Nehru-Gandhi: Nehru was in favour of a strong centre, not a weak centre which would be hallmark of united India. He wanted a partitioned India. Patel had also accepted that Muslim majority areas can go away - they did not want hassle of dealing with unruliness & violence.

3. Mountbatten-Great Britain: If Nehru wanted a united India Mountbatten would have helped him in that goal as a good friend. British appeared neutral, wanting to get out of India safety, which meant as fast as possible.

4. USA: I strongly suspect USA wanted a partition and they would have been putting pressure on UK for it. First Nehru was a socialist and would not have cooperated with American goal of having military bases in India to target USSR and Afghanistan. Secondly, a united India would have been the biggest country in the world.

What could have happened, had Jinnah died, keeping all these interests in view? Your guess would be as good as mine.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,595
India
#24
It sort of reminds me of a hypothetical person who proudly lives in a mud hut and refuses to accept any assistance from anyone else! :D
Sindhi nationalists actually resent that because nothing changed for them, the Muhajirs flooded their cities and Sindhi identity was erased from Karachi and Hyderabad, Sindhi Muslims forever remained poor and seen as inferior people by Muhajirs. Many Sindhi Nationalists even support Raja Dahir, the last Hindu king of Sindh who was defeated by Arabs in 712 AD. But the other Pakistanis are indifferent to flight of Hindu entrepreneurs from Sindh.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,936
SoCal
#25
It is difficult to say whether partition would have taken place if Jinnah died. We need to look at interests of involved parties:

1. Surhawarthy: In case of Jinnah's death Surhawarthy would have succeeded. He did not have a clear stand. He was okay without Partition and wanted a coalition government in Bengal. later, he was the man who had spearheaded the 'Direct Action Day'. After that he lead the preparation of attack on Kashmir (Jan-Oct 1947). It is not impossible that may have agreed to forego partition.

2. Patel-Nehru-Gandhi: Nehru was in favour of a strong centre, not a weak centre which would be hallmark of united India. He wanted a partitioned India. Patel had also accepted that Muslim majority areas can go away - they did not want hassle of dealing with unruliness & violence.

3. Mountbatten-Great Britain: If Nehru wanted a united India Mountbatten would have helped him in that goal as a good friend. British appeared neutral, wanting to get out of India safety, which meant as fast as possible.

4. USA: I strongly suspect USA wanted a partition and they would have been putting pressure on UK for it. First Nehru was a socialist and would not have cooperated with American goal of having military bases in India to target USSR and Afghanistan. Secondly, a united India would have been the biggest country in the world.

What could have happened, had Jinnah died, keeping all these interests in view? Your guess would be as good as mine.
What about the new leadership of the Muslim League after Jinnah's death? What would their position on partition have been in such a scenario?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,936
SoCal
#26
Sindhi nationalists actually resent that because nothing changed for them, the Muhajirs flooded their cities and Sindhi identity was erased from Karachi and Hyderabad, Sindhi Muslims forever remained poor and seen as inferior people by Muhajirs. Many Sindhi Nationalists even support Raja Dahir, the last Hindu king of Sindh who was defeated by Arabs in 712 AD. But the other Pakistanis are indifferent to flight of Hindu entrepreneurs from Sindh.
Where in India did the Sindhi Hindus settle?
 
Oct 2015
1,106
India
#27
What about the new leadership of the Muslim League after Jinnah's death? What would their position on partition have been in such a scenario?
Next to Jinnah was Liaquat Ali Khan, who was strongly for formation of a separate Pakistan.

Liaquat had moved the Pakistan Resolution in 1940 in AIML. Then he became 1st Prime Minister of Pakistan (1947-1951). After death of Jinnah in 1948, he became President of Pakistan Muslim League. However, he was assassinated by a Pathan in 1951. While the motive is debated, I presume it was because Pathans were not happy about being forced to join Pakistan.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,936
SoCal
#28
Next to Jinnah was Liaquat Ali Khan, who was strongly for formation of a separate Pakistan.

Liaquat had moved the Pakistan Resolution in 1940 in AIML. Then he became 1st Prime Minister of Pakistan (1947-1951). After death of Jinnah in 1948, he became President of Pakistan Muslim League. However, he was assassinated by a Pathan in 1951. While the motive is debated, I presume it was because Pathans were not happy about being forced to join Pakistan.
So, if Jinnadh dies earlier, Liaquat would still push for partition as the head of the Muslim League?
 
Oct 2015
1,106
India
#29
So, if Jinnadh dies earlier, Liaquat would still push for partition as the head of the Muslim League?
Yes, that what I was trying to say.

I suspect that Americans too had a role in Partition. Two reasons:
  • Immediately on independence Pakistan became a member of all military pacts/alliances headed by USA. Even before independence, it was known that Nehru believed in non-aligned policy - an anathema to USA - and if anything was more of a socialist - still bigger anathema). geopolitical interests were very clear to British in pre-War days and especially after WW-II. This strategic relationship between Pakistan & USA continues till today with some 'blow hot blow cold' in between.
  • Liaquat Ali Khan as first PM of Pakistan visited USA but no Soviet Union. He was criticized for this in his lifetime and continues to be.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,936
SoCal
#30
Yes, that what I was trying to say.

I suspect that Americans too had a role in Partition. Two reasons:
  • Immediately on independence Pakistan became a member of all military pacts/alliances headed by USA. Even before independence, it was known that Nehru believed in non-aligned policy - an anathema to USA - and if anything was more of a socialist - still bigger anathema). geopolitical interests were very clear to British in pre-War days and especially after WW-II. This strategic relationship between Pakistan & USA continues till today with some 'blow hot blow cold' in between.
  • Liaquat Ali Khan as first PM of Pakistan visited USA but no Soviet Union. He was criticized for this in his lifetime and continues to be.
Did Liaquat ever make any plans to visit the USSR without ever actually fulfilling them, though? Or were no plans ever made at all in regards to this?
 

Similar History Discussions