How important was World War II in causing British India to be partitioned in 1947?

Jun 2014
4,516
India
British at last wanted India to remain united all though some ultra-right wing officials wanted partition, how ever the monster they were feeding since decades by Divide and Rule Policy and Reservation to weaken India's freedom movement, it became so powerful that they could not control it at last.

WW2 perhaps can be said important as during it prominent Hindu leaders either went to jail or hiding as they wanted to liberate India from British, it created a vacuum in leadership in India, Muslim League leaders used this opportunity to increase their influence as much as possible.

Ajanbahu is basically correct that Pakistan was created in 712 CE or perhaps correct term is it's basis, later this basis expanded because of rigidity in Indian society and Hindu kings's unrealistic attitude.
What I said was that it was born at that time, it became adult only in 1940s and was certainly helped by British, this is still going on. Entire media of west has engaged in most shameless lies about events of post 1947, whether we like it or not but only an unrealist westerner would want a unified India and we all know the forces which need patronage to sabotage Indian Republic.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
What lies are you talking about? I'm not arguing the violence was orchestrated by the British.

As to Partition, the fact that we disagree doesn't now give us the right to undo the sovereignty of other countries. Supposing modern day British citizens decided that they wanted to disagree with handover of Calais. Does that give Britain the right to annex parts of France then?

India wasn't interested in expanding its borders. What is it with you and hating Indians?
I would like to point out India did exactly that - it annexed both Hyberabad and Goa. Both those areas were unilaterally annexed by India. India is guilty of the very the very hypothetical situation you propose, but I haven't seen the sign of guilt over it. If India could have gotten away with it, I suspect If India, they might have done the same thing to Bangledesh.

I hated seeing people blaming their own failurew on others. When East Pakistan split, it was the perfect time for India to propose a voluntary re-union, yet I don't see any evidence that that India made the effort. Instead of whinig about partition, they could have done something about. They didn't. That is because Britain was concedeing to popular demand, at least from a certain seqment, when they came up with partition. Hindus hate parition, because in any future country they would have been a majority and they knew it. Muslims pushed for it, because they would rather live in a Muslim state if they could, where their values would dominate. I can't say I blame them, when Indians elect a fascist like Modi. His party has unrepetent ties to the Nazis, and much of what the Indian nationalist say and do could have come from the lips of the most ardent Nazi.

What world war 2 did was to accelerate the independence of India. If they delayed India's independence, the British wouldhave had more time to reflect, and think about the adverse impact partition might have had, and planned to handle matters better. Perhaps they might have realized the forces pushing partition were just a vocal minority. But only a few short years after WW2 didn't give the Brits time enough to think about matters.

What most Indians don't seem wiling to acknowldge is that India as we know it is a creation of the British Raj - before them, there was no dynasty that ruled all of what is now India. Simply because there was a common culture does not automatically translate into political unity. Europe is a classic example - culturally, Europe had as much as common culture as India, but since the collapse of the Roman Empire no one has been able to combine it into one political body. Or take the US and Britain - culturally, lignusitically, America and Britain as as close as India collectively, but there is no political unity. That doesn't mean that India hasn't developed a true national identity, it has. But India as a nation would never have come about but for the Raj.

Sooner or later, if there hadn't been partition, India would have face rebellion like that in Kashmir, but on a much, much bigger scale, and I think Pakinstan would have broken away from India anyways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

tornada

Ad Honoris
Mar 2013
15,385
India
I would like to point out India did exactly that - it annexed both Hyberabad and Goa. Both those areas were unilaterally annexed by India. India is guilty of the very the very hypothetical situation you propose, but I haven't seen the sign of guilt over it. If India could have gotten away with it, I suspect If India, they might have done the same thing to Bangledesh.

I hated seeing people blaming their own failurew on others. When East Pakistan split, it was the perfect time for India to propose a voluntary re-union, yet I don't see any evidence that that India made the effort. Instead of whinig about partition, they could have done something about. They didn't. That is because Britain was concedeing to popular demand, at least from a certain seqment, when they came up with partition. Hindus hate parition, because in any future country they would have been a majority and they knew it. Muslims pushed for it, because they would rather live in a Muslim state if they could, where their values would dominate. I can't say I blame them, when Indians elect a fascist like Modi. His party has unrepetent ties to the Nazis, and much of what the Indian nationalist say and do could have come from the lips of the most ardent Nazi.

What world war 2 did was to accelerate the independence of India. If they delayed India's independence, the British wouldhave had more time to reflect, and think about the adverse impact partition might have had, and planned to handle matters better. Perhaps they might have realized the forces pushing partition were just a vocal minority. But only a few short years after WW2 didn't give the Brits time enough to think about matters.

What most Indians don't seem wiling to acknowldge is that India as we know it is a creation of the British Raj - before them, there was no dynasty that ruled all of what is now India. Simply because there was a common culture does not automatically translate into political unity. Europe is a classic example - culturally, Europe had as much as common culture as India, but since the collapse of the Roman Empire no one has been able to combine it into one political body. Or take the US and Britain - culturally, lignusitically, America and Britain as as close as India collectively, but there is no political unity. That doesn't mean that India hasn't developed a true national identity, it has. But India as a nation would never have come about but for the Raj.

Sooner or later, if there hadn't been partition, India would have face rebellion like that in Kashmir, but on a much, much bigger scale, and I think Pakinstan would have broken away from India anyways.
No country can exist as a patchwork quilt. Both Goa and Hyderabad were within the territory of India, and they're incorporation was a condition to the integrity of India. All post colonial countries did that, including Pakistan, and India's creation as a moth worn blanket hadn't really been conducive to its existence as a nation.

India has however never sought to expand the borders ti agreed to in 47. Right from 1950 it had considered Goa to be part of its territory, and had sought to initially negotiate with the Portuguese. Non-negotiation is what forced their hand.

The only decent example you would have is Sikkim, although its situation was much like Kashmir.

India did not incorporate Bangladesh because it respected the Partition. India doesn't complain about the Partition in the sense that it now seeks to reverse it. But nonetheless, Partition was one of many different options available to the British Colonial Government, and Partition was one of the many different things different sections of the population were demanding (along with things like separate electorate), and the British chose to foster and nurture the ideal of Partition.

World War II, simply forced them to rush ahead with it. Even a planned partition could have avoided the bloodshed, with proper controlled laws in place to ensure population transfer. Post World War II however Britain was largely looking to get out as soon as possible, and so in 47, following the earlier Navy Mutiny, they just dumped everything and left. The creation of Pakistan was done in a manner to facilitate its incorporation into the Islamic Arc which to their mind they felt they could use as a buffer to the Soviet Union - that sure worked out well.

And I don't know what you're talking about. Most Indians, and almost all of Indian academia acknowledge that the Political entity called India was forged under the British. Not one person I know has even denied this on this forum. We can't say what would have happened absent partition, and no one really has any way to objectively prove their theory over that of others. The violence at Partition was certainly not foreseen by any party. But the rushed nature of Partition was a consequence of World War II, while Partition itself was part of Britain's plan to retain geo-political dominance and control. It just so happens that the British probably didn't forsee that they wouldn't actually be running the show soon after WWII, and that the Americans would be doing it..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: prashanth

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,703
SoCal
No, it was not Britain's wish that India should be partitioned, that came about as a result of political pressures in the subcontinent itself, accompanied by inter-communal violence that Britain lacked the power to control, hence the putting forward of the date for the transfer of power; the historical record is entirely clear. Indirectly the WW2 was of course very important in leading to partition, but it was nothing to do with Britain wanting to reward Muslims for support during the war.
Do you think that British India would have still gotten partitioned without WWII? Also, what about with WWII but without the Fall of France?
 
Jul 2017
161
Europe
Britain, after the WWII, had lost its influence as U.S. became a dominant superpower in the Western World. Britain had other priorities after the war, including adopting to the new political and economic system in the world and they could not afford to keep colonies. I am sure though, the partition of India could have been implemented in a smarter manner, but it was obvious that Brits at the time did not care about what happens in India after they left.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,199
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Because the guy who wrote it still posts on this forum even right now?

Which part of "We strongly discourage thread necromancy. Reviving and replying to threads older than 2 years is generally frowned upon. Instead, you can create a new thread and include a link to the old thread. " did you find hard to understand?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist