Why wasn't Sindh partitioned in 1947?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,680
SoCal
#1
Why wasn't Sindh partitioned in 1947? The overwhelming majority of the province was Muslim-majority, but there were a couple of Hindu-majority areas near India that could have joined India:



The author of this blog post suggests that Sindh might have avoided partitioned in 1947 in order to compensate Pakistan for the favorable border that India received in Punjab:

Why Wasn’t Sindh Partitioned in 1947?

In other words, Pakistan got all of Sindh to compensate it for getting a less-than-favorable border in Punjab.

Anyway, though, what are your thoughts as to why Sindh wasn't partitioned in 1947? Was it because the Indian National Congress never made such a demand? Or was it for some other reason?

BTW, here is how a partition of Sindh in 1947 would have looked like:

 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,298
New Delhi, India
#2
Jinnah convinced the king of Umarkot (Rana Arjun Singh ?) that Hindus will not face any inconvenience if they merged into Pakistan. Umarkot was culturally Sindhi. Jinnah was also in talks with the Jodhpur king that he should merge with Pakistan. The Jodhpur king (Maharaja Hanwant Singh) was trying to save his power.
 
Likes: Futurist
Apr 2015
4,315
India
#3
Jinnah convinced the king of Umarkot (Rana Arjun Singh ?) that Hindus will not face any inconvenience if they merged into Pakistan. Umarkot was culturally Sindhi. Jinnah was also in talks with the Jodhpur king that he should merge with Pakistan. The Jodhpur king (Maharaja Hanwant Singh) was trying to save his power.
The region was called Amarkot, the name was changed to Umarkot to wipe out its Hindu origin name. Hindus still face persecution in Umarkot. Jinnah fooled everyone.
 
Likes: Futurist
Apr 2015
4,315
India
#4
Why wasn't Sindh partitioned in 1947? The overwhelming majority of the province was Muslim-majority, but there were a couple of Hindu-majority areas near India that could have joined India:



The author of this blog post suggests that Sindh might have avoided partitioned in 1947 in order to compensate Pakistan for the favorable border that India received in Punjab:

Why Wasn’t Sindh Partitioned in 1947?

In other words, Pakistan got all of Sindh to compensate it for getting a less-than-favorable border in Punjab.

Anyway, though, what are your thoughts as to why Sindh wasn't partitioned in 1947? Was it because the Indian National Congress never made such a demand? Or was it for some other reason?

BTW, here is how a partition of Sindh in 1947 would have looked like:

Yes, these regions should have come to India, Muslim majority areas of Assam Sylhet was given to East Pakistan. Even Buddhist majority Chittagong Hill track was given to Pakistan and it ended up as a disaster for Chakma people leading to their ethnic cleansing.
 
Likes: Futurist
#5
again hindutvas on the role, there is no political support for hindu persecution, so where does jinnah even come into this picture, jinnah himself was wary of the feudal lords and called them loose coins, do you know how many hidu ministers were appointed by jinnah in his cabinet?, and as far as umerkot's name is concerned, i just had a read on its history, it seems like umerkot fort exchanged hands a lot of times, between both muslims and the hindus between sindhis/muslims and rajputs/hindus, it seems more like ethnic rivalry then a religious one as umerkot is named after somroo family who also probably at some period ruled over the region, there are feudal lords who back activities against the hindus but officially the parties dont support such actions, the entire country is ruled by feudal lords, sardars, so the parties try to appease them for their votes.

wasn't allahabad given a hindu name few months ago despite the city was founded by a muslim king?

Sindh was never ruled by right wing as hindu right wing rules UP. even the right wing in Pakistan is not that of a right wing as its not driven by ideology to say the least.

regards
 
Apr 2015
4,315
India
#6
again hindutvas on the role, there is no political support for hindu persecution, so where does jinnah even come into this picture, jinnah himself was wary of the feudal lords and called them loose coins, do you know how many hidu ministers were appointed by jinnah in his cabinet?, and as far as umerkot's name is concerned, i just had a read on its history, it seems like umerkot fort exchanged hands a lot of times, between both muslims and the hindus between sindhis/muslims and rajputs/hindus, it seems more like ethnic rivalry then a religious one as umerkot is named after somroo family who also probably at some period ruled over the region, there are feudal lords who back activities against the hindus but officially the parties dont support such actions, the entire country is ruled by feudal lords, sardars, so the parties try to appease them for their votes.

wasn't allahabad given a hindu name few months ago despite the city was founded by a muslim king?

Sindh was never ruled by right wing as hindu right wing rules UP. even the right wing in Pakistan is not that of a right wing as its not driven by ideology to say the least.

regards
Muslim League itself was an Islamic extremist party. There was nothing Secular about Jinnah, he was a rabid Hindu hater because some wealthy Hindu merchant in Karachi didn't hire him on demanded salary and he disowned his daughter for marrying a Parsi/ Zoroastrian. The Hindu minister you are talking about later migrated to India because he later too understood that Muslim League is an religious extremist party.
 
Likes: Futurist
May 2014
16,680
SoCal
#7
Yes, these regions should have come to India, Muslim majority areas of Assam Sylhet was given to East Pakistan. Even Buddhist majority Chittagong Hill track was given to Pakistan and it ended up as a disaster for Chakma people leading to their ethnic cleansing.
Agreed. Also, I wonder which way a plebiscite in Sindh's largest cities is going to go. I see a large Hindu presence in Karachi and whatever city that is in central Sindh (Hyderabad?).
 
Apr 2015
4,315
India
#8
Agreed. Also, I wonder which way a plebiscite in Sindh's largest cities is going to go. I see a large Hindu presence in Karachi and whatever city that is in central Sindh (Hyderabad?).
Yes, Karachi was an economic hub and most of the businesses was owned by Sindhi Hindus, similar to Punjabi Hindus in Lahore. Most of the Sindhi Hindus were businessmen and far more educated people compared to their Muslim counterpart. With the arrival of Urdu speaking Muhajirs from North India, violence broke out against Hindus and the Hindus were driven away from Karachi and Hyderabad. The migration of Hindus (who formed the entrepreneur class of Punjab and Sindh) had a huge economic cost for both Punjab and Sindh. This was followed by ethnic tensions between Muhajirs and Sindhi Muslims who saw their land being colonized by outsiders and mounting anti-Urdu feeling in Sindh.
 
Likes: Futurist
May 2014
16,680
SoCal
#9
Yes, Karachi was an economic hub and most of the businesses was owned by Sindhi Hindus, similar to Punjabi Hindus in Lahore. Most of the Sindhi Hindus were businessmen and far more educated people compared to their Muslim counterpart. With the arrival of Urdu speaking Muhajirs from North India, violence broke out against Hindus and the Hindus were driven away from Karachi and Hyderabad. The migration of Hindus (who formed the entrepreneur class of Punjab and Sindh) had a huge economic cost for both Punjab and Sindh. This was followed by ethnic tensions between Muhajirs and Sindhi Muslims who saw their land being colonized by outsiders and mounting anti-Urdu feeling in Sindh.
Very interesting!

Yeah, it does seem like the Punjabis and especially Sindhis saw one of their elites be replaced with another elite. BTW, weren't Muhajirs highly educated as well?

Also, as a side note, the prominent position of Hindus in Sindh and Punjab--as well as in other parts of the world such as Uganda (before Idi Amin expelled them all) and Fiji--does raise the question of whether Hindus are indeed smarter on average than South Asian Muslims are.
 
May 2011
2,524
Sweden
#10
The notion of Indian nationalism was not strong in the Punjabi or Sindhi intelligentsia and elite, even prior to the rise of the Muslim League and Pakistani nationalism. This can be seen from the election results in 1937 where the Sind United Party (Sind United Party - Wikipedia) and Punjab Unionist Party won in their respective provinces, and not the Indian National Congress like practically everywhere else in the British Raj.

These union parties were a merger of the provincial elite and focused on regionalism and their own identity irrespective of religious backgrounds, than the idea of Indian nationalism.

With the rise of the Muslim League amongst the Sindhi and Punjabi masses however the situation changed. Still the Muslim elite of Sindh were able to convince some of their Hindu counterparts like the Rana of Umerkot to opt for Pakistan.

Coming to the reason why Sindh was not partitioned like Punjab, it is the same reason why Assam was not partitioned despite a large Muslim minority in the province and some Muslim majority districts bordering todays Bangladesh still going to India (Karimganj for example). The reason is that the overall demographics were clear cut. Despite significant minorities (around 25%), Muslims were a clear majority in Sindh and Hindus a clear majority in Assam. Starting to partition such provinces woule create even more headache.

Meanwhile in Punjab and Bengal the demographics were much more balanced and so the British opted for a partition.
 
Likes: Futurist