Tuesday, 2 October 2012

Jinnah created Pakistan is a joke
Truth about Partition of India

The partition of India  was the partition of British India on the basis of religious demographics. This led to the creation of the sovereign states of the Dominion of Pakistan (that later split again into the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the People's Republic of Bangladesh) and the Union of India (later Republic of India). Indian Independence Act 1947 had decided 15 August 1947 as the appointed date for the partition. However Pakistan came into existence a day earlier on 14 August.
The partition of India was set forth in the Indian Independence Act 1947 and resulted in the dissolution of the British Indian Empireand the end of the British Raj. It resulted in a struggle between the newly constituted states of India and Pakistan and displaced up to 12.5 million people with estimates of loss of life varying from several hundred thousand to a million (most estimates of the numbers of people who crossed the boundaries between India and Pakistan in 1947 range between 10 and 12 million). The violent nature of the partition created an atmosphere of mutual hostility and suspicion between India and Pakistan that plagues their relationship to this day.
The two self-governing countries of India and Pakistan legally came into existence at the stroke of midnight on 14-15 August 1947. The ceremonies for the transfer of power were held a day earlier in Karachi, at the time the capital of the new state of Pakistan, so that the last British Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten of Burma, could attend both the ceremony in Karachi and the ceremony in Delhi. This is why Pakistan's Independence Day is celebrated on 14 August and India's on 15 August.

In 1940, Jinnah made a statement at the Lahore conference that seemed to call for a separate Muslim country. This idea, though, was taken up by Muslims and particularly by Hindusin the next seven years, and became a more territorial plan. All Muslim political parties including the Khaksar Tehrik and Allama Mashriqi opposed the partition of India Mashriqi was arrested on 19 March 1940.

Common impression in India and the world is that Atlee and Labour Party were good and wanted to give independence to India after WW-II, but due to differences among Indian leaders, they had to divide the country. This belief is based on British version and is totally false. History books written in Britain, US, and even in India are based on this version. The truth is England did NOT want their raj to end in India. Atlee, Cripps, Labour Party and Churchill wanted British raj to continue in India. The British propagated this version to hide their guilt. One million Indians were killed and 12 million were forced to migrate leaving their homes, where they had lived for centuries due to British plan to partition India. This false version of Indian history is very injurious to India. It is high time that we learn our true history, so that we can defend ourselves and will not repeat old mistakes. Independence was not due to goodwill of England but due to balance of military force. 

To understand the history of 1946-1948 period, it is necessary to know a few ideas. Mao said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun. This has been always true in the past, and will remain so in future. Idealism has no place in politics which concerns with power – how to get it and how to use it after getting it. Imperialism used the principle of “divide and rule”. As this became unpopular, imperialism changed its form into neo-imperialism. Divide and rule became “divide and dominate.” The US developed this method of neo-imperialism in the 19th century in South America. Gandhiji used to describe the British policy of divide and rule as monkey justice from an Aesop’s fable. Nehru had written in 1934 in “Glimpses of World History, “it is quite possible that Britain’s visible hold over India might go before long, and yet the economic control might remain as an invisible empire.”

On December 21, 1945 Viceroy Wavell met Bevin and Alexander in London. He writes that Bevin like everyone else hated the idea of leaving India, but Bevin had no alternative to suggest. Bevin said that America was very much worried about India and did not want England to leave India, because of its commercial interests. All this proves that the British and even US did not want the raj to end in India. Many examples can be cited to prove the same point.

There were many reasons put together why Britain had to give India independence. Gandhiji’s Satyagrah movements in 1920s and 1930s, the widespread Quit India movement in 1942, formation of Indian National Army by Subhas Chandra Bose in South East Asia, trial of INA officers, then mutiny of Indian navy and air force, expansion of Indian army to 2.5 lakh to fight expected Japanese invasion of India made Wavell realize that he could not trust the loyalty of Indian army and England could not rule India militarily. To control India militarily, British policy had been to have one British soldier to two Indians in the Indian Army. This changed due to wartime expansion from 210,000 troops to 2.5 million, making Indian army preponderantly Hindu with number of British troops remaining at 70,000. Moreover England had become very weak economically and militarily after war ended. Only one year after it’s declaration of war against Germany in September 1939, it found it had spent most of its gold and dollar reserves. It had to depend on the US for money and arms to carry on the war. Britain’s worldwide empire was based on naval supremacy. After the war the British Navy was not the strongest. Atom bomb appeared as a weapon of war, but Britain did not have atom bombs. Naval ships could be destroyed by aeroplanes. 

Hence Wavell made a blueprint of Pakistan in December 1945 and sent it to Secretary of State for India in a most secret letter. This letter has been now made public. The letter reveals that partition was necessary to protect British interests in Asia and NOT Muslim interests as believed in India and Pakistan. Aim was to protect Near East from Soviet expansion to Indian Ocean and oil wells there. The English had been working on creation of Pakistan since1888.

The Cabinet Delegation was sent to India in March 1946 ostensibly to help Indians to become free but really to make Indians agree to Partition. To further this aim, the English made Jinnah start communal riots to prove that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together and the country had to be divided. One million lives were lost in communal riots during 1946 – 1947. Though the British were powerless to control India, they had enough power to create trouble before leaving. Indian navy was much weaker than Royal Navy, which could blockade India and prevent import of many necessary items. To defeat Congress demand for a free united India, they threatened Congress that they would leave India in more than 500 pieces. Sardar Patel had become in charge of Home in provisional national government in September 1946. He read all secret government papers and found how the British were intriguing to make India very weak before departure. He decided that it was better to accept India in two parts rather than many in December 1946. He made VP Menon make a blueprint of partition, which was different from Wavell’s partition plan. It was this plan, which was ultimately adopted in August 1947. Gandhiji had realized the harm to India from partition and declared that partition would take place over his dead body. After hearing Patel’s arguments, Gandhiji agreed to partition on condition that it would be a partition between two brothers. The wily English defeated Gandhiji’s wish by creating Kashmir problem so that the two nations would keep fighting. Patel explained later in November 1947 the logic for acceptance of partition. He said that with Partition 80% of India would be free. India would develop economically and militarily and then take the other 20%. 

Partition took place on August 14 and 15, 1947. All top civil and military officers were British in Pakistan. They made a plan for Pakistan to attack Kashmir with some tribesmen and Pakistan Army men in mufti to invade Kashmir on October 20. This made Maharaja and National Conference of Shiekh Abdullah ask for India’s help. After accepting accession, Indian army was sent to prevent the Pak invaders from occupation of Kashmir. As the fighting was going on, Mountbatten asked Congress leaders not to attack Pakistan but to complain to UN. Gandhiji, Nehru and Patel were against Mountbatten’s suggestion, but Nehru had to agree as Britain reduced supply of arms and petrol to India to put pressure to agree to go to UN. As expected, UN, dominated by US and England did not declare Pakistan as an aggressor, but appointed a mediator (i.e. justice monkey). Pakistan was never declared an aggressor and it continues to occupy parts of Kashmir. 

To say that Jinnah created Pakistan is a joke. Jinnah had no gun to get political power. Jinnah was ignorant and it allowed the British to use him as a stooge to divide the country. Later Jinnah himself realized his mistake and wanted India and Pakistan to unite just before his death. Jinnah may be called second Mir Jafar.


  1. Hi, i have some basic questions-even for an arguments sake if we agree that whatever M. A. Jinnah did was the ultimate determiner for the 'division of the subcontinent 'in 1947 with the creation of two states of India and Pakistan, how do or can justify/legitimise riots aided and abetted by the hoodlums of Arya Samaj, Hindu Mahasabha, RSS in various parts of North India in general and UP, Punjab in particular from the 1930's?
    Did not the Sarsanghchalak of RSS in his book 'We our Nationhood:Defined' published in 1938 openly preach and promote the creation of a seperate state for the 'impure/bastards Muslims' so that the cultural-religious-social pyurities of the Hindus can be protected(This is long before Muslim Leagues Demand of Pakistan in 1940.
    And if V. D. Savarkar, whom Godse blindly follow as a 'patriot-nationalist' was genuinely and truly so, then why did Savarkar after getting released from the Cellular Prison(that too after loosing one's esteem-respect-dignity and honoring by begging and Kow-Towing for release)suddenly stopped any and every kind of participation in the Indian Freedom Struggle(please prove me wrong, will be very happy to be proved so with genuine and research material)
    Why did S. P. Mukherjee/L. K Moitro,both leaders of Bengal hindu Mahasabha insist and force on dividing the province of Bengal in 1947, they were not member/followers of Indian Congress Party or Indian Muslim League?
    so why unduly-unjustly have a 'whipping boy' called M.A.Jinnaah(we do not need L. K. Advani-Jaswant Singh, to tell us that he was a Patriot/Secular personality, and much much better than these corrupt-hypocrites of Hindu Mahasabha, RSS)
    Hope to hear very soon, with appropriate research/study material
    With Regards

  2. The above article is good.

    Without Allama Mashriqi, freedom was impossible. Here is Nasim Yousaf's article:

    Allama Mashriqi the Great - A Hero of All Times

    On His 46th Death Anniversary

    By Historian Nasim Yousaf

    “Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Untouchables, Christians of the Frontier Province have witnessed with their own eyes that one order from Khaksar-i-Azam sets in motion five million…Khaksar soldiers.” Al-Islah — Dec. 01, 1946.

    Such was the strength of the legendary Allama Mashriqi ― Historical documents speak loudly of Mashriqi’s lead role in the anti-imperialist fight for British India’s independence...

    With the tremendous success of the said camp, Mashriqi made a written proclamation (December 01, 1946) of the day which the nation had been waiting for and which would arrive shortly; he announced: “Idara-i-Aliya [Khaksar Headquarters] shall soon issue an order that in the entire India, four million [sources quote a range from 4-5 million members] Khaksars, side by side with hundreds of thousands rather millions of supporters shall march simultaneously… This moment shall dawn upon us very soon and that is why it is being ordered that a grand preparation for this historical day should commence immediately… so that British can clearly witness the day of India’s freedom…”

    The said declaration terrorized the rulers and they sensed that soon the Khaksars would be marching towards Delhi and storming all important places in India. The rulers did not take this inconsequentially, and shortly thereafter in February 1947, the British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, declared that power would be transferred to Indians no later than June of 1948. — Indeed! This was a crowning victory of Mashriqi.

    All previous political campaigns, such as Civil Disobedience and Quit India movements, as well as all Government parleys, from the Cripps Mission, Simla Conference, Cabinet Mission to the Interim Government, had failed. It became clear that these activities, sponsored by the rulers, were merely meant to show the world that the rulers were doing their best to help resolve political tangles within India, so that India could be granted her freedom. However, these were just ploys. Indian leaders were not working to resolve their differences and continued to play in the hands of the British for their own interests. Had the British not been able to see the Khaksars’ intent and drive, they, as usual, would likely have kept the Indian leaders engaged in negotiations while maintaining their own rule.


    More articles:


  3. Historic Photos of Khaksar Movement in British India

    Link to photos of the Khaksar Movement:


    Some Khaksar photos are also on this link (check albums)