Independence with Partition

This final section represents the psychological and moral climax of India’s freedom struggle — the moment when independence arrived hand-in-hand with Partition, and a movement built on unity had to accept division as a tragic necessity.

Independence with Partition – The Great Paradox of 1947

When India became free on 15 August 1947, it was not one India, but two nations — India and Pakistan.
This dual birth represents what historians call a “dichotomy of success and failure”:

• Success, because India had finally achieved political freedom after 200 years of colonial rule.
• Failure, because the dream of national unity — central to the freedom struggle — was shattered.

So, the central question is:

Why did the Congress, which for decades had stood for unity, finally agree to Partition?

Why Did Congress Accept Partition?

A. Beyond Simplistic Explanations

Many explanations have been offered:

• Some claim it was the British policy of Divide and Rule.
• Others blame an age-old Hindu–Muslim divide.
• Still others allege that Congress leaders were hungry for power and agreed to Partition for quick independence.

But these views are oversimplified.
The real reasons were historical, political, and pragmatic — rooted in the long-term failure of the national movement to integrate all communities, particularly the Muslims, into one shared political identity.

B. Congress’s Dual Goals

From its very birth, the Indian National Congress had two broad objectives:

1. To create a united Indian nation, bringing together diverse regions, religions, and classes.
2. To secure independence from British rule.

By the 1940s, Congress had succeeded in the second goal — it had mobilized India to drive the British out.
But it had failed in the first — it could not overcome the deep communal divisions that had taken root, especially with the rise of the Muslim League under Jinnah.

Thus, when independence finally came, unity and freedom could not coexist — one had to be sacrificed for the other.

C. Acknowledging the Reality

As early as April 1947, Congress President J. B. Kripalani told the Viceroy:

“Rather than have a battle, we shall let them have their Pakistan.”

This was not surrender, but pragmatism — an acknowledgment that the alternative was civil war.

Partition as a Pragmatic Solution – To Prevent Civil War

By 1946–47, communal violence had reached uncontrollable levels.

• Riots had engulfed Bengal, Bihar, Punjab, and the North-West Frontier.
• Both Hindus and Muslims were participants — not passive victims.
• The British government, exhausted and preparing to leave, did little to stop the bloodshed.

The situation was so dire that the only alternative to Partition was anarchy and mass slaughter.

Congress leaders accepted Partition not because they believed in the two-nation theory,
but because they believed Partition was the lesser evil — a tragic price to prevent lakhs of innocent deaths.

It was, in their view, a temporary surgical operation to stop a bleeding wound from killing the entire body.

The League’s Unrelenting Pursuit of Pakistan

The acceptance of Partition in 1947 was not a sudden decision. It was the culmination of a decade-long series of concessions to the Muslim League’s demand for a sovereign Muslim homeland.

Let’s trace the key milestones:

Event	Congress / Nationalist Concession
Cripps Mission (1942)	Acknowledged autonomy of Muslim-majority provinces.
Gandhi–Jinnah Talks (1944)	Gandhi accepted the principle of self-determination for Muslim-majority areas.
Cabinet Mission (1946)	Congress rejected compulsory grouping but accepted the idea of grouping Muslim-majority provinces.
CWC Resolution (March 1947)	Declared that if India must be divided, Punjab must also be partitioned — conceding that the demand had become irreversible.

Each of these steps reflected a gradual erosion of the ideal of unity and an increasing acceptance of political reality — that coexistence under one government was no longer feasible.

Rejection of the Two-Nation Theory

It is critical to note that accepting Partition did not mean accepting Jinnah’s ideology.

A. Nationalist Stand

• Congress leaders never accepted the Two-Nation Theory — the idea that Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations.
• They only agreed to separate certain territories where the Muslim League’s influence was dominant.

Thus, Partition was geopolitical, not religious.

B. Scope of Division

• Punjab and Bengal were to be divided along communal lines.
• NWFP and Sylhet (in Assam) were to decide through plebiscites.
• No other province or princely state was affected.

So, India was not divided on the basis of Hinduism or Islam as religions — but on political influence and territorial control of the League.

Gandhi’s Position on Partition – The Moral Dilemma

A. Gandhi’s Opposition

Mahatma Gandhi remained deeply opposed to Partition.
He viewed India as one spiritual and cultural whole — a civilization, not just a political arrangement.

He even proposed a dramatic alternative to the Viceroy:

“Make Jinnah the Prime Minister of a united India.”

His hope was that personal power might satisfy Jinnah and avert Partition.
But the Congress leadership — Nehru, Patel, and others — rejected this idea. They feared that giving Jinnah control would strengthen communal politics and weaken democratic institutions.

B. Gandhi’s Painful Acceptance

As communal violence spiraled, Gandhi’s moral realism took over.
At his daily prayer meeting on 4 June 1947, he told the nation:

“Congress has accepted Partition because the people want it. That is the only way out.”

At the AICC meeting on 14 June 1947, he urged Congressmen:

“Accept Partition as an unavoidable necessity — but do not accept it in your hearts.
Work for the day when this division will be undone by love, not force.”

Thus, Gandhi saw Partition as a moral defeat, not a political strategy.
He accepted it only as the price of peace, not as a validation of the two-nation theory.

The Historical Meaning of Partition

Dimension	Meaning / Implication
Political	Independence came through division — two dominions under British Commonwealth.
Ideological	The Congress failed to integrate all communities under one national identity.
Moral	Gandhi’s ideal of Hindu–Muslim unity collapsed under the weight of communal hatred.
Humanitarian	Over a million people killed or displaced — the largest migration in human history.

The Day of Independence – Joy and Sorrow Intertwined

The Midnight of Freedom

At midnight on 14–15 August 1947, India was reborn.
Inside the Constituent Assembly Hall (Parliament House, New Delhi), the atmosphere was electric yet solemn.

• The session began with the singing of “Vande Mataram.”
• Dr. Rajendra Prasad, as the President of the Assembly, gave his opening address.
• Then Jawaharlal Nehru rose to deliver the immortal “Tryst with Destiny” speech — giving voice to centuries of longing and struggle.

Nehru’s “Tryst with Destiny” – The Moment India Awoke

Nehru began with these unforgettable words:

“Long years ago, we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge —not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially.
At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom…”

It was not just oratory — it was civilizational poetry.
The speech captured India’s sense of awakening after two centuries of colonial darkness, while also acknowledging that freedom was incomplete — achieved “not wholly,” since Partition had split the nation’s soul.

The Symbolism of 15 August

• Political prisoners across the country were released.
• Public celebrations erupted in every major city — Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Lahore.
• The Tricolour was raised as the symbol of a new dawn.

Yet, even amidst celebration, mourning hung in the air — the joy of independence was deeply shadowed by the bloodshed of Partition.

Gandhi’s Absence – The Silent Sentinel of Conscience

While leaders celebrated in Delhi, Mahatma Gandhi — the man who had led the moral battle for freedom — was not present.
He was in Calcutta, amidst violent communal riots, fasting and praying for peace.

He marked independence day not with flag-hoisting, but with silence, spinning, and a 24-hour fast.
He said, “What is there to celebrate when Hindus and Muslims are killing each other?”

In that act, Gandhi reminded the nation that true freedom must begin in the heart, not merely in political power.

Partition – The Holocaust of 1947

The Cost of Freedom

India’s freedom came with a wound.
The Partition of British India into India and Pakistan unleashed one of the largest and bloodiest human migrations in history.

• Around 15 million people crossed borders in both directions.
• Between 500,000 and 1 million were killed in riots and massacres.
• Countless women were abducted, assaulted, or separated from their families.

Entire villages were uprooted overnight. People lost homes, land, and identity — reduced to refugees in lands that had been their own only yesterday.

Human Suffering

Partition was not just political division — it was a human catastrophe.

Families were torn apart. Property, memories, and culture were left behind.
People who had lived together for generations suddenly became enemies.

It was, as some historians call it, “India’s Holocaust.”
A moment of liberation and annihilation, hope and horror, side by side.

Gandhi – The “One-Man Army” Against Hate

His Mission of Peace

Between October 1946 and April 1947, Gandhi personally toured the most riot-torn areas —
Noakhali (East Bengal), Bihar, Calcutta, and Delhi — walking from village to village, preaching non-violence and reconciliation.

He urged Hindus and Muslims to protect one another, not kill each other.
He said:

“If India must die, let it die bravely, not in hatred.”

His sheer moral courage and personal example inspired calm even amidst chaos. In Calcutta, on the eve of independence, his presence alone stopped rioting — the miracle people called “Gandhi’s Calcutta miracle.”

The Final Test of His Faith

Till the end, Gandhi believed that hearts could be changed through love, truth, and prayer.
In a nation drenched in blood, he stood alone, unarmed, and unyielding — a one-man army against the madness of Partition.

The Long Roots of Partition – How Communal Politics Took Shape

Partition was not an overnight event; it was the culmination of nearly a century of communal division, carefully cultivated by colonial policy and political rivalries.

Let’s trace this evolution step by step:

British Policy After 1857 – Divide and Rule

The Revolt of 1857 had shown how Hindus and Muslims could unite against British rule.
Frightened by that unity, the British deliberately adopted a “Divide and Rule” policy:

• Immediately after 1857, they repressed Muslims harshly, confiscated their lands, and labelled Hindus as loyalists.
• After 1870, when Hindu-led nationalism began to rise, they reversed the strategy — encouraging Muslim separatism to weaken the national movement.
• They promoted leaders like Syed Ahmed Khan and others who argued that Hindu and Muslim political interests were fundamentally different.

Syed Ahmad Khan and Early Muslim Communalism

In the 1880s, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh Movement, preached that:

• Muslims should remain loyal to the British,
• and that, under self-rule, Hindus would dominate because of their numerical majority.

This belief laid the ideological foundation of Muslim communal politics.

Formation of the All-India Muslim League (1906)

In 1906, prominent Muslim nobles and landlords — the Aga Khan, Nawab of Dacca (Khwaja Salimullah), and Nawab Mohsin-ul-Mulk — founded the All-India Muslim League.
It sought to protect Muslim interests and oppose the Congress, thereby institutionalizing communal separation in politics.

Separate Electorates (1909, 1919) – The Fatal Turn

The Morley-Minto Reforms (1909) introduced separate electorates for Muslims — later expanded by the Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms (1919).

This meant Muslims would vote only for Muslim candidates, and Hindus for Hindu ones.

This system:

• Encouraged leaders to mobilize on religious lines,
• Turned identity into competition and hostility, not coexistence,
• And made “Hindu” and “Muslim” political categories, not just religious ones.

This was a masterstroke of colonial divide-and-rule politics — and the seed of future Partition.

Rise of Hindu Communalism

Meanwhile, Hindu revivalist politics also took shape.
The All-India Hindu Mahasabha (founded in 1915) represented orthodox Hindu opinion and sought to counter the League’s influence.
It viewed India as essentially a Hindu nation, reinforcing the communal divide from the opposite side.

Congress and Early Compromises

At the Lucknow Session (1916), Congress accepted separate electorates in the hope of Hindu–Muslim unity — a short-term gain that proved a long-term disaster.
This legitimized religion as a basis of political representation.

The 1920s–30s – The Deepening Divide

Several events worsened communal polarization:

• The Khilafat Movement (1919–24) linked religion with politics.
• Disputes over music-before-mosque, cow protection, and Shuddhi (reconversion) campaigns aggravated tensions.
• Muslims responded with Tabligh (religious propagation) and Tanzim (organization) movements.

By the 1930s, communal consciousness had hardened beyond recovery.

The 1937 Provincial Elections – The Turning Point

In the 1937 elections under the Government of India Act (1935):

• The Congress won big majorities, especially in the United Provinces (UP).
• The Muslim League performed poorly and sought to join Congress ministries — but was rejected.

This rejection convinced Jinnah that:

“If India remains united, Muslims will never share real power.”

From that point, the League shifted from demanding minority safeguards to demanding a separate state.

The Pakistan Resolution (1940)

At Lahore in March 1940, the Muslim League passed the Pakistan Resolution, demanding an independent Muslim homeland in areas where Muslims were a majority — the first formal call for Partition.

British Concessions and the 1946 Elections

Throughout the 1940s, British proposals (Cripps Mission, Cabinet Mission, etc.) gave the League a virtual veto, strengthening Jinnah’s hand.
In the 1946 elections, the League won almost every Muslim seat — 442 out of 509 in the provinces — proving that it had become the sole spokesman of Indian Muslims.

Partition had now become politically inevitable.

In Essence

15 August 1947 was a dawn that broke through tears.
India’s freedom was won — but at the cost of its unity.
The anti-colonial struggle succeeded in ending British rule, but failed to integrate all Indians into one national fold.

Gandhi’s fast in Calcutta, Nehru’s speech in Delhi, and the refugees walking across new borders — all symbolized different dimensions of the same truth:
India was free, but wounded.