Project India  
 
  The relationship between India and Pakistan 31.07.2025 11:06 (UTC)
   
 
The relationship between India and Pakistan

By Ole R.

Foreword

In this term paper I will describe the situation in India and Pakistan around 1947. In my opinion this is a very interesting topic. On the one hand the events at that time influenced the history of the whole world, as India is one of the fastest developing countries in the whole world, nowadays. On the other hand it was shown that one does not need weapons to fight injustice. It is the only peace- and successful example, how two nations received independence without any military strength.

I will divide my the main topic into seven subtopics: Historical Background, The Time of the Independence Movement, The Separation, Hindu-Muslim Relationship, The Situation Today, Comparison with other Independence Movements and Separations and Personal Statements.

This is a sensible division because I will not just explain the historical circumstances, but also show the consequences for today.

 

Historical Background

The East India Company

In the second half of the 18th century, the British East India Company strengthened its influence in the Indian region. First, they were just interested in trading, but shortly thereafter, one started to demand power interests. The Company for example began to intervene in conflicts between the different rulers.

In 1771, Warren Hastings became governor of Bengal. He was the first British governor in India to instruct the takeover of the administration. Before, the British had always pretended that the Indian rulers were still in force. Hastings linked Indian soldiers with European warfare and British trading profits with Indian taxes, arranged treaties of protection and took over more and more areas. Even the regions which were really under Indian rulers were actually controlled by the British Empire, as many consultants of the rulers were British.

In London a council was formed to harmonize the policy on the Indian subcontinent, which was a huge advantage for the conquerors, because the local princedoms in India were estranged. Due the Industrial Revolution in Europe, the British were further developed, which lead to the fast adoption of Delhi in 1803. Afterwards, the emperor of India (Mogul) was under the company's control. Nevertheless, the Mogul still was the fictive ruler.

The more areas were conquered by the East India Company, the more disorganized it became, which finally lead to its nationalization. From then on, the Governor General, who was answerable to the India Office in London, reigned.

Trials of Adoption

It was very difficult to connect the cultural ideas. For example the Islamic legal system was maintained, as it was easy to handle. However, punishments, which are against the human rights like mutilation or impaling, were abolished. It was also installed a Court of Chancery, which only applied to Europeans. Until 1861, there was no unified criminal code, but one trusted in domestic legal experts.

In the thirties of the 19th century, English became the official language. Before, it had still been Persian.

All in all, in the first half of the 19th century, the British were not able to organize and unify a sensible administration; there were needless offices, conflicting contracts, wrong interpretation of former legal practice etc. - a chaos in all demands of taxation, property, office and legislation.

Also the adoption of the European agriculture system failed.

The Rule of Lord Dalhousie

 
   

In the course of the 19th century, officials, who wanted the conversion of India for the purpose of England and the intervention of progressive and Christian values, took the place of the tradesmen. For example, marriages and social relationships between Europeans and Indians were prohibited - a separation between these segments of society was established. Furthermore, the caste system was abolished.

From 1848 until 1856, Lord Dalhousie executed the office of the Governor General. He created tightly organized administration. It was less important for him to make the population happy, but he wanted to expand the British reach of power. Therefore he changed the adoption of heirs to the throne and consequently annexed some dependent princely states. Also the landowners were affected by the reformations, as 20.000 pieces of land were dispossessed without any reparation.

These energetic changes were followed by the Sepoy-Revolt (1857/58) – the revolt against the British. It based on the curtailment of ancestral rights and traditions – especially on the abolition of the heirs to the throne and the caste system. Although the trained Indian soldiers (Sepoy) were numerical widely superior, the British won. After the Sepoy-Revolt the last Indian Mogul was set off.

In retrospect, the self-righteous policy of Lord Dalhousie reasoned not only the time of the imperialistic British-India, but also the modern Indian unitary state.

The Empire

In 1877, Queen Victoria adopted the title Empress of India and therefore documented that it had become the main support of the British Empire. But actually this title was created to legalize the British rule. Until shortly before, the Mogul had been the official ruler. The Indian Empire consisted of regions under direct control (two thirds of the country) and so called Princely States, were Indian rulers reigned under British rule. In these regions the General Governor received the title as Viceroy.

1866, Burma was attached to the Indian Empire after three wars.

 

 

The Time of the Independence Movement

The Indian National Congress and the Muslim League

In 1885, the Indian National Congress was founded, which argued for the independence of India. As the Hindus gained the upper hand in the INC, the rivaling All-India Muslim League was founded in 1906. INC and A-IML together wrote a declaration in 1916, which demanded Indian independence. The British government admitted a careful transition into self-rule.

After World War I, where over 1,300,000 Indians fought on British side, a passive resistance under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi against the British rule arose - the political unity of Hindus and Muslims was one of Gandhi's aims.

As he is the most important person in India's independence movement, I will give a short description of his life. It is not very detailed, because this would be another term paper. Afterwards, the previous text is continued.  

“Mahatma” Gandhi


Mahatma is an honorific title and means “Great Soul”. He was born 1861 in Porbandar (India). After having studied law in England and he went to South-Africa, where he successfully fought for the equality of the Indian minority, after he had experience the indignity and disregard by the white people.

Having read the book Unto this Last, he decided to live without any property and human needs, which also includes sex – he had been married since he was 13.

In 1915, he returned to India and intervened in the conflict concerning the Independence of India. In his opinion, war was the not the right way to end the British rule and therefore he began a peaceful resistance of non-corporation, which immediately met with universal approval. One of his most impressing measures was the Salt march of Ahmadabad to the coast to end the British monopoly on the production of salt.

Shortly after India became independent, he was shot by a radical Hindu – on the 30th January, 1948.        

Independence

In 1935, elections for parliaments in the provinces were arranged, which were held in 1937. The INC won in seven of eleven provinces. Burma became an independent crown colony in the same year.

During World War II, India was used as a basis of operation by the British. About 2,000,000 Indian soldiers fought on the British side. The Indian economy was concentrated on war, which caused huge starvation in the population. The INC was radicalized, which lead to a campaign of civil disobedience in 1940. This should last until a national government would be established and India would receive independence. An ineffectual concession by the British was answered with the Quit-India-Campaign – a protest campaign by the INC. However, this protest was defeated and the leaders of the INC were sent into prison until the war ended.

After the end of the war, a labor party gained power in the parliament in London, which would simplify the independence. Meanwhile, the A-IML argued in support of the foundation of a separate Muslim state. The British tried to disperse the fear of an unitary state, but this failed. First religious conflicts and mutual reproaches arose. It appeared that the separation was inevitable – encouraged by the British wish of a fast solution.                 

In several arguments, Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru had finally contended successfully for India's independence, which was officially declared on August, 15th in 1947. It was separated after the Two-Nation-Theory into India and Pakistan, which was later separated again into Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The remarkable aspect in this independence movement is that it was nearly absolutely peaceful which Gandhi’s merit beyond all questions is. On Indian side, there were just very few riots against the British. This violence committed by Indian's were strongly despised by the leaders. Later, when the country stood shortly before independence, the situation changed - heavy riots between Hindus and Muslims arose, but I will deal with these in the next topic.

Unfortunately, the members of the occupying force were not that peaceful. The largest cruelness towards the population was a massacre where over 2.000 peaceful demonstrators (men, women and even children) were barbarously shot down. Indeed, one must add that the general, who issued this instruction, was later condemned by a war crimes tribunal.       

 

The Separation        

The Two-Nation-Theory   

At the end of the 19th century, reformers of the Hinduism had wanted a Hindu-Nation which would publicly exclude Muslims. This caused huge unrest in the Muslim part of the population and later gave Mohammed Ali Jinnah the opportunity to state his Two-Nation-Theory. It says that Hindus and Muslims are culturally two totally different nations and therefore the only possibility to ensure peace are two separated countries. The INC actually did not want an independent Muslim state on Indian ground. But Lord Louis Mountbatten, the last General Governor, forced a fast conclusion of this problem by accelerating the moment of the British by one year and so one finally had to agree. Especially for Gandhi the separation of India into two nations was a huge disappointment. It had always been his dream that Muslims and Hindus could peacefully live together and would not distinguish each other because of their religion.

British-India was supposed to be separated in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal – the border was drawn along religious majorities. Pakistan should consist of two distant regions, because the Muslims were the majority in these parts of the country. The monarchs, maharajas and sultans in the border region had the choice to either belong to India or Pakistan. Most of them declared their entrance to the Indian Union. In just two princedoms heavy conflicts loomed ahead:

The Muslim leader in the nearly executive Hindu Hyderabad wanted to join Pakistan, but after Indian troops occupied his princedom, he decided to enter the Indian Union, too. A Maharajah in the mainly Muslim Kashmir-Region, who was a Hindu, set back his decision. He hoped that his Kashmir could become an independent state. But as the majority of the population wanted to join Pakistan, Muslim soldiers invaded his country to force the integration. Therefore, he decided that Kashmir should belong to India. Shortly afterwards, Indian troops expelled the Muslim invaders. Pakistan considered this entrance as illegitimate, which lead to the first (1947-1949) and second Indian-Pakistani War (1965) and the Kargil-War 1999.

On the following maps, one sees how British-India was separated.


 
   


 
   


Riots between Muslims and Hindus

As the people realized that they might be in the wrong part of the country and would therefore have to leave their homes, massive riots started, especially in Punjab and Calcutta. The Sikh minority in Punjab realized that they would not be considered in the Two-Nation-Solution, because the British had never made a difference between Hindus and Sikhs. They were afraid that they would be suppressed by either the Hindus or the Muslim.

Calcutta, where the Muslims held the majority, was nevertheless given to India, which was followed by massive riots with over 4,000 dead people.

The new border between India and Pakistan was announced one day after the British consigned the two countries into independence. Therefore, Great Britain could juristically not be blamed for severing families and villages.

The separation was followed by the largest eviction and flight in history. Over 10,000,000 people crossed the border between 1947 and 1950. From one moment to the other, people had to leave their home where their families had lived for generations. Of course, there was a lot of uncertainty in the population, concerning the future. This was used by religious fanatics, who stimulated both sides to attack each other. Unfortunately, the people could easily be influenced and hate arose at the borders.

In the large cities in India, a new problem developed: There were more migrants who immigrated to India than before had migrated to Pakistan. Consequently, there were not enough habitations for everyone. To solve this problem, many refugee camps had to be built, which existed until the early sixties. Pakistan did not have so many problems to give its migrants a home, but they are still today often seen as foreigners and are therefore not fully integrated into the society.

On 26th of January 1947 the constitution, which was mainly elaborated by Bhimrao Ambedkar, became effective. From this point on India was officially a Republic. In the same year both nations entered the Commonwealth of Nations – an alliance between Great Britain and its former colonies.

Since 1951, there had been a conflict between West- and East-Pakistan. The eastern part of the country felt suppressed, because they had less political say than the western part. This conflict escalated in 1970, when the military nullified elections, where the Bengali party had received the majority in parliament. There were huge riots, which were ended by the military – over 3,000,000 people lost their lives. This conflict could not be solved until India interfered and catered for an independent Muslim state in the East – Bangladesh.  

 

Hindu-Muslim Relationship

The Reasons for the Separation

During my work on this term paper, one questioned bothered me: Why could the Muslims and Hindus not peacefully live together in one united India? One had hand in hand gained independence, but was not able to live as one nation. First, this was not understandable for me. Therefore I decided to make a topic which deals with this question.

As it were mainly the Muslims who did not want one united nation, the best way to answer this question, is to face up to their leader at that time – Mohammad Ali Jinnah. He wrote the Two-Nation-Theory of which I will give an extract now, to explain why the separation was absolutely necessary:

 
   

“(...) It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.(...)”

In my opinion, Jinnah gives sensible reasons for the separation. He states, that Muslims and Hindus have totally different origins and traditions, which absolutely do not fit together. They regard things differently and do not want to interfere with the other. Two such nations in one country would finally lead to the destruction of India.

The Escalation

Now I will try to explain why this conflict escalated in such a strong way, why so many people had to die.

As I already mentioned before, many people had to leave their homes, where their families had lived for generations. Of course, it is not easy to understand why you have to move away from one day to the other and why strangers will now live in your house. Probably everybody can imagine that a dislike against these people rose, even if they would actually not be the ones to blame for.

Additionally to this dislike, they were scared of the future, because they had to leave everything behind – property, friends, work etc.

In such a situation everyone is responsive to fanatics and extremists, who spread that the others are the ones to be blamed for, that they are the enemy. At this moment very small provocations, like a thrown stone, were enough to be the final straw. The consequences were massive riots with nearly 1,000,000 dead people.

Finally, the riots stopped, not least due to Gandhi, but the conflict has still today not ended.

 

The Situation Today   

As I just mentioned before, the conflict concerning Muslims and Hindus is still today not solved. The political situation between India and Pakistan is very stressed. Again and again there are bloody contentions, even if the governments try for a calming. To prove their good intentions, the leaders of the nations meet regularly. This seems to have a noticeable effect. The last war between these two countries, after which these regular meeting were installed, is meanwhile ten years ago.

Nevertheless, there are still issues, which could easily cause a war once more. The biggest conflict still is in the Kashmir-Region (The reasons for the conflict are explained in “The Two-Nation-Theory”). The fact that both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons additionally endangers the situation.

Unfortunately, it is not enough that there is no official war between these countries to relax the relationship. Especially on Muslim side, there are terrorist attacks and hostage takings by fanatic extremists from time to time.

The last attack was in the metropolis Jaipur, where over 80 people died and over 150 people were injured. Eight explosive charges exploded within a few minutes. The Harkut-ul-Jehadi Islami (HuJI) from Bangladesh confessed to the attack.

Nowadays, there is only one checkpoint between Lahore and Amritsar where everyone can cross the border more or less without a problem. In periods of crisis also this checkpoint is closed. Then there is no direct way from India to Pakistan and visa versa.

Even if the situation slowly seems to improve, a lot of work has still to be done until India and Pakistan can live together in a totally peaceful way.

Nevertheless, the colonial era also brought advantages for India. Different from other developing countries, India could adopt an efficient bureaucracy, a professional army, an independent judiciary and not least a representative governmental system with experienced Indian politicians.

These are not least off all the main reasons, why India is one the fastest growing country worldwide.     

 

 
Reasons for the non-violent Independence Movements and Comparison with other Separations

In my opinion, it is sensible to compare the events in India around 1947 to underline how special these were. Indeed, I will not be able to give an example of a similar revolution, but I will try to answer the question if such a rebellion against an occupying force is possible again, or if it was a unique happening in history. On the one hand, it is a wonderful example for a peace- and successful resistance. But on the other hand it was a terrible eviction of whole population groups. One must always keep in mind that nearly 1,000,000 people died after the separation. As I have already analyzed why this conflict arose (in The Escalation), I will now mention other separations of countries and compare them with the one of India and Pakistan.

Consequently, two questions result:

“Why could India become independent without any violence?”    

There is a variety of reasons why India could reach independence nonviolently. Because of World War II, Great Britain had forced itself into a situation in which it was impossible to justify the suppression of a nation. You cannot on the one hand come into war to fight suppression in Europe, but on the other hand have colonies in Asia and Africa. Furthermore, one had made fatal decisions (for example a massacre, where over peaceful 2,000 demonstrators were killed) which had even antagonized the British population.

But one must also underline the endurance of the Indians. In the face of all punishments and disadvantages, they did not give up and fought consequently until they attained their aim.

“What are other reasons for the separation of nation, if not religious, traditional or cultural aspects?”

In the latest history, there has mainly been one other reason for the separation of a nation other than religion (example for another religious separation is Ireland, 1921) – the adoption of another political system (for example Germany, 1949 and Korea, 1950).

In my opinion, the separation because of religion is legal; the separation because of political ideals is illegal.

Indeed, men should be able to live peacefully together in our modern, globalized world. Nevertheless it is better to separate a country than risking a civil war because of suppression. One would probably not sever a huge number of families, just because their members mostly belong to one religious orientation – especially in these regions were conflicts arise because of these orientations. Therefore they would still live in the same country.

This is different, if a nation is separated into two political systems. Here, the enforcement of political interests of single persons mostly is to the fore and not the welfare of the population. In this progress, families are often ruthlessly severed. In my opinion, a nation should only be separated politically, if the majority wishes so. That wish must be proved by an independent and fair election.         

 

Personal Statements

In the end of my term paper, I will give a personal statement towards the independence movement, the separation and the situation in general.

Statement about the Independence Movement

In my opinion, the Indian independence movement is not difficult to judge about, as it was legal, justified and - most important - peaceful. Regarded from a modern perspective, the British actually never had the right to imbibe the country and to suppress its population. They just did it because of financial reasons and to expand the own reach of power. In doing so, the population was often impudently exploited. Therefore it was the Indians right to rebel against the European occupants.

The matter of fact, that they attained their aim without any violence, makes it even more impressive. It is absolutely amazing, that the Indians, although they were maltreated and shot down, nearly never used violence. Instead, they laid down work or tried to provoke the British with for example the Salt-March. Furthermore, the Indians fought of British side in World War II, although they actually saw them as invaders. This proof of loyalty alone is a reason to allow them independence.

Statement about the Separation

The separation is not as easy to judge about as the independence movement. Millions of people were driven out of their homes, where their families had lived for generations. They had to leave all their property behind and did not know what future would bring. Furthermore, this eviction caused huge riots which cost nearly 1,000,000 people's lives.

Nevertheless, without the separation the majorities would have probably suppressed the minorities. This could have easily caused a civil war which would have been very difficult to end. Therefore, the separation was the right decision.  

Statement about the Situation in General

For me as an European, who grows up in a modern, peaceful and globalized world, it is not easy to understand why different religions cannot live together peacefully. In my opinion it does not matter at all which religion somebody belongs to or where he comes from. I think that other values are important, and one can never judge someone because of his origin.

However, I also know that it is difficult for some people, especially the very traditional ones, to accept other religions and cultures. These prejudices and dislikes are actually obsolete and do not belong into our modern world, but it is nearly impossible to convince someone of the opposite if he has heard it all his life. To make matters worse in India and Pakistan, Muslims and Hindus think that they were unjustly driven out of their country.

Indeed, my grandmother was also driven out of Pomerania and I must admit that I sometimes consider this as unjust, too. Nevertheless, I know the reasons for the driving out, which are understandable for me. This is probably because I learned a lot about this topic in school. Furthermore, I do not suffer from disadvantages because of the events at that time.

In India and Pakistan, the situation is different. People there have disadvantages because of their origins. For example Muslims from India are not totally accepted in the Pakistani society.

Many people there do not even have a adequate education. They only know the history by narrations of their parents and grandparents. Therefore, they adopt their opinion and prejudices, which is one reason, why the situation cannot totally relax.

To get peaceful working and living together, the population on both sides would have to understand that neither the Hindus nor the Muslims wanted to drive out the other population group. Both had to leave everything behind and had to start a new life, while coming into an unknown country and being totally scared of the future.  I think one cannot put blame on just one of the nations, as both of them started the riots and on both sides mistakes were done.  

A further step into the right direction would be to settle the political conflicts, like in the Kashmir-Region. As India and Pakistan both seem to be willing to find a solution, the conflict might be resolved, one day.

 

Final Word              

When I heard, what our exercise in this term was, I did really not have the wish to do it. I thought that it would be an annoying, never ending work. But as I started to deal with the type of problem, it became more and more interesting. Even if I had already paid attention to this topic, because of a presentation I held, I understood only now the greater connections.

I came to the result that the events in India around 1947 on the one hand were great and impressive, but on the other hand also sad and terrible. But without any doubt, they were unique.    





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  News
Next Upload:

-Tata Motors
Es waren schon 22983 visitors (33944 hits) hier!
Diese Webseite wurde kostenlos mit Homepage-Baukasten.de erstellt. Willst du auch eine eigene Webseite?
Gratis anmelden