To what extent was Jinnah responsible for the partition of India?
To what extent was Jinnah responsible for the partition of India?
The partition of India in August 1947 was a highly controversial event and has led to widespread speculation regarding its causes and consequences. Orthodox historians credit the creation of Pakistan to Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of the All India Muslim League, and his determination to create a sovereign state for Indian Muslims. However, this view has been contested by a number of historians, who place responsibility for the partition on the political manoeuvring of the Congress and the constitutional reforms of the British Raj. Existing communal tensions and Hindu-Muslim differences have also been blamed for the split. Revisionist historians question whether Jinnah even wanted partition and have suggested that the 'Pakistan' demand was simply a bargaining counter to gain recognition for Muslims. I am going to analyse each interpretation of the event and question the true causes for partition.
According to orthodox historians, Jinnah was central to the partition of India.* He transformed the Muslim League from an elitist, marginally supported party to one of the most influential bodies at the all-India level. He mobilised the Muslims masses and according to Gilmartin, helped them to transcend their provincial divides and focus on a wider cause.* Jinnah accused the Indian National Congress of having a Hindu bias and feared their totalitarianism. He developed the 'Two Nations' theory, which asserted that Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations and should have parity in central and provincial governments. This led to the passing of the Lahore Resolution in March 1940, which orthodox historians highlight as the beginning of his campaign for Pakistan. Jinnah formally asserted that the Muslims were a nation and 'independent states'* should be formed. In June 1940, he published his 'Tentative Proposals,' which repeated his demands for the division of Hindus and Muslims and advocated
The partition of India in August 1947 was a highly controversial event and has led to widespread speculation regarding its causes and consequences. Orthodox historians credit the creation of Pakistan to Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of the All India Muslim League, and his determination to create a sovereign state for Indian Muslims. However, this view has been contested by a number of historians, who place responsibility for the partition on the political manoeuvring of the Congress and the constitutional reforms of the British Raj. Existing communal tensions and Hindu-Muslim differences have also been blamed for the split. Revisionist historians question whether Jinnah even wanted partition and have suggested that the 'Pakistan' demand was simply a bargaining counter to gain recognition for Muslims. I am going to analyse each interpretation of the event and question the true causes for partition.
According to orthodox historians, Jinnah was central to the partition of India.* He transformed the Muslim League from an elitist, marginally supported party to one of the most influential bodies at the all-India level. He mobilised the Muslims masses and according to Gilmartin, helped them to transcend their provincial divides and focus on a wider cause.* Jinnah accused the Indian National Congress of having a Hindu bias and feared their totalitarianism. He developed the 'Two Nations' theory, which asserted that Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations and should have parity in central and provincial governments. This led to the passing of the Lahore Resolution in March 1940, which orthodox historians highlight as the beginning of his campaign for Pakistan. Jinnah formally asserted that the Muslims were a nation and 'independent states'* should be formed. In June 1940, he published his 'Tentative Proposals,' which repeated his demands for the division of Hindus and Muslims and advocated