# Modern History/Partition of India

1947 birth of nation at midnight of 15 August. 1948 First war between new born brothers (?) .. India and Pakistan.
The reasons of partion of India - Just one reason.
I am one of those unfortunate people who endured and survived the rigours of migration from Panjab to Panjab or India to India but now India to Pakistan. The seven-hour train journey from Ambala to Wagah spread over four days and my mother had been so badly injured that she could die any moment. My mother breathed her last after a few days crossing into Pakistan and was buried in Lahore. People who died in the journey were thrown away to wild animals and we saw our nears and dears being ripped apart by the beasts of prey. Of course this happened on both sides. Muslims in Pakistan were not at all behind their Hindu-Sikh counterparts in looting, raping and abductions based on opportunities,poverty or immoral conscience of individuals which I personally found out about a year later in Pakistan .
However, in all the accounts of causes and reasons of partition that have appeared is not mentioned th e only reason because of which the catastrophic partition of India took place. It has not been mentioned anywhere that it was the Muslim League who had first approved the Cabinet Mission Plan to keep India united. The Muslim League could not approve the Cabinet Mission Plan because of its extremist obligations. Whereas later, having taken some time the Congress also gave its approval, but after a session of voting.
That shows that the Muslim League not at all wanted India to be united because of possible hazard for their interests and also because of Muslim leaders' lust of personal power. And the Indian National Congress agreed on dividing India because of pressures under which Mahatma Gandhi had come.
For many Indians freedom thus came with a sense of loss caused by the partition, to many Muslims in Pakistan, particularly to their state idealogues, partition itself meant freedom. it is no wonder therefore,that "partition' happens to be the most contested discursive territory of south asian historiography; just the sheer volume of the literature that has been produced in this field is staggering. like for example for some pakistani historians partition was a liberatority experience of a long historical process that started in 19th cent. by Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan and others.For Aitzaz partition was a "Primordial Divide".For Akbar Ahmad,another historians the concept of Pakistan was "irresistible and widespread among the Muslims.".In 1947 they "forced a separation"and thus claimed for themselves "a separate history of their own" As opposed to this position there are other important works which have questioned the topic under discussion in different ways.like Uma Kaura,Stanley Wolpert, Anita Indra singh,R.J.Moore,Ian Talbot& Mushirul Hasan have argued that-despite some difference in emphases,nuances and semantics-that congress,i.e.,its leaders, had stood all along until the very end for a secular India united.but it was Jinnah and the Muslim League-which began from 1940 to advocate the "two nation theory"-who were ultimately responsible for the sad but avoidable vivisection of the sub continent. Jinnah alienation from the congress began after 1937,and if he was a little flexible as regards the definition and specifics of the Pakistan demand until Britain announced its decision to quit, "it was always on the cards".which according to Khalid Mansuri rests on two fundamental assumptions "two partition myths" that is, "The League for Partition"and "The Congress for unity".
When Pakistan was ultimately created, it contained 60 million Muslims, leaving behind another 40 million in non Muslim India. so Ayesha Jalal launched her "revisionist" critique by raising an important question;"how did a Pakistan come about which fitted the interests of most Muslims so poorly?" In her view, Lahore Resolution,which neither mentioned 'Partition' nor 'Pakistan' wes Jinnah's "tactical move"-his "bargaining counter "to have the claim of separate Muslim nationhood accepted by Congress and The British .But the Congress or the British would never accept partition under any circumstances was a mistaken assumption congress in the end did accept partition and thus Jinnah was beaten in his own game of wits..... ASim roy in a supportive article for Jalal, therefore,came up with rather strong emotive statement that "it was not the League but the Congress who chose, at the end of the day, to run a knife across Mother India's body.
Mr. Jinnah at all times publicly bent over backwards to keep India united to show his determination which was fake.
I am not a fan of Gandhi but I can say it on my life that if Jinnah could have controlled his ambitions and could have remain honest after his filthy and selfish dream to become prime minister of India or later of Pakistan. No power on earth could have led the ages old sub continent to be divided. His self-interest has always been to uphold the truth at all times under all circumstances. To blame Mr. Jinnah for the calamity of partition of India and all the destruction that came in its wake is however grossly just,but there are also several other factors and other ugly faces to be blamed.
Going by the account of events given by contemporaries it becomes clear that there was not any only one single reason of the disastrous partition of India, The senseless and downright dishonest display of Jinnah's obnoxious & foul diplomacy at the time!!! And now turned to be communal Muslim League going along with it.
History has recorded it. And I note it with utter dismay that it is omitted all over to record this heinous crime in history committed by the Muslim League under the overall lordship of filthy Lord Mountbatten.
It is just to put the record straight and to enlighten misguided Muslims in India and abroad. Aftab Qureshi and Salil Sharma, Aligarh