{{위키데이터 속성 추적}}
[[파일:Population density map of British India according to 1911 Census.jpg|섬네일|300px|[[인도 제국]]의 지도 (1911)]]
[[파일:Badshah Khan.jpg|섬네일|300px|[[쿠다이 키드마트가르]]의 지도자 [[칸 압둘 가파르 칸]]과 [[마하트마 간디]]는 모두 [[인도 국민회의]] 소속으로 인도 분할에 반대했다. 두 사람 모두 [[힌두교도-무슬림 통합|무슬림과 힌두교도]]는 수세기 동안 평화롭게 함께 살았고 인도에서 공통의 역사를 공유했다는 사실을 언급했다.<ref name="Totten2018"/><ref name="Majmudar2012"/>]]
'''인도 분할에 대한 반대'''는 20세기에 [[인도 제국]]에 널리 퍼져 있었고, 현재까지도 [[남아시아]] 정치에서 화두로 남아있는 주제이다. 인도 분할을 반대하는 이들은 종종 [[합성민족주의]]의 이론을 고수하기도 했다.<ref>{{서적 인용|last1=Na |first1=Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im |last2=Naʻīm |first2=ʻAbd Allāh Aḥmad |title=Islam and the Secular State |date=2009 |publisher=[[Harvard University Press]] |isbn=978-0-674-03376-4 |page=156 |language=en |quote=The Jamiya-i-ulama-Hind founded in 1919, strongly opposed partition in the 1940s and was committed to composite nationalism.}}</ref> 힌두교도, 기독교도, 영국계 인도인, [[파르시인]] 공동체와 [[시크교도]] 공동체가 [[인도의 분할]]과 그 기저에 있는 [[양국론]]에 크게 반대했으며,<ref>{{서적 인용|last1=Shaw |first1=Jeffrey M. |last2=Demy |first2=Timothy J. |title=War and Religion: An Encyclopedia of Faith and Conflict [3 volumes] |date=2017 |publisher=ABC-CLIO |isbn=9781610695176 |page=371 |language=en|quote=Upon the assurances of the Congress Party that Sikh interests would be respected as an independent India, Sikh leadership agreed to support the Congress Party and its vision of a united India rather than seeking a separate state. When Partition was announced by the British in 1946, Sikhs were considered a Hindu sect for Partition purposes. They violently opposed the creation of Pakistan since historically Sikh territories and cities were included in the new Muslim homeland.}}</ref><ref name="Thomas1974">{{서적 인용|last1=Thomas |first1=Abraham Vazhayil |title=Christians in Secular India |date=1974 |publisher=Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press |isbn=978-0-8386-1021-3 |pages=106–110 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="KudaisyaYong2004">{{서적 인용|last1=Kudaisya |first1=Gyanesh |last2=Yong |first2=Tan Tai |title=The Aftermath of Partition in South Asia |date=2004 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-134-44048-1 |page=100 |language=en |quote=No sooner was it made public than the Sikhs launched a virulent campaign against the Lahore Resolution. Pakistan was portrayed as a possible return to an unhappy past when Sikhs were persecuted and Muslims the persecutor. Public speeches by various Sikh political leaders on the subject of Pakistan invariably raised images of atrocities committed by Muslims on Sikhs and of the martyrdom of their ''gurus'' and heroes. Reactions to the Lahore Resolution were uniformly negative and Sikh leaders of all political persuasions made it clear that Pakistan would be 'wholeheartedly resisted'. The Shiromani Akali Dal, the party with a substantial following amongst the rural Sikhs, organized several well-attended conferences in Lahore to condemn the Muslim League. Master Tara Singh, leader of the Akali Dal, declared that his party would fight Pakistan 'tooth and nail'. Not be outdone, other Sikh political organizations, rival to the Akali Dal, namely the Central Khalsa Young Men Union and the moderate and loyalist Chief Khalsa Dewan, declared in equally strong language their unequivocal opposition to the Pakistan scheme.}}</ref><ref name="Anthony1969">{{서적 인용|author=[[Frank Anthony]] |title=Britain's Betrayal in India: The Story of the Anglo-Indian Community |date=1969 |publisher=Allied Publishers |page=157 |language=en}}</ref> [[전인도 아자드 무슬림 회의]]로 대표되는 다수의 무슬림도 반대했다.<ref name="Ashraf2017">{{웹 인용|last1=Ashraf |first1=Ajaz |title=India's Muslims and the Price of Partition |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opinion/india-muslims-hindus-partition.html |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=17 August 2017|quote= Many Indian Muslims, including religious scholars, ferociously opposed the Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan.}}</ref><ref name="Ahmed2016">{{웹 인용|last1=Ahmed |first1=Ishtiaq |title=The dissenters |url=https://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/the-dissenters/ |publisher=[[The Friday Times]] |language=en |date=27 May 2016|quote=However, the book is a tribute to the role of one Muslim leader who steadfastly opposed the Partition of India: the Sindhi leader Allah Bakhsh Soomro. Allah Bakhsh belonged to a landed family. He founded the Sindh People’s Party in 1934, which later came to be known as ‘Ittehad’ or ‘Unity Party’. ... Allah Bakhsh was totally opposed to the Muslim League’s demand for the creation of Pakistan through a division of India on a religious basis. Consequently, he established the Azad Muslim Conference. In its Delhi session held during April 27–30, 1940 some 1400 delegates took part. They belonged mainly to the lower castes and working class. The famous scholar of Indian Islam, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, feels that the delegates represented a ‘majority of India’s Muslims’. Among those who attended the conference were representatives of many Islamic theologians and women also took part in the deliberations.}}</ref><ref>{{저널 인용|title=Asia and the Americas |journal=Asia and the Americas |date=1946 |volume=46 |page=212 |publisher=Asia Press |language=en |quote=Many Muslim organizations are opposed to it. Every non-Muslim, whether he is a Hindu or Sikh or Christian or Parsi, is opposed to it. Essentially the sentiment in favor of partition has grown in the areas where Muslims are in a small minority, areas which, in any event, would remain undetached from the rest of India. Muslims in provinces where they are in a majority have been less influenced by it ; naturally, for they can stand on their own feet and have no reason to fear other groups. It is least evident in the Northwest Frontier Province (95 per cent Muslim) where the Pathans are brave and self-reliant and have no fear complex. Thus, oddly enough, the Muslim League's proposal to partition India finds far less response in the Muslim areas sought to be partitioned than in the Muslim minority areas which are unaffected by it.}}</ref>

파슈툰족 정치인이자 [[쿠다이 키트마트가르]]의 지도자였던 [[칸 압둘 가파르 칸]]은 인도를 분할하자는 제안을 비이슬람적인 것으로 보고 무슬림들이 인도를 천년 이상 그들의 조국으로 여겼던 공통의 역사와 모순된다고 보았다.<ref name="Totten2018">{{서적 인용|author=[[Samuel Totten]] |title=Dirty Hands and Vicious Deeds: The US Government's Complicity in Crimes against Humanity and Genocide |date=2018 |publisher=University of Toronto Press |isbn=9781442635272 |language=en}}</ref> [[마하트마 간디]]는 "힌두교도와 무슬림은 인도의 같은 토양의 아들들이며 그러므로 그들은 인도를 자유롭고 단결시키기 위해 노력해야 하는 형제였다."라고 말했다.<ref name="Majmudar2012">{{서적 인용|last1=Majmudar |first1=Uma |title=Gandhi's Pilgrimage of Faith: From Darkness to Light |date=2012 |publisher=SUNY Press |isbn=9780791483510 |language=en}}</ref>

[[데오반드파]]의 [[수니파]] 이슬람교도들은 "파키스탄 운동이 강력한 통합 인도의 출현을 막기 위한 식민지 정부의 음모"라고 비판했고, 인도의 분할을 비난하기 위해 아자드 무슬림 회의를 조직하는 것을 도왔다.<ref name="Moj2015">{{서적 인용|last1=Moj |first1=Muhammad |title=The Deoband Madrassah Movement: Countercultural Trends and Tendencies |date=2015 |publisher=Anthem Press |isbn=9781783084463 |pages=84 |language=en}}</ref> 그들은 또한 만약 인도가 분할된다면 이슬람교도의 경제적 발전에 피해가 갈 것이라고 주장하며,<ref name="Moj2015"/> 분할론은 이슬람 사회를 후퇴시키기 위해 고안된 것이라고 보았다.<ref name="Faruqi1963">{{서적 인용|last1=Faruqi |first1=Ziya-ul-Hasan |title=The Deoband School and the Demand for Pakistan |date=1963 |publisher=Asia Publishing House |pages=106–108 |language=en}}</ref> 데오반드파는 [[후다이비야 조약]]을 가리키며 "두 공동체 사이의 상호 작용을 촉진시켜 무슬림들이 평화적인 사회(Tabligh)를 통해 [[쿠라이시족]]에게 그들의 종교를 전할 수 있는 더 많은 기회를 허용했다"고 말했다.<ref name="Moj2015"/> 데오반드파 학자였던 [[후사인 아흐메드 마다니]]는 저서 <[[합성민족주의와 이슬람]]>(Muttahida Qaumiyat Aur Islam;{{llang|ur|متحدہ قومیت اور اسلام}})에서 통일 인도를 논의했으며, 다른 종교가 다른 국적을 구성하지 않으며, 인도의 분할에 대한 제안은 종교적으로 정당하지 않다는 생각을 공표한다.

[[카쉬카르 운동]]의 지도자 [[이나야툴라 칸 마슈리키]]는 그는 만약 이슬람교도와 힌두교도가 수세기동안 인도에서 평화롭게 함께 살았다면, 그들은 자유롭고 통합된 인도에서도 그렇게 할 수 있을 것이라고 생각했기 때문에 인도 분할에 반대했다. 마슈리키는 양국론을 '인도가 서로 대립하는 두 나라로 나뉘면, 이 지역을 더 쉽게 지배하기 위한 영국의 음모'로 판단했다. 마슈리키는 "무슬림의 다수 지역은 이미 무슬림의 지배하에 있었기 때문에, 만약 어떤 무슬림이라도 이 지역으로 이주하기를 원한다면, 나라를 분할할 필요 없이 자유롭게 그렇게 할 수 있었다"고 생각했다.<ref name="Yousaf2018">{{웹 인용|last1=Yousaf |first1=Nasim |title=Why Allama Mashriqi opposed the partition of India? |url=https://www.globalvillagespace.com/why-allama-mashriqi-opposed-the-partition-of-india/ |publisher=Global Village Space |access-date=24 January 2019 |language=en |date=31 August 2018}}</ref>

[[1946년 인도 지방 선거]]에서는 주로 상류층 출신의 인도인 무슬림의 16%만이 투표할 수 있었다.<ref name="OR1965">{{서적 인용|title=Orissa Review - Volume 22 |date=1965 |publisher=Home Department, Government of Orissa |page=16 |language=en}}</ref> 많은 하층계급 인도인 무슬림들은 "무슬림 국가가 상류계급 이슬람교도들에게만 혜택을 줄 것"이라고 믿으며 인도의 분할에 반대했다.<ref name="Rabasa2004">{{서적 인용|last1=Rabasa |first1=Angel |last2=Waxman |first2=Matthew |last3=Larson |first3=Eric V. |last4=Marcum |first4=Cheryl Y. |title=The Muslim World After 9/11 |date=2004 |publisher=Rand Corporation |isbn=978-0-8330-3755-8 |quote=However, many Indian Muslims regarded India as their permanent home and supported the concept of a secular, unified state that would include both Hindus and Muslims. After centuries of joint history and coexistence, these Muslims firmly believed that India was fundamentally a multireligious entity and that Muslims were an integral part of the state. Furthermore, cleaving India into independent Muslim and Hindu states would be geographically inconvenient for millions of Muslims. Those living in the middle and southern regions of India could not conveniently move to the new Muslim state because it required travel over long distances and considerable financial resources. In particular, many lower-class Muslims opposed partition because they felt that a Muslim state would benefit only upper-class Muslims. At independence, the division of India into the Muslim state of Pakistan and the secular state of India caused a massive migration of millions of Muslims into Pakistan and Hindus into India, along with the death of over one million people in the consequent riots and chaos. The millions of Muslims who remained in India by choice or providence became a smaller and more interspersed minority in a secular and democratic state.}}</ref>

식민지 시기 [[인도의 기독교]]도를 대표하던 [[전인도 기독교인 회의]]와 [[타라 싱]]이 이끌었던 시크교도 단체인 [[치프 칼사 디완]]과 [[시로마니 아칼리 달]]도 파키스탄을 만들자는 분리주의자들의 요구를 비난하며, 그것을 그들을 박해할 가능성이 있는 운동으로 보았다.<ref name="Thomas1974"/><ref name="KudaisyaYong2004"/>

오늘날 인도 분할을 비판하는 사람들은 "분열되지 않은 인도는 세계에서 가장 강력한 군대 중 하나를 자랑하고, 더 경쟁력 있는 스포츠 팀을 가지고, 종교적 조화를 가진 소수민족의 보호를 강화하며, [[여성의 권리]]를 더 신장하고, 확장된 해양 국경을 소유하며, 높은 지위의 [[소프트 파워]]를 계획하며, 국방 대신 교육과 건강에 집중할 수 있었을 것이다."라고 주장한다.<ref>{{웹 인용|last1=Tiwari |first1=Anuj |title=How India Would Have Looked Like Today If The Partition Had Never Happened? |url=https://www.indiatimes.com/trending/social-relevance/what-if-the-india-pakistan-partition-never-happened-547218.html |website=[[IndiaTimes]] |date=August 14, 2021 |access-date=12 October 2021}}</ref> 또한 파키스탄은 종교적 분리에 기반하여 인도의 분할을 통해 만들어졌기 때문에,<ref name="Sinha2014">{{서적 인용|last1=Sinha |first1=Jai B. P. |title=Psycho-Social Analysis of the Indian Mindset |date=2014 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-81-322-1804-3 |page=190 |language=en |quote=The partition of the Indian subcontinent was based on the formula of religious segregation. Many Muslims migrated to Pakistan, but many more also decided to stay back. The country had an obligation to protect Islamic interests as Muslims in India tied their destiny with the rest. There were also Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and other communities which were living mostly in peace for centuries.}}</ref> 인도라는 나라를 종교적 선에 따라 나누는 바로 그 개념은 현대 시대에 뒤떨어진 생각이라는 비판을 받아왔다.<ref name="Natesan1941">{{서적 인용|last1=Natesan |first1=G. A. |title=The Indian Review, Volume 42 |date=1941 |publisher=G.A. Natesan & Company |page=318 |language=en |quote=Then by the very force of the logic of hatred and separation that it had pursued, it had to go to the extreme of demanding a partition of India. The modiæval theory of religious groups constituting a political community, which collapsed before an advancing nationalism in Europe, was revived. An idea similar to that of the Crusades, of Christendom versus Islam, suddenly appeared (it is said with British inspiration) in India. It was an astonishing throw-back.}}</ref><ref name="NH2018">{{웹 인용|title=Oxford Union debate: House regrets the partition of India |url=https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/news/oxford-union-debate-house-regrets-the-partition-of-india-salman-khurshid-rajmohan-gandhi-mridula-mukherjee-ashis-ray |publisher=[[National Herald]] |access-date=4 July 2020 |language=en |date=23 March 2018 |quote=He went on to say, “To welcome Partition is to imply that people with different backgrounds and different blood-lines cannot live together in one nation. A regressive suggestion.”  He lamented that the “Muslim majorities who got Pakistan did not need it; Muslim minorities remaining in India who needed security became more insecure.” “If tyranny had ended with partition, I would have welcomed division. In fact, however, tyranny was multiplied by partition.”}}</ref> 분할 이후, 인도의 분할에 대한 비판자들은 그것이 실수라는 견해를 보여주기 위해 1,500만 명의 사람들이 추방되고, 백만 명 이상의 사람들의 살해되었으며, 그리고 75,000명의 여성들이 강간된 사실을 지적한다.<ref name="Dalrymple2015">{{잡지 인용|last1=Dalrymple |first1=William |title=The Great Divide: The Violent Legacy of Indian Partition |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/29/the-great-divide-books-dalrymple |magazine=[[The New Yorker]] |language=en |date=29 June 2015}}</ref>

== 같이 보기 ==
* [[마다니-이크발 논쟁]]
* [[간디주의]]
* [[힌두교도-무슬림 통합]]
* <[[합성민족주의와 이슬람]]>
* [[인도 독립운동]]
* [[힌두스탄]]
* [[인도 민족주의]]
* [[파키스탄 운동]]
* [[인도 분할 당시 여성에 대한 폭력]]
== 각주 ==
{{각주}}

[[분류:인도의 분할]]
[[분류:분할 (정치)]]
[[분류:1947년 영국령 인도]]
[[분류:인도의 역사]]
[[분류:강제 이주]]
[[분류:아시아의 인종청소]]