History Extended Essay

TOPIC: The Partition of India

Research Question:
To what extent was Muhammad Ali Jinnah rather than
Jawaharlal Nehru responsible for the partition of India in 1947?
International Baccalaureate: Diploma Program
Session: May/June 2020
Word Count: 3848

Citation Style: MLA

The conference in New Delhi, where Lord Mountbatten revealed Britain's plan for the
Partition of India, to Jawaharlal Nehru and Muhammad Ali Jinnah1.

1
Daniel, Vaihayasi Pande. “'Nehru Was as Much to Blame as Jinnah for Partition'.” Rediff, Rediff.com, 29Jan.
2008, www.rediff.com/news/interview/nehru-was-as-much-to-blame-as-jinnah-for-partition/20150813.htm.

1
 Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..3

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………….15

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………….16

2
Introduction

The most significant change in the Indian subcontinent post World War II was the Independence

of India from British colonial rule and the subsequent Partition of the country into two, namely

India and Pakistan. “Freedom came, but with it partition.2” Although the demand for

independence from British rule was unanimous throughout the subcontinent, the partition of the

country into two was not a consistent decision. While many favored it on religious grounds,

others wanted India to stay united as it had before the advent of the British. Ultimately the

country was divided into two parts - India and Pakistan, due to the rising tensions between the

two communities, namely the Hindus and the Muslims and the leaders of the respective groups.

However, post-independence and also currently, the tensions have never ceased showing that

partition has not been a solution. India and Pakistan continue to remain foes with four wars being

fought post-independence. Even in recent times, due to military and militant activities, there have

been conflicts. This has made me research the history and reasons behind the creation of the two

countries. On analyzing this, I realize that modern Indian history is a history of personalities.

Many strong characters played an essential role in the partition. Prominent among them are

leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru3and Mohammed Ali Jinnah4. Mohammed Ali Jinnah was

initially secular, but with time started to feel that the Muslim minorities were being

overshadowed. This, along with the fact that he rose in status as a leader for all the Muslims of

the subcontinent, made him think on the lines of a separate nation for the Muslims. His role in

the partition is paramount and stark. Nehru remained a secular leader throughout his life.

However, with time the clashes between the Muslim leaders, especially Jinnah and secular

2
Mahajan, Sucheta. Independence And Partition The Erosion Of Colonial Power In India. Sage Publications, 2000,
p. 392.
3
The first Prime Minister of Free India
4
The first Governor General of Free Pakistan

3
leaders such as himself, became so unbearable leading to stalemates in all discussions of national

importance. This finally drove Nehru to accede to the idea of partition in the end. Other factors

amply assisted both these leaders, foremost among them, were the vested interests of the British.

I want to study and analyze the pre-partition years and understand the circumstances as well as

factors and decisions taken by these two leaders during the time of partition. This led to the

question: To what extent was Muhammad Ali Jinnah rather than Nehru responsible for the

partition of India in 1947?”

This research topic is worthy of investigation as the partition of India displaced about 12 million

people and caused the death of about 2 million people. It has also led to the deep hostility

between the two countries created.

To finally reach a question that piqued my interest, an extensive research task was undertaken. I

consulted books like Jinnah: India-Partition Independence by Jaswant Singh, India: From Curzon

To Nehru & After by Durga Das, Sardar Patel and Partition Of India by Neha Arora, Partition of

India A Cold War Strategy by T.L. Sharma, Jinnah and Gandhi: Their Role in India’s Quest for

freedom by S.K Majumdar, Oxford India Short Introductions: Partition of India by Haimanth

Roy and From Naoroji to Nehru: Glimpses of the freedom Movement By N.G.Rajurkar. All

these books offered me various and insightful perspectives, stages of planning, and also an in-

depth analysis of the events that unfolded so that I gained a holistic view. Apart from these, I

browsed books like Freedom at Midnight by Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins, Mohammed

Ali Jinnah- An Ambassador of Unity His Speeches and Writings 1912-1917 and Independence

and Partition - The erosion of colonial power in India by Sucheta Mahajan to get a broad picture.

4
I also read some online newspaper articles from “The Dawn”, Pakistan’s oldest English

newspaper to get to their side of the story too. The information from the “Dawn” newspaper gave

a further more detailed interpretation on who had more impact on the process of partitioning

India. Furthermore, I read a memoir called Mohammed Ali Jinnah- An Ambassador of Unity His

Speeches and Writings 1912- 1917. This gave me insight into Jinnah’s personal views and

showed me how he wanted his motives and actions to be viewed by the public.

The Indian National Congress [INC], which spearheaded the Indian freedom movement from

1885, was a secular force, which believed that Hindus and Muslims could live in harmony.

Initially, even Jinnah was a member of the INC. Later, he also joined the All India Muslim

League [Muslim League] while continuing to have nationalistic ideals. However, in later years,

especially after the early 1920s, fearing oppression from the Hindu majority and prejudice, the

Muslim League desired to divide the land and form their own “Muslim” country. The British

found this to their strategic advantage as they already believed in this policy of ‘Divide and

Rule’5. In the end, all three major groups, namely the British, INC, and the Muslim League,

agreed to the partition for their own aims and intentions. During the partition period, Nehru was

the president of the INC and an influential leader, while Jinnah was also the president of the

Muslim League and even more prominent as a recognized “head” of Muslims in the Indian

subcontinent. Therefore, both played important roles. This essay will focus on the clash of

ideologies and the essential parts of Nehru and Jinnah in the partition game. The period of study

would be from the 1920s until 1947, the year of independence. It was vital for me to analyze

events in chronological sequence to understand how events and happenings unfolded, leading to

the partition.
5
Policy of dividing people into factions based on religion in this instance

5
Jinnah’s political life began along with his legal practice in Bombay High court in 1904. At that

point, Jinnah was part and parcel of the Indian National Congress (INC), and nationalism, as well

as Hindu-Muslim unity, was a significant priority for him. In 1904 when he participated in a

Congress reception committee, his ideology was one that “refused to be drawn into any

controversy over the issue of forming a separate political body for the Muslims6”. Even after the

formation of the Muslim League of which he became a member, he attended their meetings as a

loyal member of the Congress party; his Muslim stand “would in no way imply disloyalty to the

national cause to which he [Jinnah] had surrendered himself to 7”. “In 1913, Jinnah formally

joined the All India Muslim League8”. By the year 1914, Jinnah’s role as a freedom fighter and a

leader had been solidified. In December 1916, Jinnah became president of the Muslim League.

In this same year, Mahatma Gandhi returned from South Africa to continue the struggle against

‘injustice’ in his homeland.

In 1920, Gandhi proposed a resolution of non-cooperation, which was later passed. Gandhi also

became president of the Home Rule League9. This marked the beginning of a clash of ideologies

between Gandhi and Jinnah. That same year in the thirty-fifth session of the INC at Nagpur, the

Congress confirmed a changed creed to Home Rule. However, Jinnah was the only one to

dissent.” His objection to the creed centered on the lack of clarity on the issue of ‘Swaraj’10, as to

what it meant. As to non-cooperation being a weapon for attaining Swaraj, he found it not only

6
Singh, Jaswant. Jinnah: India-Partition, Independence. Rupa, 2012, p. 75.
7
Singh, Jaswant. Jinnah: India-Partition, Independence. Rupa, 2012, p. 76.
8
Jinnah, Mohammed Ali, and Sarojini Naidu. Mohammed Ali Jinnah- An Ambassador Of Unity His Speeches And
Writings 1912-1917. Atish Fishan Publications, 1989, p. 11.
9
A movement created to establish self-government for India within the British colonial structure
10
Self-rule

6
practically unsound but also illogical 11 ”. It is said that his priorities on Hindu-Muslim unity

changed after that when he refused to follow Gandhi’s footsteps.” Jinnah’s most significant fault

was his obsessive egoism. 12 ”After the 1921 annual session of the INC under Gandhi’s

leadership, Jinnah even quit the INC. “Everyone had to sit on the ground. People wore

khadi…Jinnah was also present…where he was attending for the last time. He was the only

individual to be seen in foreign clothes, complete with collar, tie...13” The early 1920s saw petty

issues and differences arise between the Hindus and Muslims; this included many communal

movements in the sub-continent. “From 1923 onwards, India then witnessed a series of

communal riots that further vitiated the political atmosphere. 14 ” By 1927, the relationship

between the INC and the Muslim League turned sour as a result of all these developments. What

irked Jinnah the most was when he was not included in 1932, third round table conference 15.

“Once he separated in ideology from INC and took up a communal platform, he did not stop

until he became the undisputed communal head of the Muslims.16” “In the provincial elections of

1937, the Congress emerged victorious in the Hindu-majority provinces. However, the League

did not win even Muslim-majority provinces except for those who were former Congressmen.

Jinnah expected the INC to form a coalition with the League… thereby giving his party a

national stature. When the Congress wanted the League to acknowledge the Congress platform,

Jinnah’s couldn’t accept it and started accusing the Congress as being overtly oppressive

Hindus17”. This event was the turning point in Jinnah’s beliefs and his ideals. From this point,

Jinnah was against the INC’s apparent despotism and went on “to gather evidence of

11
Singh, Jaswant. Jinnah: India-Partition, Independence. Rupa, 2012, p. 91.
12
Rajurkar, N.G. From Naoroji To Nehru: Glimpses Of The Freedom Movement. p. 113.
13
Singh, Jaswant. Jinnah: India-Partition, Independence. Rupa, 2012, p. 91.
14
Singh, Jaswant. Jinnah: India-Partition, Independence. Rupa, 2012, p. 119.
15
One of many peace conferences held between the British and INC
16
Rajurkar, N.G. From Naoroji To Nehru: Glimpses Of The Freedom Movement. p. 113.
17
Das, Durga. India From Curzon To Nehru & After. Rupa & Co., 2004, p. 191.

7
wrongdoings on the Muslims in the Muslim majority province of Uttar Pradesh which was under

Congress rule.18” A report was eventually produced due to Jinnah’s efforts, which was useful to

all who wanted to scold the INC for their “oppressive Hindu tyranny”. From then, there was no

turning back for Jinnah with regards to a partition mentality.

On the other hand, Jawaharlal Nehru’s role in Indian politics pre-independence increased after

his meeting with Gandhi, whom he met for the first time in 1916. He, too, like Jinnah, was

educated in the western world and stood for Hindu-Muslim unity. “Stories of atrocities

committed by British troops made Nehru turn into an anti-British authority in India.19” Young

Nehru greatly inspired by Gandhi, worked closely with him after 1916 and was able to appreciate

his political insight, fearlessness, and wisdom. Gandhi, in-turn, admired Nehru’s vision

concerning the future and his modern political vision. He saw the makings of a great leader in

Nehru, and despite some conflicts, this mutual respect continued till the end. Gandhi’s ideas and

that of Jinnah started clashing in the 1920s when Jinnah criticized the former for his lack of

clarity in formulating Self-rule or Home Rule. Nehru, who was considered as a disciple of

Gandhi, started to look at Jinnah as a troublemaker from around this time. Nehru’s status rose in

the coming years, and he eventually became the president of the INC in 1929 demanding ‘Poorna

Swaraj’20. By the mid-1930s, communal differences were very stark and the INC under Nehru

presenting itself as a secular body and having many Muslim members tried to portray an image

of solidarity. The Muslim League under Jinnah’s leadership, by then, identified itself as the sole

keeper of Muslim interests and tried to portray the INC as a Hindu majority body. Nehru disliked

such a portrayal, as it would rival his stand and ideal as a secular leader. Because of this, Nehru

18
Das, Durga. India From Curzon To Nehru & After. Rupa & Co., 2004, p. 192.
19
Rajurkar, N.G. From Naoroji To Nehru: Glimpses Of The Freedom Movement. p. 71.
20
Complete Independence

8
openly favored and preferred to consider Maulana Azad, another member of the INC, as the head

of Muslims, which angered Jinnah. As the Muslim League and Jinnah became inseparable,

Nehru’s differences with Jinnah lead him to ignore the Muslim league as well. This became

Nehru’s biggest flaw as he took his differences very seriously, and it also reflected in all issues

concerning the League.“…the Congress High Command’s refusal to acknowledge the League’s

demands as politically credible would be the turning point on which the road to independence

would also veer towards Pakistan and Partition.21” Nehru felt that the INC was quite capable of

taking care of the interests of both communal groups as they had notable Muslim leaders in their

midst too. What he failed to take seriously was the fact that he was provoking Jinnah by

everything he did against the Muslim League. Jinnah, once he became stronger in later years,

would hit back at Nehru with more force than Nehru expected. In the 1937 Provincial elections,

the INC had sweeping victories in all regions except in the northeast province of Uttar Pradesh

and the western province of Bombay. “…however, he tried to make his presence felt in UP and

Bombay by putting forth the idea of a ‘United Front’.22” Nehru by then had declared that the

only two parties that mattered in India were the British colonial authorities and the INC.

“According to Kanji Dwarkadas23, the refusal of Nehru to include a minimal representation of

two Muslim league members in the newly formed UP government was what angered Jinnah the

most…24”. “… this unwise move on the part of Nehru of which Mr. Jinnah took full advantage

…and started an aggressive movement which led to the creation of Pakistan.”25 “Whatever the

reason, politically it was unwise not to include the Muslim league nominees in the Ministry…26”.

21
Roy, Haimanti. Oxford India Short Introductions: Partition Of India. Oxford, 2018, p. 19.
22
Rajurkar, N.G. From Naoroji To Nehru: Glimpses Of The Freedom Movement. p. 116.
23
A writer who was very critical of Congress’ action in 1937
24
Rajurkar, N.G. From Naoroji To Nehru: Glimpses Of The Freedom Movement. p. 116.
25
Rajurkar, N.G. From Naoroji To Nehru: Glimpses Of The Freedom Movement. p. 117.
26
"Jinnah, Nehru And Partition". DAWN.COM, 2009, https://www.dawn.com/news/881269/jinnah-nehru-and-
partition. Accessed 19 Dec 2019.

9
After this episode, Jinnah took it upon himself to criticize every move of the Congress and to call

them as Hindu oppressors. “From 1937 onwards…Jinnah was completely occupied with

slandering the Congress Ministries regarding ill-treatment of the Muslims and also rousing their

religious sentiments in all ways possible. 27 ” By now, Jinnah’s enmity with Nehru and the

Congress was at its peak. Nehru, too allowed this enmity to fog his vision and seemed to

disagree with any plans, which gave equal representation between INC and Muslim league after

that. Many historians feel that because of Nehru’s insensitivity towards Jinnah, separatist

tendencies in Jinnah were instigated. By then, Jinnah was a formidable figure who couldn’t be

pushed to the shadows. Had Nehru placed Nationalism above personality clashes, Partition may

have been avoided is one argument. Until 1946 all talks between Nehru and Jinnah ended in a

stalemate. Nehru finally agreed to only the second Cabinet Mission plan of 1946. “… the plan

proposed that India be divided into two independent countries, one Muslim majority, and the

other Hindu majority. Nehru agreed to this.28” “Without mincing his words, Nehru said he had

“no doubt” in his mind “that this is the right course.” Yet he did not hide his grief because “for

generations, we have dreamt and struggled for a free and independent united India 29” Nehru and

Jinnah had finally brought it to that end. Another argument is that the INC and Nehru were

finding it very hard to deal with criticisms at every front from Jinnah, who, with British support,

had grown very strong in his stance towards the end.

27
Rajurkar, N.G. From Naoroji To Nehru: Glimpses Of The Freedom Movement. p. 120.
28
Singh, Harbir. "The Bitter Truth Is That Nehru Was Right To Choose Partition". Swarajyamag.Com, 2018,
https://swarajyamag.com/politics/the-bitter-truth-is-that-nehru-was-right-to-choose-partition. Accessed 24 Nov
2019.
29
Mukhopadhyay, Nilanjan. "Past Continuous: Those Who Think Nehru Was Power Hungry Should Review Events
Leading To Independence". The Wire, 2017, https://thewire.in/history/past-continuous-nehru-independence.
Accessed 28 Dec 2019.

10
Besides Nehru and Jinnah, other factors include the British/Western interests and the partition

mentality of the people themselves. The British had always taken advantage of the many

differences in Indian society, especially with regard to the community. They took sides for their

strength and played politics so that they could always have the upper hand at governance. “The

British policy in India was pro-Hindu and anti-Muslim almost up to 1870…The British however

brought about a change in their policy after the Great revolt in 1857... They realised that it was

easier to have the minority community on their side, as the people …would have feelings of

insecurity which the rulers could take advantage of.30” When it became apparent at a point that

the country was heading towards independence, the British thought it would suit their interests if

the country remained partitioned in the backdrop of the cold war. They added fuel to the fire in

the battle between Nehru (INC) and Jinnah (Muslim League). The last three Viceroys of India,

namely Lord Linlithgow, Lord Wavell, and Lord Mountbatten, all played up to this strategy. All

the Indian leaders were quite aware of western intentions. “But Jinnah was a nationalist at heart...

He was offended when the Congress elected a Muslim leader - Azad as its President… in order

to give an alternate leader to the Muslims of the subcontinent… If only Gandhi would

acknowledge me, the separatist plans of the colonial powers could be foiled .31” This exactly

happened in 1940 when Nehru demanded independence after WW2; if India was to help in the

war efforts, Linlithgow conspired with Jinnah and gave him a constitutional right, namely a veto,

to oppose proposals made by the law-making body namely the INC. Linlithgow thereby created

an elevated status for Jinnah by treating him as a representative of all Muslims in the country,

well aware of his enmity with Nehru. This had two advantages to the British – one, to buy time

till the war gets over and two, to create divisions between the two main political groups creating

30
Rajurkar, N.G. From Naoroji To Nehru: Glimpses Of The Freedom Movement. p. 107.
31
Das, Durga. India From Curzon To Nehru & After. Rupa & Co., 2004, p. 194.

11
partition mentality. “But it had the effect of pointing to partition.32”. “In 1940, Jinnah called for

the creation of an independent state … in which Muslims could live away from Hindus. This, he

argued, would bring stability to the nation and end any potential for religious violence. Jinnah

supported the British in World War Two, whereas Congress failed to form any form of

collaboration.33” “Soon after Jinnah articulated the idea of Pakistan in the Lahore Resolution of

1940, the British endorsed the essence of it, thereby pushing the idea further into the realm of

reality.34”

When Gandhi started the ‘quit India movement’ in 1942, Jinnah countered it with a ‘Divide and

quit’ movement as he had no faith that the country would be divided once the British left.

Although Wavell tried to maintain the geographic Unity of the country, he did not understand the

political undercurrents between Nehru, Jinnah, and the Churchill government in England.

Around the same time, Churchill strategically was able to offer to Jinnah - ‘Pakistan on a platter’.

“Pakistan was expected to give them a foothold in the sub-continent35”. Mountbatten came with

a clear intention of giving India its independence but at the cost of partition. By 1946, the INC

under Nehru had formulated a very fair cabinet share for the Muslim league so that the country

could stay unified after independence. Jinnah, by then, was not going to be moved from his

stand. “There was no argument that could move him from his consuming determination to realize

the impossible dream of Pakistan.36” In the end, Nehru, too, hungry for independence and happy

32
Das, Durga. India From Curzon To Nehru & After. Rupa & Co., 2004, p. 253.
33
"Muhammed Jinnah". Historylearningsite.Co.Uk, 2015, https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-
history-1918-to-1980/india-1900-to-1947/muhammed-jinnah/. Accessed 17 Jan 2020.
34
Sudarshan, V. "Congress And Partition". The Hindu, 2019, https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/congress-
and-partition/article30270109.ece. Accessed 6 Jan 2020.
35
Das, Durga. India From Curzon To Nehru & After. Rupa & Co., 2004, p. 255.
36
S. Ahmed, Akbar. Jinnah, Pakistan And Islamic Identity: The Search For Saladin. Taylor And
Francis, 2012, p. 129

12
to get rid of Jinnah and his opposition, accepted the division of the country as proposed by

Mountbatten. “The plan for partition offered a way out, and we took it. We expected that

partition would be temporary, that Pakistan was bound to come back to us37”. “Vallabhai Patel38

and Nehru, accept partition on the understanding that by conceding Pakistan to Jinnah, they will

have no more of him and eliminate his nuisance value or, as Nehru put it privately, that by

cutting off the head we shall get rid of the headache.39”

Another factor considered is the people of the country. The leaders are ultimately only a

reflection of the people they head. Communal and religious clashes played the most prominent

role in the partition. The people demonstrated time and again through riots that Hindus and

Muslims could not stay united. The separation thus became inevitable. In Gandhi’s words, “The

British are not responsible for the partition…the Viceroy is as opposed to division as Congress

itself, but if both the Hindus and Moslems - cannot agree on anything else, then the Viceroy is

left with no choice.40”

While there can be many reasons for the Partition, it is evident that two leaders, namely Jinnah

and Nehru, played a key role. From the early 1920s up to 1937, one can see how events led to a

partition mind-set between the two. There were lots of differences also between the two. Jinnah

disliked Gandhi and failed to see the greatness in him, while Gandhi greatly enamoured Nehru.

This itself placed them in different camps. Jinnah considered himself as a senior and equal only

37
Sharma, T.L. Partition Of India A Cold War Strategy. Delhi : B.R. Publishing Corporation, 2017, p. 46.
38
A senior most leader in INC during partition who gave up prime ministership to Nehru
39
Majumdar, S K. Jinnah And Gandhi: Their Role In India’S Quest For Freedom. Calcutta, K.L. Mukhopadhyay,
1966., 1966, p. 235.
40
Majumdar, S K. Jinnah And Gandhi: Their Role In India’S Quest For Freedom. Calcutta, K.L. Mukhopadhyay,
1966., 1966, p. 237.

13
to Gandhi. Nehru, due to his dislike for Jinnah, considered Maulana Azad as a leader of the

Muslims while not even considering The Muslim League as a party of importance. Had Jinnah

joined hands with Gandhi at the beginning itself, partition could have been avoided. Also, if

Nehru had embraced Jinnah by including two members from the League in the 1937 elections,

the partition psychology could have been avoided. Even in 1940, when Jinnah wanted Nehru and

the INC to accept him as the sole representative of the Muslims, he was ignored. So it was a

power/ego struggle between the two. The British played to this advantage, and when they offered

partition, Jinnah was too happy to accept it. At a point, Gandhi even suggested that Jinnah should

remain the leader of unified India to keep India united. The fight between Nehru and Jinnah was

everlasting, and it seemed the partition was inevitable “as neither Nehru nor Jinnah could ever

agree to take a step back in the newly formed government; partition became inevitable, he

said.41” However, before the partition, Nehru tried to give a fair representation to the Muslim

League. This after thought on the part of Nehru fell on Jinnah’s deaf years, as he preferred by

then a separate country for ‘his men’.

Conclusion

The primary responsibility of the partition of India is attributed to Jinnah, Nehru, and the British.

Although the goals of the three had various origins, the result was the same and shared by all. So,

in terms of responsibility, my research question -to what extent was Muhammad Ali Jinnah

rather than Nehru responsible for the partition of India in 1947, despite situations and

circumstances, Jinnah’s role in the partition was much more significant. When one analyzes the

41
Das, Durga. India From Curzon To Nehru & After. Rupa & Co., 2004, p. 193.

14
situation, it seems as though Jinnah’s obstacles and struggle for face gave rise to the Muslim

separatist mentality. It can also be seen that the barriers he overcame led to a change in his

ideals. Jinnah was initially a nationalist at heart who was always side-lined, which ultimately led

to partition and Pakistan.

On the other hand, Nehru continuously put his beliefs and trust in Gandhi. Gandhi wasn’t for the

partition and even claimed that it would only take place over his dead body. In the end the

leaders of the National Congress and the Muslim League did not take into account the judgment

of Gandhi. By then the enmity and ego clashes had gone past a limit of not recovering ever. In a

unified country power had to be shared between the two leaders and this was not preferred by

both. Nehru main goal was Independence and if he achieved it at the cost of partition, he was for

it. In a way he was happy to get Jinnah out of the way. By partitioning the country, Jinnah gained

added stature among “His Men”, as “partition” had always been an ideological goal of the

Muslim League, although not supported by Jinnah initially. He became an immortal of sorts by

completing this mission in the end. Jinnah had more to gain, as he would have an independent

and free hand in Independent Pakistan. He was therefore more directly responsible for the

partition amply assisted by other factors including Nehru and the British.

15
Bibliography:

Scholarly Books:

• Collins, Larry, and Dominique Lapierre. Freedom At Midnight. HarperCollins; UK Ed.

Edition (12 June 1997), 1975.

• Das, Durga. India from Curzon to Nehru & After. Rupa & Co., 2004.

• Gautier, François. A History Of India As It Happened: Not As It Has Been Written. Har-

Anand Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2013.

• Mahajan, Sucheta. Independence and Partition the Erosion of Colonial Power in India.

Sage Publications, 2000.

• Majumdar, S K. Jinnah And Gandhi: Their Role In India’S Quest For Freedom. Calcutta,

K.L. Mukhopadhyay, 1966, 1966.

• Naidu, Sarojini, and Mohomed Ali Jinnah. Mohomed Ali Jinnah, an Ambassador of

Unity: His Speeches & Writings, 1912-1917. With a Biographical Appreciation by

Sarojini Naidu, Etc. Madras, 1920.

• Rajurkar, N.G. From Naoroji To Nehru: Glimpses Of The Freedom Movement.

• Roy, Haimanti. The Partition of India. Oxford University Press, 2018.

16
 • S. Ahmed, Akbar. Jinnah, Pakistan And Islamic Identity: The Search For Saladin. Taylor

And Francis, 2012.

• Sharma, T. L. Partition of India: a Cold War Strategy. B.R. Publishing Corporation,

2017.

• Singh, Jaswant. Jinnah: India-Partition, Independence. Rupa, 2012.

Newspaper articles:

• "Jinnah, Nehru And Partition". DAWN.COM, 2009,

https://www.dawn.com/news/881269/jinnah-nehru-and-partition. Accessed 19 Dec 2019.

Memoirs:

• Jinnah, Mohammed Ali, and Sarojini Naidu. Mohammed Ali Jinnah- An Ambassador Of

Unity His Speeches And Writings 1912-1917. Atish Fishan Publications, 1989.

E-sources:

• Ali Jinnah, Muhammad. "Jinnah On Partition - The National Archives". The National

Archives, 2020, https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/the-road-to-

partition/jinnah-partition/. Accessed 19 Jan 2020.

17
• Balakrishnan, Uday. "Who’S Responsible For India’S Partition?". @Businessline, 2018,

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/uday-balakrishnan/whos-

responsible-for-indias-partition/article24049024.ece. Accessed 13 Jan 2020.

• Cheeran, John. "Who Divided India? Jinnah Or Nehru?". Times Of India Blog, 2020,

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/Arrackistan/who-divided-india-jinnah-or-

nehru/. Accessed 2 Dec 2019.

• Dalymple, William. "The Great Divide: The Violent Legacy Of Indian Partition, By

William Dalrymple". Theculturediary.Com, 2015,

https://www.theculturediary.com/stories/great-divide-violent-legacy-indian-partition-

william-dalrymple. Accessed 11 Dec 2019.

• Daniel, VaihayasiPande. “'Nehru Was as Much to Blame as Jinnah for Partition'.” Rediff,

Rediff.com, 29 Jan. 2008, http://www.rediff.com/news/interview/nehru-was-as-much-to-

blame-as-jinnah-for-partition/20150813.htm.

• K Dutta, Prabhash. "Jinnah Or Congress, Who Partitioned India In BJP Book Of

History?” India Today, 2020, https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/jinnah-or-

congress-who-partitioned-india-in-bjp-book-of-history-1627030-2019-12-10. Accessed 2

Jan 2020.

18
• Ketchell, Misha. "How The Partition Of India Happened – And Why Its Effects Are Still

Felt Today". The Conversation, 2020, http://theconversation.com/how-the-partition-of-

india-happened-and-why-its-effects-are-still-felt-today-81766. Accessed 16 Dec 2019.

• "Muhammad Ali Jinnah". En.Wikipedia.Org,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah. Accessed 15 Nov 2019.

• "Muhammed Jinnah". Historylearningsite.Co.Uk,

https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/india-1900-

to-1947/muhammed-jinnah/. Accessed 17 Jan 2020.

• Mukhopadhyay, Nilanjan. "Past Continuous: Those Who Think Nehru Was Power

Hungry Should Review Events Leading To Independence". The Wire, 2017,

https://thewire.in/history/past-continuous-nehru-independence. Accessed 28 Dec 2019.

• Nayyar, Sanjeev. "So Who Was Really Responsible For Partition?". Rediff, 2009,

https://www.rediff.com/news/column/so-who-was-really-responsible-for-

partition/20090917.htm. Accessed 2 Jan 2020.

• "Partition Of India". En.Wikipedia.Org, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India.

Accessed 4 Nov 2019.

19
• Sharma, Kavita. "Role Of Jinnah In Partition Of India- Pakistan". Neliti.Com, 2020,

https://www.neliti.com/publications/263018/role-of-jinnah-in-partition-of-india-pakistan.

Accessed 13 Jan 2020.

• Singh, Harbir. "The Bitter Truth Is That Nehru Was Right To Choose

Partition". Swarajyamag.Com, 2018, https://swarajyamag.com/politics/the-bitter-truth-is-

that-nehru-was-right-to-choose-partition. Accessed 24 Nov 2019.

• Sudarshan, V. "Congress And Partition". The Hindu, 2019,

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/congress-and partition/article30270109.ece.

Accessed 6 Jan 2019.

• Tunzelmann, Alex Von. "Opinion | Who Is To Blame For Partition? Above All, Imperial

Britain". Nytimes.Com, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/opinion/india-

pakistan-partition-imperial-britain.html. Accessed 11 Jan 2020.

20