The Midnight Rush: Triumph of India's Independence and Tragedy of India's Partition as a

Result of Britain's Utilization of the "Divide and Rule" Tactic

Perisa Ashar

Historical Paper
 “There is no such thing as slow freedom. Freedom is like a birth. Till we are fully free, we

are slaves. All birth takes place in a moment.”

- Mahatma Gandhi1

Introduction

The independence of India from the two-hundred-year rule of the British was hailed by

many Indian leaders, including Mahatma Gandhi, as the “noblest act of the British nation.”2 One

major tragedy coexisting with the triumph of India’s independence was religious strife between

Hindus and Muslims, which delayed granting the people of India their independence and led to

the “violent birth” of Pakistan during India’s Partition. The Partition strongly resonates with

many Indians, as it resulted in the deaths of more than one million people and displaced fifteen

million others.3-4 This religious schism was actively fostered through Britian’s philosophy of

“divide et impera” (divide and rule), a practice that encourages members of historically

advantaged groups to form negative intergroup attitudes, resulting in practices in discrimination

and leading to inequality and disadvantage.5 The “divide and rule” tactic exploited cultural and

religious differences between Hindus and Muslims from the start of the British East India

Company to India’s independence, and also the tragedy of India’s partition between Hindus and

1
Gandhi, The Wit and Wisdom of Gandhi, ed. Homer A. Jack (Mineola Dover
Publications, 2005), 125.
2
Alan Whiticker, Speeches That Shaped the Modern World (Sydney: New Holland
Publishers, 2007), 143.
3
See Appendix D
4
Urvashi Butalia, The Other Side of Silence (Durham: Duke University Press), 3.
5
John Dixon et al., “Divide and Rule, Unite and Resist: Contact, Collective Action and
Policy Attitudes among Historically Disadvantaged Groups,” Journal of Social Issues, 71, 3
(2015): 577, 10.1111/josi.12129.

1
Muslims.6 Even after the Partition, the Muslim-dominated Pakistan and Hindu-dominated India

have strained relations currently.

Immediate Effects of “Divide et Impera”

The initial rise of distrust between the Hindus and Muslims occurred during the Mughal

Empire. The Muslims ruled over the major part of the sub-continent for about eight hundred

years, until declining in 1857.7 The Hindu majority community made common cause with the

British East India Company to reduce the Mughal Empire to the position of a subjected and

degraded minority. Lord Clive (commander of the British East India Company) made secret

deals with Hindu bankers like Rai Durlabh and Jagat Seth, attempting to put an end to Muslim

power in Bengal, by overthrowing Nawab of Bengal, Siraj-ud-Daulah, and his French allies8-9.

With this tactic, the British also played a role in plotting Muslims against each other, as

Sir Robert Clive had bribed Mir Jafar, a newly disposed member of Nawab’s army, to betray

Siraj-ud-Daulah, with the false promise of the Throne of Bengal.10 In order to initially gain

power in India, the British were successful in not only fabricating dissent between various

religions (like Hindus and Muslims), but also various socioeconomic groups of Muslims through

false hopes of power and wealth.

A pivotal role in Britain’s utilization of the “divide and rule” tactic occurred during the

Indian Mutiny, a widespread but unsuccessful rebellion against British rule in India in 1857–58.

6
Humayan Kabir, Muslim Politics, 1906-47: And Other Essays (Calcutta: Firma KL
Mukhopadhyay), 100. (primary source)
7
Amar Farroqui, "Governance, Corporate Interest and Colonialism: The Case of the East
India Company.]," Social Scientist 35, no. 9/10 (2007): 45,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27644239.
8
Manini Chatterjee and Anita Roy, India (New York: Dorling Kindersley, 2002), 24.
9
Ispahani, “Factors Leading to the Partition of India,” 331.
10
Don Nardo, India (New York: Children’s Press, 2012), 47.

2
One aspect of this rebellion feared the British: the unity shared between various religious and

cultural groups of sepoys to gain independence for India. This mutiny resulted in the

reorganization of the Bengal, Bombay, and Madras armies.11 Several British colonial officials

like Charles Wood believed in the necessity to utilize the “divide and rule” strategy by stating,

“As regards Armies and Regiments in India, I am for ‘Divide et Impera.’”12 Before the Indian

Rebellion of 1857, only a handful of Punjabi soldiers were found in each regiment of the Bengal

army.13 During and after the revolt, a higher number of “sipahis” troops from Punjab began to be

recruited into the Bengal Army, both to replenish the units and to counterbalance 'purabiya'

troops. The Bengal Army eventually had three components: soldiers recruited from the Ganga-

Jamuna Doab ('purabiyas'), Rajastan, and Panjab, who were expected to “check on each other.”14

This kept with the official policy of 'divide and rule' that the army was constantly urged to

follow. Not only were Indian soldiers from different areas encouraged to maintain their

distinctive identities, but animosity among the various ethnic groups were actively fostered as a

matter of official policy.15

Role of Divide and Rule with the Rise of Political Parties

The British policy of “Divide and Rule” contributed to the rift among major political

parties, namely the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League. To enforce their “Divide

11
Neil Stewart, “Divide and Rule: British Policy in Indian History,” Science & Society
15, no. 1 (1951): 53, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40400043.
12
Andrew N. Porter, The Nineteenth Century, vol. 3 (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2009), 428.
13
Great Britain, Reports from Committees of the House of Commons: Which Have Been
Printed by the Order of the House, and Are NOT Inserted in the Journals, vol.8, 16 vols.
(London: Parliament/House of Commons, 1806), 1089.
14
Ibid.
15
Amar Farooqui, "'Divide and Rule'? Race, Military Recruitment and Society in Late
Nineteenth Century Colonial India," Social Scientist 43, no. 3/4 (2015): 51,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24372935.

3
and Rule” tactic, the British initially used Communal Elections to keep various factions of India

united together: a scheme by which men are elected to office not to represent the people as a

whole, but a section of the people, a class, or a division. Some of the many factions that would

compete with each other to win the Communal Award included Forward Caste, Scheduled

Caste, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, Europeans and Depressed

Classes.16-17 The Bengal Legislature consisted of a divided political system, contributing to the

crushing of Indian patriotism, due to the “divide and rule” tactic of the British. Minister Jabez

Sunderland believed that the Bengal legislature of one hundred thirteen members had not been

actually elected, and did not exist as a legislative body representing all of the people of Bengal.18

With this election, forty-six members of the Legislature have been elected as Hindus to represent

Hindus; thirty-eight as Mohammedans to represent Mohammedans; sixteen as Europeans to

represent the very small number of Europeans, etc.19

Concerning the rise of national political platforms, the Indian National Congress was

founded in order to dominate the Indian movement for independence from Great Britain.

However, it was started by the retired British Indian Civil Service Officer, Allan Octavian Hume,

who wanted to start a platform for civic and political dialogue among educated Indians.20 After

the Indian National Congress was established, it started articulating its views on foreign affairs,

which angered Muslim philosophers and politicians who wanted more representation in the

16
See Appendix A
17
Jabez T. Sunderland, “Hindu-Muslim Rivalry: A Struggle for Political Power,” in The
Partition of India, ed. T. Walter Wallbank (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1966), 38.
18
Ibid.
19
Joya Chatterji, Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition, 1932-1947
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 20.
20
Briton Martin, New India, 1885: British Official Policy and the Emergence of the
Indian National Congress (Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1970), 365.

4
government. Prominent educationalist Syed Ahmed Khan, viewed it negatively because it was

dominated by Hindus, and that they were working closely with the British. Orthodox Hindu

leaders believed that the Congress was supportive of Western invasion.21 Thus, the British

intervention of the Indian national Congress only increased distrust and divisiveness between

progressive Hindus, traditional Hindus, and Muslims.

An increase in antagonisms between Hindus and Muslims occurred when the viceroy of

India, Lord Curzon, partitioned the province of Bengal into two parts: a Muslim-majority East

Bengal and Hindu-majority West Bengal in 1905.22 Fearing that they would lose monopoly over

trade, business, and governmental positions, Bengali Hindus launched anti-British agitation.

Muslims interpreted this as an attempt by Hindus to maintain superiority over Muslims. 23

However, the eventual repeal of Bengal’s partition was described by Muslims as shock and

betrayal by the British.

24

Since the tendency towards nationalism and political activity became more noticeable

among the younger generation of Muslims, the Muslim League initiated in 1906. According to

Nehru, the Muslim League began under the inspiration of the British government and the

leadership of one of its supporters, the Aga Khan. Hindus were worried about the British

collaboration with the Muslims, as they wanted to remain in power. Nehru believed that the

Muslim League only had two main objectives: loyalty to the British government and the safe-

21
Gordon Johnson, Provincial Politics and Indian Nationalism: Bombay and the Indian
National Congress 1880 to 1915 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 15.
22
Samanta Sidhartha, “Thee Final Transfer of Power in India, 1937-1947: A Closer
Look,” Theses and Dissertations 258 (2011), http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/258.
23
K.K. Aziz, The Making of Pakistan: A Study in Nationalism (Lahore: Sang-e-Meel
Publications, 2009), 27.
24
Ibid.

5
guarding of Muslim interests.25 According to Muslims, the main feature of the Muslim League

programme was to maintain the solidarity of the Muslims as an all-India community and to save

them from breaking up into provincial parties and groups.26 The Muslim League had stated that

some of their latter programme that they adopted in their organization was included to “protect

the religious rights of the Mussalmans,” make every effort to secure the repeal of all repressive

laws, and to resist all measures which were detrimental to the interest of India.27 Thus, the past

effects of Britain’s “divide and rule” caused tensions between Hindus and Muslims, impacting

their trust of each other when starting their own political platforms for representation in

government.

Britain’s Role During Conflicts Between Indian National Congress and Muslim League

Britain’s divisive policy played a crucial role in several conflicts between the Indian

National Congress and the Muslim League. Antagonism increased when Britain decided to enter

World War II against Germany, without consulting the Indian National Congress or any other

major Indian parties.28 While the Congress Working Committee refused to extend any

cooperation and support to England in war efforts, the Muslim League declared their support to

Great Britain, in exchange that no decision would be made about India without its approval.29

The Muslim League would also be recognized as the only organization to “speak for” Muslim

25
Jawaharlal Nehru, “Hindu-Muslim Antagonism: A British Creation,” in The Partition
of India, ed. T. Walter Wallbank (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1966), 45.
26
Z.H. Zaidi, “Aspects of the Development of Muslim League Policy, 1937-47,” in
Partition of India: Policies and Perspectives, eds. C.H. Philips and Mary Doreen Wainwright
(Great Britain: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1970), 252.
27
Ibid.
28
Ayesha Jalal, The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for
Pakistan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 100.
29
Samanta Sidhartha, “The Final Transfer of Power in India, 1937-1947: A Closer
Look,” http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/258

6
India.30 Lord Linlithgow, the Viceroy of India, played the game of divide and rule by taking

advantage of the Muslim dissatisfaction and encouraging them to move further on the road of

separatist politics. 31

Relationships between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League became

tense during the 1937 elections. The Indian National Congress displayed spectacular success in

these elections, while the Muslim League performed miserably.32 Not only did the unexpected

loss hurt the pride of the Muslim League leaders, but it also disturbed many of their comfortable

assumptions, as it believed that they would be able to dominate the Muslim-majority provinces

and that the divisions amongst the Hindus would enable the “solid Muslim bloc,” playing an

effective and balanced role in the legislatures of the Hindu-majority provinces.33

The Muslim League and the Indian National Congress had different ambitions and future

goals, which had a major impact in the partition of India. The Indian National Congress stood for

democracy, secularism, and a common Indian nationality. The Muslim League existed primarily

to safeguard and promote the interests of the Indian Muslims, as a separate political entity.

Therefore, there were possibilities for maneuver, but little ground for compromise on essential

goals.34

30
Parveen Usmani, “Outbreak of the Second World War and Attitude of the All India
Muslim League,” IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 22, 7 (2017): 2,
10.9790/0837-22070160104.
31
Uma Kaura, Muslims and Indian Nationalism: The Emergence of the Demand for
India’s Partition, 1928-40 (Colombia, MO: South Asia Books, 1977), 163.
32
Muhammad Jinnah, “Presidential Address by Muhammad Ali Jinnah to the Muslim
League,” Columbia University, ed. G. Allana, last modified June 16 1969,
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_jinnah_lucknow_1937.html.
33
Ibid.
34
S.R. Mehrotra, “The Congress and the Partition of India,” in Partition of India:
Policies and Perspectives, eds. C.H. Philips and Mary Doreen Wainwright (Great Britain:
George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1970), 190.

7
 While the British government was willing to give India “her freedom,” it also believed

that a partition between India and Pakistan would be the best option. In 1946, two British

viceroys stated that after prolonged discussions in New Delhi, they believed that they succeeded

in bringing the Congress and the Muslim League together in the Simla Conference.35 This

consideration did not deter British officials from “examining closely and impartially” the

possibility of a partition in India, due to the genuine and acute anxiety of the Muslims if they

should find themselves subjected to a “perpetual Hindu-majority rule.”36 The British viceroys

had also mentioned that if there is to be internal peace in India, it must be secured by measures,

assuring Muslims a control in all matters vital to their culture, religion, and economic interests.37

The British officials stated that they examined the question of a separate and fully independent

sovereign state of Pakistan as claimed by the Muslim League. This Pakistan would initially be

made of two areas: one in the North-West consisting of the provinces of the Punjab, Sind, North-

West Frontier, and British Baluchistan; the other in the North-East consisting of the provinces of

Bengal and Assam.38 However, the Simla conference ultimately struggled because the Muslim

League insisted on nominating all the Muslims to the conference.39 This led the Governor of

Punjab, Bertrand Glancy, to mention his concerns regarding the creation of a state of Pakistan40:

35
See Appendix B.
36
"British Government Statement: Policy in India, 1946" Modern History Sourcebook,
Fordham University, ed. Paul Halsall, last modified July 15, 1998,
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1946-india-ukpolicy.asp.
37
Ibid.
38
Ibid.
39
Neeti Nair, Changing Homelands: Hindu Politics and the Partition of India
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011), 180.
40
Baljit Singh. “AKALI DAL POLITICS DURING THE PUNJAB LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS (1946)," Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 66 (2005):
1155, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44145927.

8
 “We shall be heading straight for blood-shed on a wide scale; non-Muslims, especially
Sikhs.....will not submit peacefully to a Government labelled ‘Muhammadan Raj.’ Hence
it appears to me to be of vital importance...to deflate the theory of Pakistan.”41

Mahatma Gandhi and other nationalist leaders initiated the nonviolent “Quit India”

movement in order to hasten the departure of the British from India.42 The British jailed Gandhi

as well as thousands of others involved.43 Demonstrations against the British still occurred after

World War II, and in 1947, the Indian National Congress hesitantly accepted the creation of

Pakistan to satisfy the Muslim League and finally stop further independence negotiations.44

Many Indians and Pakistanis believed that the last British viceroy, Lord Mountbatten,

made a hasty decision in separating the Indian population according to religion.45 Hindus would

be relocated to India, while Muslims would be relocated to Pakistan. Mountbatten brought

forward the date of the Partition from June 1948 to August 15, 1947.46 The uncertainty of the

borders caused Muslims and Hindus to move into the direction where they felt they would get

the majority. Hindus and Muslims were terrified, and the Muslim migration from the East was

balanced by the similar migration of Hindus from the West.47 Muhammad Ali Jinnah and

Jawaharlal Nehru, the leaders of the Muslim League and of the Indian National Congress

41
Neeti Nair, 180.
42
Mohandas K. Gandhi, “Speech to All India Congress, 1942,” last modified October 1,
2002, http://www.phschool.com/atschool/primary_sources/all-india_congress_speech.html.
43
Ibid.
44
V.K. Vashistha,"QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT IN THE MEWAR
STATE," Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 73 (2012): 643,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44156259.
45
Maulana Azad, “Partition Should Have Been Postponed,” in The Partition of India, ed.
T. Walter Wallbank (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1966), 86.
46
Ian Talbot and Gurharpal Singh, The Partition of India (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2009), 17.
47
See Appendix C.

9
respectively, took advantage of Britain’s precipitous and ill-planned disengagement from India to

move forward on their separate state building activities.48

Partition of India and Legacy

The India Independence Bill took effect on August 15, 1947, and nationalists expressed

their content about the triumph of India’s liberation from Great Britain. Per Nehru in his “Trystin

with Destiny” speech, he condemned India’s “dark” history with the British: “The appointed day

has come-the day appointed by destiny-and India stands forth again, after long slumber and

struggle, awake, vital, free and independent.”49 In every province, Hindus and Muslims spent the

day celebrating India’s independence together50, and they felt “touched” by the British’s decision

to quit.51

However, due to the division lines hastily drawn on the map by British officials and the

preponed independence date, several people were killed during the tragic Partition of India. It

was estimated that between two hundred thousand to two million people died, while over

fourteen million people were displaced.52 Seventy-five thousand women were kept in the “other”

country, as hostages, and were either attacked, raped, or forced into marriage.53 Per historian

48
Christiane Hartnack, “Roots and Routes: The Partition of British India in Indian Social
Memories,” Journal of Historical Sociology 25, no. 2 (2012): 250,
10.1111/j.14676443.2012.01424.x
49
Jawaharlal Nehru, “Modern History Sourcebook: Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964):
Speech on the Granting of Indian Independence, August 14, 1947,” Modern History Sourcebook,
Fordham University, ed. Paul Halsall, last modified July 10, 2018,
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1947nehru1.asp
50
Nisid Hajari, Midnight’s Furies: The Deadly Legacy of India’s Partition (New York:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2015), 69.
51
Rao Bahadur Vappala Pangunni Menon, “Summing Up: An Indian Viewpoint,” in The
Partition of India, ed. T. Walter Wallbank (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1966), 100.
52
Talbot and Singh, The Partition of India, 2.
53
Yasmin Khan, The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2007), 135.

10
Margaret Bourke-White, after photographing a meadow where four thousand Muslims had gone

in to camp for the night, only one thousand had come out alive the next day.54 The cumulative

and long-term effects of the British “divide and rule” tactic had resulted with many radical

nationalists and Hindu and Muslim religious fanatics, who had caused a majority of deaths

during the Partition.

States like Kashmir, having a predominantly Muslim population ruled by the Hindu

Maharaja Hari Singh, remained unsure of whether territory to join, and decided to remain

independent during the Indian Partition.55 However, losing the state of Kashmir to Jinnah

angered Nehru, who was thus furious at Mountbatten’s intervention. Nehru explicitly mentioned

to Gandhi, “I hardly remember anything that has exasperated me quite so much as this affair,”

and even stated that Kashmir meant more to him at that moment that the independence of

India.56-57 Britain’s hastiness in dividing India’s territories led to the beginning and current

conflict over the sovereignty of Kashmir.58 Less than two years after the Partition, the UN

Security Council established the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan to monitor

the current ceasefire line (Line of Control) between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan in Jammu

and Kashmir.59

54
Margaret Bourke-White, Halfway to Freedom (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1949),
5.
55
Srinath Raghavan, War and Peace in Modern India (London: Palgrave Macmillan,
2010), 58.
56
Nisid Hajari, Midnight’s Furies: The Deadly Legacy of India’s Partition, 100.
57
Toward Freedom: The Autobiography of Jawaharlal Nehru.
58
Hajari, Midnight’s Furies, p. 135.
59
John Braithwaite and Binda d’Costa. "Recognising Cascades in India and Kashmir," in
Cascades of Violence: War, Crime and Peacebuilding Across South Asia, 189, Acton ACT
(Australia: ANU Press, 2018), http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt22h6r7h.12.

11
 Thus, the British philosophy of “divide and rule” clearly impacted the independence and

ultimately Partition of India, by manifesting religious antagonisms between Hindus and

Muslims.60 These antagonisms fostered a lack of trust between Hindus and Muslims, playing a

significant role with the hostile relations between India and Pakistan today. From the disastrous

Partition line between India and Pakistan, one can learn that hastily drawn division lines are not

the best long-term solutions, but rather integration, in order to truly achieve peace and

truthfulness between various nations.

60
Richard Morrock, “Heritage of Strife: The Effects of Colonialist “Divide and Rule”
Strategy upon the Colonized Peoples,” Science & Society 37, no. 2 (1973): 129,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40401707.

12
 Appendix A

This image is a map created by the prominent geographer Oskar Spate. With this map, I had a

more specific insight as to how the communal distributions (thus playing a role with the

Communal Elections) were located in the state of Punjab.

Spate, Oskar. Punjab Upper Bari Doab Communal Distributions. December 1947. Illustration.

13
 Appendix B

This photograph Jawaharlal Nehru at the Simla Conference, where the British believed that they

succeeded in bringing the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League together. However,

discussions of create the two-separate state India and Pakistan were brought up during these

discussions.

Jawaharlal Nehru during the Simla Conference, July 1945. Photograph. Nehru Memorial
Museum and Library. 1949. Accesed January 2, 2019.
http://www.nehrumemorial.nic.in/en/galleries/photo-gallery/category/42-jawaharlal-
nehru-with-other-indian-leaders.html.

14
 Appendix C

This picture shows a group of Muslims outside the Purana Kila (Old Fort), which had been

converted into a vast camp for Muslim refugees waiting to be transported to Pakistan.

Photograph from the Manchester Guardian, 27 September 1947, “A crowd of Moslems at the old
fort of Purana Kila outside Delhi.” September 27, 1947.

15
 Appendix D

This photograph depicts of the chaotic events that took place after India had announced

its Partition. As per this image, many families were separated from each other, while a majority

of Muslims traveled to Pakistan and Hindus to India.

Bourke-White, Margaret. Two children separated from families. 1948. Photograph. LIFE Picture
Collection.

16
 Bibliography

Primary Sources

Azad, Maulana. “Partition Should Have Been Postponed.” In The Partition of India, ed. T.
Walter Wallbank, 99-102. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1966.

Abual Kalam Azad (otherwise known as Maulana Azad) was an Indian scholar, activist and a
senior leader of the Indian National Congress during the Indian independence movement. He
also became the First Minister of Education in the Indian government, after India’s
independence. According to his autobiography, he definitely believed that the Partition of India
should have been postponed. He believed that the creation of Pakistan did not solve any problem,
and also thought that if Indians had remained steadfast and refused to accept the Partition, he
would have been confident that India would have had a safer and more glorious future after its
independence from Great Britain. Thus, this resource helped me gain some perspective as to why
some Indians probably thought that avoiding the Partition altogether was the best solution.

Bourke-White, Margaret. Halfway to Freedom. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1949.

I read Margaret Bourke-White’s autobiography and photographs, in order to learn more about
her one-on-one perspective about the dangers of the Partition of India, due to the high number of
people killed.

Bourke-White, Margaret. Two children separated from families. 1948. Photograph. LIFE Picture
Collection.

Margaret Bourke-White was an American photographer and documentary photographer. I used

her images of the Partition of India to learn more about its devastations (like the mass murder
and displacement of over fifteen million people).

"British Government Statement: Policy in India, 1946." Modern History Sourcebook. Fordham
University. Edited by Paul Halsall. Last modified July 15, 1998.
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1946-india-ukpolicy.asp.

This primary source is a speech spoken by the British Cabinet ministers and the Viceroy (during
the year of 1946) in India, in which they specifically state that they are trying to reach a peaceful
conference between the Hindus and Muslims (at the conference of Simla), but are also not ruling
out of having a Partition of India.

Gandhi. The Wit and Wisdom of Gandhi. Edited by Homer A. Jack. Mineola, NY: Dover
Publications, 2005.

This book was a list of all of Gandhi’s significant quotes, which helped me learn more about his
and Indian nationalists’ beliefs about the British during India’s independence and Partition.

17
Gandhi, Mohandas K. “Speech to All India Congress, 1942.” Last modified October 1, 2002.
http://www.phschool.com/atschool/primary_sources/all-india_congress_speech.html.

Mohandas Gandhi (otherwise known as Mahatma Gandhi) was an Indian activist who was the
leader of the Indian independence movement against British colonial rule. Employing nonviolent
civil disobedience, Gandhi led India to independence and inspired movements for civil rights and
freedom across the world. I used this primary source to learn about Gandhi’s perspective when
he initiated the nonviolent “Quit India” movement in order to hasten the departure of the British
from India. However, I also read about him expressing the fact that he was arrested for this act
by the British.

Great Britain. Reports from Committees of the House of Commons: Which Have Been Printed by
Order of the House, and Are NOT Inserted in the Journals. Vol. 8. 16 vols. London:
Parliament/House of Commons, 1806. pgs. 1089-1145.

I used these published reports from the Great Britain House of Commons, in order to learn more
about the reorganization of the Bengal army with respect to “divide and rule” prior to the Indian
Rebellion of 1857, as well as how Great Britain would ensure that the Bengal army would defeat
their rival Maratha forces. I noticed that the British were satisfied when more Europeans rather
than Indians were enlisted in the Bengal army.

Jawaharlal Nehru during the Simla Conference, July 1945. Photograph. Nehru Memorial
Museum and Library. 1949. Accesed January 2, 2019.
http://www.nehrumemorial.nic.in/en/galleries/photo-gallery/category/42-jawaharlal-
nehru-with-other-indian-leaders.html.

I utilized this photograph and respective website to learn more about Nehru’s role at the Simla
Conference, and his views of the creation of India and Pakistan as two separate states.

Jinnah, Muhammad. “Presidential Address by Muhammad Ali Jinnah to the Muslim League.”
Edited by G. Allana. Columbia University. Last modified June 16, 1969. Accessed May
01, 2019.
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_jinnah_lucknow_1937.ht
ml.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a lawyer, politician and the founder of Pakistan. Jinnah served as the
leader of the All-India Muslim League from 1913 until Pakistan's independence on 14 August
1947. I used this letter that he wrote to the Muslim League in order to learn about his reaction
about the League’s dismal performance during the 1937 elections. From the elections, not only
did the unexpected loss hurt the pride of the Muslim League leaders, but it also disturbed many
of their comfortable assumptions, as it believed that they would be able to dominate the Muslim-
majority provinces and that the divisions amongst the Hindus would enable the “solid Muslim
bloc,” playing an effective and balanced role in the legislatures of the Hindu-majority provinces.

18
Kabir, Humayan. Muslim Politics. 1906-47: And Other Essays. Calcutta: Firma KL
Mukhopadhyay, 1969.

Humayan Kabir was a Bengali poet, novelist, and politician born in 1906. He became involved in
trade union politics and was elected to the Bengal Legislative Assembly in 1937. He took up a
number of government posts after 1947, including Minister for Education. In this literary work,
he specifically mentions that the British’s divisive policy accumulated racial and religious
divides between Hindus and Muslims, leading to a very violent Partition of India/

Menon, Rao Bahadur Vappala Pangunni. “Summing Up: An Indian Viewpoint.” In The
Partition of India, ed. T. Walter Wallbank, 99-102. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company,
1966.

Rao Bahadur Vappala Pangunni Menon (otherwise known as V.P. Menon) was an Indian civil
servant. He was the Constitutional Adviser and Political Reforms Commissioner to the last three
Viceroys during British rule in India, who He played a vital role in India's partition and political
integration. I used his writing and statement to learn more about the Indian perspective,
especially regarding its independence from Great Britain. In his memoir, he acknowledged that
the British Government’s decision to quit India “touched the hearts and stirred the emotions of
Indians.” However. He also mentioned that India’s independence resulted in an immediate
reassuring effect on the “whole of South-East Asia” as well as earned for Britain universal
goodwill and respect.

Nehru, Jawaharlal. “Hindu-Muslim Antagonism: A British Creation.” In The Partition of India,

edited by T. Walter Wallbank, 43-50. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1966.

I used this written perspective by Nehru in order to learn more about his opinions of the rise of
the Muslim League, and particularly how the goals of the Muslim League differed from those of
the Indian National Congress (in his own opinion).

Nehru, Jawaharlal. “Modern History Sourcebook: Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964): Speech on the
Granting of Indian Independence, August 14, 1947.” Edited by Paul Halsall. Fordham
University: Internet History Sourcebooks Project. Last modified July 10, 2018. Accessed
October 11, 2018.

This primary source is a speech spoken by Jawaharlal Nehru (leader of India’s National
Movement and future first prime minister of India , in which he specifically builds upon the idea
of having a new, independent India. This primary source relates to my main argument of the
British involvement in the Indian Partition, as Jawaharlal Nehru makes several indirect
references by stating that the British were a part of their “dark” and painful “history”. However,
this article gives us an entirely different perspective on what the victims (Indians) probably
thought of the British, during their rule of the Indian Partition

19
Photograph from the Manchester Guardian, 27 September 1947, “A crowd of Moslems at the old
fort of Purana Kila outside Delhi.” September 27, 1947.

I used this image and respective website to learn more about the various forts and places
Muslims and Hindus used in order to travel to Pakistan and India (respectively) after the
Independence of India from Great Britain.

Spate, Oskar. Punjab Upper Bari Doab Communal Distributions. December 1947. Photograph

With this map, I had a more specific insight as to how the communal distributions (thus playing a
role with the Communal Elections) were located in the state of Punjab.

Stewart, Neil. “Divide and Rule: British Policy in Indian History.” Science & Society 15, no. 1
(1951): 49-57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40400043.

I used this research paper in order to learn more about the British’s tactic of “Divide and Rule”
within the Bengal army, as well as learning about one’s experiences through the Peel Reports.

Sunderland, Jabez T. “Hindu-Muslim Rivalry: A Struggle for Political Power.” In The Partition
of India, edited by T. Walter Wallbank, 38-42. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1966.

Sunderland was an American Unitarian minister (originally born in Great Britain), was the first
American to participate in the new Indian National Congress. I used his written perspective to
learn more about his opinion regarding Communal Elections, as well as the division of religious
groups during the Bengal elections.

20
 Secondary Sources

Aziz, K.K. The Making of Pakistan: A Study in Nationalism. Lahore: Sange-e-Meel Publications,
2009.

I used this source to learn more about Britain’s role during the initial divide and partition of
Bengal in 1905, as well as learn more about the reactions of the Hindus and Muslims to this
event. From this resource, I specifically learned that since Bengali Hindus feared that they would
lose monopoly over trade, business, and governmental positions, they launched anti-British
agitation. However, muslims interpreted this as an attempt by Hindus to maintain superiority
over Muslims.

Braithwaite, John, and Bina d’Costa. "Recognising Cascades in India and Kashmir." In Cascades
of Violence: War, Crime and Peacebuilding Across South Asia, 177-270. Acton ACT,
Australia: ANU Press, 2018. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt22h6r7h.12.

I used this book in order to help me understand more about how the failure of Lord
Mountbatten’s actions in separating Kashmir accordingly during the Partition of India has led to
the current fight between India and Pakistan regarding the proper sovereignty of Kashmir. In
fact, I learned that in 1949, less than two years after the Partition of India, the UN Security
Council (UNSC) established the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan
(UNMOGIP) to monitor the ceasefire line (Line of Control) between nuclear-armed India and
Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir, which still occurs today.

Butalia, Urvashi. The Other Side of Silence. Durham: Duke University Press, 2000.

This literary resource was extremely helpful with informing me about the severity about the
Partition of India. I read about the numerous deaths, as well as displacements of millions of
families, from this book. In a way, the chaos and fiasco of the Partition of India clearly informed
me that the date or the process of carrying out a Partition between India and Pakistan was not
well planned out prior.

Joya Chatterji, Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition, 1932-1947 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1994), 20.

This book provided a great overview regarding the Communal Elections in Bengal. I learned
about the number of seats available to each religion or cultural sect during the Communal
Election (such as Muslims, Depressed classes, Anglo-Indians, etc.). With further reading, I also
was intrigued to learn about how Hindus believed that they had less seats (and thus
representation) within the Bengal legislature.

Chatterjee, Manini, and Anita Roy. India. New York: Dorling Kindersley, 2002. pgs 24-25.

This book had helped me learn more about the British bribed Muslims against their own army to
win the Battle of Plassey, and ultimately drive the French out of India.

21
Dixon, John, Kevin Durrheim, Manuela Thomae, Colin Tredoux, Philippa Kerr, and Michael
Quayle. “Divide and Rule, Unite and Resist: Contact, Collective Action and Policy
Attitudes among Historically Disadvantaged Groups.” Journal of Social Issues 71, 3
(2015): 576-596. 10.1111/josi.12129.

I used this particular source to help me understand the basic terminology and definition of the
“divide and rule” tactic. From this source, I learned that the British philosophy of “divide et
impera” (divide and rule) encourages members of historically advantaged groups to form
negative intergroup attitudes, resulting in practices in discrimination and leading to inequality
and disadvantage. Thus, this allows the country currently in power (in this case Great Britain) to
continuously rule the conquered country (like India) in an efficient member, as there are clear
tensions between India’s citizens, which will weaken their combined efforts to overthrow the
foreign country in power.

Farooqui, Amar. "'Divide and Rule'? Race, Military Recruitment and Society in Late Nineteenth
Century Colonial India." Social Scientist 43, no. 3/4 (2015): 49-59.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24372935.

This resource was particularly helpful in informing me about how the British utilized their tactic
of “divide and rule” before, during, and after the Indian Rebellion of 1857. During and after the
revolt a steadily increasing number of “sipahis” troops from Punjab began to be recruited into the
Bengal Army, both to replenish the units and to counterbalance 'purabiya' troops. The Bengal
Army eventually had three components: soldiers recruited from the Ganga-Jamuna Doab
('purabiyas') and Rajasthan; soldiers recruited from Panjab; and Gurkhas, who were expected to
act as a check on each other.

Farooqui, Amar. "Governance, Corporate Interest and Colonialism: The Case of the East India
Company." Social Scientist 35, no. 9/10 (2007): 44-51.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27644239.

This resource helped me understand more about the state of the Mughal Empire before the
arrival of the British East India Company. Ultimately, the Muslims ruled over the major part of
the sub-continent for about eight hundred years, until declining in 1857, marking the arrival of
the British. The Mughal Empire has also been known to be one of the Golden Ages of India, due
to their interests and successes in architecture, mathematics, and culture expressions,

Hajari, Nisid. Midnight’s Furies: The Deadly Legacy of India’s Partition. New York: Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt, 1973.

I used this book to learn more about Nehru’s disappointment and anger about not wanting to give
up Kashmir to Jinnah and Pakistan, as he would have had rather given up India’s own
independence.

Hartnack, Christiane. “Roots and Routes: The Partition of British India in Indian Social

22
 Memories.” Journal of Historical Sociology 25, 2 (2012): 244-260. 10.1111/j.1467-
6443.2012.01424.x

This journal article specifically states how the last British Viceroy Lord Mountbatten made a
hasty decision to separate the Indian population according to religion (Hindus in India and
Muslims in Pakistan). This relates to my research argument, as the British wanted to appeal to
both the Muslims and Hindus, as both of these religious sects had wanted to overcome British
colonial rule by establishing their own independent states.

Ispahani, M.A.H. “Factors Leading to the Partition of India.” In The Partition of India: Policies
and Perspectives, edited by C.H. Phillips and Mary Doreen Wainwright, 310-340, Great
Britain: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1969.

I used this resource to specifically learn more about the various opinions and analyses of
previous historians on the early relations between Hindus and Muslims before the arrival of the
British East Indian Company. Historians claim that India already had several problems living in
harmony with other Muslims. For example, historian Valentine Chirol stated that India’s customs
and traditions tend to divide its citizens who practice different religions, while historian Panikkar
stated that the advent of Islam in India has caused Hindus and Muslims to have existed as two
different nations.

Johnson, Gordon. Provincial Politics and Indian Nationalism: Bombay and the Indian National
Congress 1880 to 1915. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1973.

I used this book in order to learn more about the initial rise of the Indian National Congress, as
well as why certain Muslims and orthodox Hindu leaders were against the Indian National
Congress.

Kaura, Uma. Muslims and Indian Nationalism: The Emergence of the Demand for India’s
Partition, 1928-40. Colombia, MO: South Asia Books, 1977.

This book specifically helped me learn more about how Lord Linlithgow, the Viceroy of India,
played the game of divide and rule by taking advantage of the Muslim dissatisfaction and
encouraging them to move further on the road of separatist politics. For example, after members
of Indian National Congress quit their jobs in regards to Britain declaring war with Germany
without confronting the Congress about it, the British clearly started to favor the Muslim League
and subsequently allowed the League to be involved with every future government decision.
Thus, this is a clear example of the “divide and rule” tactic playing a role within the Indian
government.

Khan, Yasmin. The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2007.

I used this book to learn a lot about the statistics of the various people that suffered and died
during the Partition of India. For example, at least seventy-five thousand women were abducted,
attacked, or forced into marriage during the Partition on both the Indian and Pakistani sides of

23
the border. Additionally, countless children were orphaned, or lost or separated from their
families, while others were abandoned in the aftermath of the Partition.

Martin, Briton. New India, 1885: British Official Policy and the Emergence of the Indian
National Congress. Bombay: Oxford Univ. Press, 1970.

This book informed me about the beginnings of the Indian National Congress, and how various
parties and religions view the start of the Indian National Congress. Particularly from this source,
I learned that the Indian National Congress, in its opinion, was founded in order to dominate the
Indian movement for independence from Great Britain. The Indian National Congress was also
started by the retired British Indian Civil Service Officer, Allan Octavian Hume, who wanted to
start a platform for civic and political dialogue among educated Indians

Mehrotra, S.R. “The Congress and the Partition of India.” In Partition of India: Policies and
Perspectives, edited by C.H. Philips and Mary Doreen Wainwright, 188-221, Great
Britain: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1969.

I used this written perspective by Mehrotra to learn more about the different purposes of the
formation of the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League. The Indian National
Congress stood for democracy, secularism, and a common Indian nationality. Meanwhile, the
Muslim League existed primarily to safeguard and promote the interests of the Indian Muslims,
as a separate political entity.

Morrock, Richard. "Heritage of Strife: The Effects of Colonialist "Divide and Rule" Strategy
upon the Colonized Peoples." Science & Society 37, no. 2 (1973): 129-51.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40401707.

This resource was successfully in supporting my argument as to how the British “divide and
rule” tactic was successful in a country like India. Ultimately, it exploited and magnified the
religious antagonisms between Hindus and Muslims through dividing and ruling religious
groups.

Nair, Neeti. Changing Homelands: Hindu Politics and the Partition of India. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 2011.

This book gave me a great insight and analysis into some of the factors that may have been
responsible for the chaotic mess and extremely violence that resulted from the Partition of India.
I learned that the Simla conference ultimately struggled because the Muslim League insisted on
nominating all the Muslims to the conference. In addition, I also learned that the Governor of
Punjab, Bertrand Glancy, had his concerns regarding the creation of a state of Pakistan, as non-
Muslims, especially Sikhs would not submit peacefully to a Government that is labelled
‘Muhammadan Raj.’ Thus, he clearly disagreed in Pakistan being formed and Muslims having
their own country.

Porter, Andrew N. The Nineteenth Century. Vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

24
I used this book to specifically learn more about how several British colonial officials also
believed in the necessity of the “divide and rule”” tactic, in order to maintain their power over
India’s armies. Charlies Wood, an Anglo-Indian Whig politician, specifically stated, “As regards
Armies and Regiments in India, I am for ‘Divide et Impera.’”

Raghavan, Srinath. War and Peace in Modern India. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

This book helped me learn more about how states like Kashmir, which had a predominantly
Muslim population ruled by the Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh, remained unsure of whether
territory to join, and decided to remain independent during the Indian Partition. As a result, this
unsure decision and implied favoritism to the Hindus with Kashmir has led to the current crisis,
deliberating which country Kashmir should be a part of, or if it should be recognized as an
independent state.

Sidartha, Samanta. "Thee Final Transfer of Power in India, 1937-1947: A Closer Look" (2011).
Theses and Dissertations. 258. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/258.

I used this dissertation to learn more about Britain’s role during the initial Partition of Bengal in
1905. Ultimately, an increase in antagonisms between Hindus and Muslims occurred when the
viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, partitioned the province of Bengal into two parts: a Muslim-
majority East Bengal and Hindu-majority West Bengal in 1905.

Singh, Baljit. "AKALI DAL POLITICS DURING THE PUNJAB LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
ELECTIONS (1946)." Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 66 (2005): 1152-160.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44145927.

I utilized this source to help me understand more about various British officers’ and politicians’
opinions regarding the formation of Pakistan. For example, I learned that the Governor of
Punjab, Bertrand Glancy, had his concerns regarding the creation of a state of Pakistan, as non-
Muslims, especially Sikhs would not submit peacefully to a Government that is labelled
‘Muhammadan Raj.’ Thus, he clearly disagreed in Pakistan being formed and Muslims having
their own country. This also showed the clear animosity between Hindus and Muslims, as one
religion did not want the other to govern.

Talbot, Ian & Singh, Gurharpal. The Partition of India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2009.

This book helped me learn about how Mountbatten brought forward the date of the Partition
from June 1948 to August 15, 1947. In addition, I learned several statistics about the deaths of
people during the Partition of India.

Usmani, Parveen. “Outbreak of the Second World War and Attitude of the All India Muslim
League.” IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 22, no. 7 (2017): 2.
10.9790/0837-22070160104.

25
This resource helped me learn more about Lord Linlithgow’s decision to declare war with
Germany, without consulting the Indian National Congress. However, while the Congress
Working Committee refused to extend any cooperation and support to England in war efforts, the
Muslim League declared their support to Great Britain, in exchange that no decision would be
made about India without its approval. The Muslim League would also be recognized by Viceroy
Linlithgow and Great Britain as the only organization to “speak for” Muslim India. As a result,
this was a major mistake, as there were many Muslims aside from Jinnah who did not want a
Partition of India.

Vashishtha, V.K. "QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT IN THE MEWAR STATE." Proceedings of the
Indian History Congress 73 (2012): 642-46. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44156259.

I used this paper in order to learn more about Gandhi’s role in the “Quit India Movement”, and
his subsequent arrest by British officials.

Whiticker, Alan. Speeches That Shaped the Modern World. Sydney: New Holland Publishers,
2007. pgs. 140-145.

I used this source to particularly learn some of the most prominent leaders’ opinions regarding
the British control of India, as well as its independence. For example, I learned that the
independence of India from the two-hundred-year rule of the British was hailed by many Indian
leaders, including Mahatma Gandhi, as the “noblest act of the British nation.” Thus, this shows
that India and the Indian National Congress clearly wanted to have their own independence from
the British after two hundred years.

Zaidi, Z.H. “Aspects of the Development of Muslim League Policy, 1937-47.” In Partition of
India: Policies and Perspectives, edited by C.H. Philips and Mary Doreen Wainwright,
245-275. Great Britain: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1969.

I used this perspective in order to learn more about the ultimate goals of the Muslim League,
which was to have fair representation of all Muslims through India, both politically and socially.

26