When the Plundered Nation Broke into India and Pakistan

partition of india
Track Name

India got Independence in August 1947, after witnessing an age-long rule of the ‘British Crown’. Its own land had been governed by foreigners, with evil intentions of taking utmost advantage of its people and resources. During the struggle for Independence, Communalism was at its peak which became the main reason for the partition of the former imperial British ruled India to Independent India and Pakistan. The Partition of the mainland claimed several innocent lives, lives of those once addressed as brothers. As per reports, about 2 million people lost their lives in the forced migration which resulted from partition triggered riots.

We will explore in this article

  • Background
  • Political Scenario after Independence
  • The Violence and Bloodshed that followed Partition
  • The Reasons behind Bloodshed
  • Wrapping Up with the Present Scenario


The seeds of the ‘Divided India’ were sown by the British Crown long before the Partition actually took place. The British Government used communalism to inhibit mutual cooperation between the two major communities of India- Hindus and Muslims. Using the Divide and Rule Policy it countered and weakened the growing national movement and the welding of the Indian People into a Nation.

  • The idea of a separate Muslim state for the Indian Muslims was given by poet and political thinker Mohammad Iqbal, who was inspired by the spirit of Pan-Islamism, at the Allahabad session of the Muslim League(1930). 
  • The idea of a separate homeland for Indian Muslims to being called Pakistan took a definite shape in the mind of a Cambridge student Rahmat Ali in 1933. 
  • The most unequivocal declaration of the UNIT-IX v 363 Hindus and Muslims as separate nationalities was made by M.A. Jinnah at the Lahore session of the League in March 1940. The Muslim League passed the resolution demanding the partition of India. 
  • The Pakistan Resolution was drafted by Sikandar Hayat Khan and moved by Fazlul Haq. 
  • The Indian Independence Bill was introduced in the British Parliament on July 4, 1947, and the Indian Independence Act was enacted on July 18, 1947. 
  • This Act merely formalised and gave legal effect to the 3rd June Plan of Lord Mountbatten. As per the Act, Pakistan became independent on 14th August 1947, while India got her freedom on 15th August 1947.
  •  MA Jinnah became the Governor-General of free Pakistan. India, however, decided to continue Lord Mountbatten as the Governor-General of India.

Political Scenario After Independence 

At the time of independence, two types of political units existed in India—the British provinces and princely states. Under the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the states were given the freedom to join either Pakistan or India or to remain independent. While most of the 562 states that existed in India at that time joined either India or Pakistan, some, such as Hyderabad and Junagadh refused to accede to India despite the strong historical, cultural and economic links.

On the whole, the problem of the integration of princely states was ably handled by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel with the help of V.P. Menon, secretary, states ministry. They prepared elaborate plans to make the integration or merger of princely states as smooth as possible.

The Legislative Assemblies of Bengal and Punjab decided in favour of the partition of those provinces. East Bengal and West Punjab joined Pakistan; West Bengal and East Punjab remained with the Indian Union. The referendum in Sylhet resulted in the incorporation of that district in East Bengal. Two Boundary Commissions, one in respect of each province were constituted to demarcate the boundaries of the new provinces. The referendum in the N.W.F.P. decided in favour of Pakistan, the provincial Congress refraining from the referendum. Balochistan and Sindh joined Pakistan.

The Violence and Bloodshed that followed Partition

The happiness of Independence was like a dream come true for Indians.

“At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will wake up to life and freedom”

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s First Prime Minister

Sadly the celebrations of long-awaited freedom was haunted by the violence and bloodshed when the agitated communal groups turned against each other killing and raping demonstrating anger and hatred towards each other without a clear intention. The partition which accounted millions of lives was the largest mass migration of its kind. The people who moved with their families leaving their valuables behind witnessed trains laden with dead bodies and blood all over the landscape. Most of them couldn’t even make it to their destination.

Reasons behind the Bloodshed

The merciless killings and violence that the migrating population witnessed were a result of communalism and some inappropriate measures taken by the British Government.

  • Freedom was granted ten months earlier than the anticipated time by the British government. The hasty decision caused confusion and chaos in an already disturbed society.
  • The British lawyer, Sir Cyril Radcliffe who demarcated borders was drawn hastily in just five weeks of time.
  • The biggest reason being the Divide and Rule Policy of the British Government to outroot the rising feeling of nationalism among the Hindus and Muslims. The Crown directly attacked the unity between the two major communities to weaken the national movements.

Wrapping Up with the Present Scenario

The after-effects of the Partition which affected the emotional ties between Hindus and Muslims who were once addressed as brothers exist till date. The tensions in the Kashmir Valley still remain unsorted. It is important to remind ourselves that the differences were brought about by a third party with selfish motives and they need to be bridged on an urgent basis.


  1. Delusional racism. So sick and tired of all the Indian racists.

    Britain didn’t plunder India nor did it partition India. This narrative is created by muslim historians and has been copied and pasted with errors on top of errors by people who don’t even research original records and documents. The British built the country up, built roads, railways, schools, designed cities, trading ports and more. They banned Sati burning of women and child marriages. Perhaps that’s what you consider creating division and prefer these practices would remain… Well, you have plenty of atrocities committed by your own today.

    India was plundered by the muslims long before the British arrived, muslims who tried to destroy your religion to take over and create an Islamic state out of India, destroy all your temples and build mosques over them (like Taj Mahal which originally was a temple). They failed to do this fully in such a huge country. Slaughtering the Hindus, force converting people and then having the commonly used baby factories is how they have taken possession of 50 nations, and India was no different. To try and stop a full takeover Indians began their own baby factories, which is why even to this day people have a lot of children in India. Britain never invaded or occupied India either. It took a lot of persuation to get the British to begin their rule of India, which was negotiated by the Maharaja’s of the south (probably in strategy to get rid of muslim rule, which had slaughtered 470 million Indians) who encouraged the British to establish a base in India for trade. The Brits were trading all over the place and made their wealth from that, not from plundering India. Indian trade paid to develop India. Had

    Your claims that the British created division is pretty absurd considering what horrendous brutality had taken place in India during muslim rule, who destroyed the entire culture and psychology. What was left was an Islamized version of Hinduism. From where do you think you got child marriages from, the oppression of women, burning of women, and many atrocities that is rampant in India even today. The British presence in India was so tiny that even at their maximum peak only 10,000 British were present in India, and generally half of that. They simply couldn’t rule such a huge nation to every corner with only 10,000 people to create turmoil or division. India was run by it’s own people under British laws. It’s Indians who worked in the government, in courts, in policing. Your division was then as it is now; between the two religions, Hinduism and Islam.

    The British didn’t want India to be partitioned. It was partitioned out of Jinnah’s demands for an Islamic state that must solely exist on Sharia, not Hindu or British laws, and was motivated by the Egyptian and Saudi invasion of Israel, which created the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, and the partition of Israel into Jordan as a failed two-state solution.

    To claim that Britain created division and communal violence after the centuries of muslim brutality that India went through is absurd and delusional. The tensions were always there.

Leave a Reply !!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.