From Partition to Kashmir: How the British Cursed the Indian Subcontinent
Early Foreign Interests and the Rise of European Powers
After the Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah II died, the Mughal Empire ceased to exist leaving a power vacuum in the region, this event provided an opportunity to the East India company and the British crown to exploit the resources of the Indian subcontinent solidifying the claim of the British empire over the territories of the former Mughal Empire as the sole dominant European power in the Region.
The East India Company's military victories further solidified British dominance. The decisive Battle of Plassey in 1757 and the subsequent Battle of Buxar in 1764 granted the Company control over Bengal and Bihar, among the richest provinces of India. These victories laid the foundation for the establishment of British political control over large parts of the subcontinent.
Over the next century, the British gradually expanded their territories through conquest, annexation, and diplomacy. The Indian subcontinent's political landscape underwent a profound transformation, culminating in the Revolt of 1857 also known as the First War of Indian Independence. Although the revolt was suppressed, it marked a turning point. The British government, recognizing the dangers of allowing a private company to administer vast territories, abolished Company rule.
In 1858, through the Government of India Act, the British Crown assumed direct responsibility for the governance of India. Queen Victoria was declared the sovereign ruler of India, and the title of Governor-General was combined with that of Viceroy. The British government promised the rulers of princely states that their autonomy would be respected under Crown suzerainty, aiming to stabilize their control through a delicate balance of coercion and diplomacy.
To further streamline administration and accommodate emerging political consciousness, Britain enacted a series of reforms, including the Indian Councils Act of 1861, the Indian Councils Act of 1892, the Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909, the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919, and the Government of India Act of 1935. These acts incrementally expanded Indian participation in governance but fell far short of satisfying nationalist demands.
Rise of Indian Nationalism and British Policies of Division
While earlier periods witnessed the flourishing of regional and cultural identities in India, it was under British rule that modern Indian nationalism took concrete shape. Several factors contributed to this awakening: economic exploitation, social discrimination, racial arrogance, and religious interference by colonial authorities.
The introduction of English education, originally intended to create a cadre of loyal Indian clerks, exposed Indian students to European liberal ideals. Studying the histories of American, French, and European revolutions inspired Indians to seek similar freedoms. As Indian intellectuals grew increasingly critical of British rule, the seeds of organized political resistance were sown.
The Revolt of 1857, though crushed, had demonstrated Indian discontent. Subsequent decades saw more organized forms of resistance, culminating in the foundation of the Indian National Congress in 1885, which sought to represent Indian political aspirations.
However, British authorities, wary of the growing unity among Indians, adopted a deliberate policy of “divide and rule.” The Partition of Bengal in 1905, orchestrated by Viceroy Lord Curzon, was a prime example. Ostensibly undertaken for administrative convenience, the partition aimed to divide Bengal along religious lines, creating a Muslim-majority province in the east and a Hindu-majority region in the west.
The move provoked fierce opposition from Indians across the country. The Swadeshi Movement, advocating boycotts of British goods and promotion of indigenous industries, emerged as a potent form of resistance. Protest demonstrations, political mobilizations, and the emergence of radical elements within the Congress marked a new phase in the Indian freedom struggle.
British efforts to exploit Hindu-Muslim differences intensified. The Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 institutionalized separate electorates for Muslims, entrenching communal divisions. Lord Minto and Lord Morley, through these reforms, solidified the principle of communal representation, laying the groundwork for future demands for separate Muslim political identity. This strategy of encouraging religious divisions continued unabated, culminating in what contemporaries and historians alike regard as the sowing of the seeds of Pakistan.
The Growth of Muslim Political Consciousness
The Muslim League, founded in 1906 in Dacca (now Dhaka), emerged as a response to Muslim concerns about political underrepresentation. Initially, the League sought to protect Muslim rights within a unified India. However, over time, it evolved into the principal vehicle for Muslim political aspirations.
The rejection of Muslim demands for separate electorates in the Nehru Report of 1928, drafted by the Congress, marked a turning point. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who had once championed Hindu-Muslim unity, grew increasingly disillusioned. His famous Fourteen Points articulated the Muslim community's political demands, emphasizing the need for safeguards within a Hindu-majority India.
The idea of a separate Muslim state gained further traction during the 1930 session of the All India Muslim League, where poet-philosopher Dr. Muhammad Iqbal articulated the vision of a separate homeland for Muslims. This concept, grounded in the Two-Nation Theory, proposed that Hindus and Muslims, by virtue of their distinct religious, cultural, and social traditions, constituted separate nations deserving their own sovereign states.
The Lahore Resolution of 1940, passed by the Muslim League, formally demanded "independent states" for Muslims in north-western and eastern zones of India. From this point, the Muslim League, under Jinnah’s leadership, consistently pursued the goal of Pakistan, even as Congress leaders vehemently opposed the idea.
As British rule neared its end, tensions between Hindus and Muslims reached a breaking point. Communal violence, political deadlock, and mutual distrust made the partition of India appear inevitable. In 1946, the British Cabinet Mission attempted to negotiate a unified federal India, but its proposals were rejected by both Congress and the Muslim League for differing reasons. The failure of these negotiations led to a breakdown of order, with widespread communal riots engulfing provinces like Bengal, Bihar, and Punjab. Lord Louis Mountbatten, appointed the last Viceroy of India, concluded that partition was the only feasible solution.
After intense negotiations, the Mountbatten Plan was announced on June 3, 1947, outlining the framework for the creation of two independent dominions, India and Pakistan.
The Indian Independence Act was passed by the British Parliament on July 18, 1947, and power was formally transferred on August 15, 1947. Jawaharlal Nehru became India’s first Prime Minister, while Muhammad Ali Jinnah assumed the role of Governor-General of Pakistan. Partition, however, came at a colossal human cost. Communal massacres, mass migrations, and the largest displacement of people in modern history left deep scars that endure to this day. Gandhi, a staunch opponent of partition, was devastated, famously saying he would resist partition even if it cost him his life.
Gandhi was assassinated in January 1948 by a Hindu nationalist, opposed to his perceived conciliatory stance towards Muslims.
The Princely States and the Dilemma of Accession
At the time of partition in 1947, British India comprised not only provinces directly administered by the British but also 562 princely states, each governed by a local ruler under British suzerainty. With the lapse of British paramountcy, these states were presented with three options: they could accede to India, accede to Pakistan, or, theoretically, remain independent.
While the vast majority of princely states, particularly those contiguous to India, opted for accession to the Indian Union, three significant cases complicated the process: Junagarh, Hyderabad, and Jammu and Kashmir. In Junagarh, a Muslim ruler chose to accede to Pakistan despite the state's predominantly Hindu population. Following popular protests and political pressure, India intervened, leading to a plebiscite that confirmed the state's accession to India. Hyderabad, the largest and wealthiest princely state with a Muslim ruler and a Hindu-majority population, sought independence. Disorder and rising militant activity prompted India to launch a "police action" in 1948, leading to Hyderabad’s integration into the Indian Union.
The most complicated case, however, was that of Jammu and Kashmir. Strategically located and geographically contiguous to both India and Pakistan, Kashmir was a Muslim-majority state ruled by a Hindu Maharaja, Hari Singh. Seeking to maintain independence, Hari Singh initially signed a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan while negotiating similar terms with India. However, events soon spiraled beyond diplomatic maneuvering.
On October 22, 1947, tribal militias, supported by Pakistan, invaded Kashmir. Armed and organized, they entered from multiple directions, quickly overrunning towns and heading toward the capital, Srinagar. The invasion unleashed widespread looting, arson, and atrocities, pushing the state to the brink of collapse. Facing imminent defeat, Maharaja Hari Singh requested military assistance from India.
The Indian government, led by Prime Minister Nehru and Governor-General Mountbatten, insisted on formal accession as a precondition for intervention. On October 26, 1947, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession, legally merging Jammu and Kashmir with India. Indian troops were immediately airlifted into Srinagar, successfully defending the capital and repelling the tribal invaders. However, the conflict had escalated beyond local dimensions.
India Takes the Kashmir Issue to the United Nations
In January 1948, India lodged a complaint against Pakistan at the United Nations, invoking Articles 34 and 35 of the UN Charter, which allow member states to bring disputes threatening international peace before the Security Council.
The UN established the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) on January 20, 1948, tasked with mediating the conflict. On August 13, 1948, UNCIP passed a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire, stipulating that Pakistan would withdraw its forces from Kashmir, followed by a reduction of Indian forces to facilitate a free and impartial plebiscite under UN supervision.
While both countries agreed to a ceasefire, which came into effect on January 1, 1949, Pakistan refused to withdraw completely from the occupied areas of Kashmir, citing distrust in Indian assurances. As a result, India too maintained its military presence, and the plebiscite envisioned by the UN was never held.
The ceasefire line, monitored by the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), later became known as the Line of Control (LoC) after the 1972 Shimla Agreement.
Despite numerous UN initiatives to resolve the Kashmir issue including efforts by mediators such as Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, General A.G.L. McNaughton, Sir Owen Dixon, and Dr. Frank Graham, all attempts failed. Disagreements over demilitarization terms and mutual distrust between India and Pakistan stalled progress.
India insisted that Pakistan withdraw first, while Pakistan demanded simultaneous withdrawal. The Kashmir dispute thus remained frozen, with both sides entrenching their claims and maintaining military presence in their respective zones. By the early 1950s, the Kashmir issue faded from the active agenda of the UN Security Council, leaving the region divided and the dispute unresolved.