Module 5

Gandhian Era
Nationalism and Social Groups
Communalism: ideologies and Practices
Independence and Partition-Emergence of a New Nation.

Q1) Gandhian Satyagraha’s

M K Gandhi returned from South Africa (where he had lived for more than 20 years) to India in
1915. There he had led a peaceful agitation against the discrimination meted out to Indians and had
emerged as a respected leader. It was in South Africa that he developed his brand of Satyagraha. In
India, he rst used this tool against the British government at Champaran in Bihar.
- Champaran Satyagraha (1917)
• The first civil disobedience movement by Gandhi in the freedom struggle.
• Persuaded by Rajkumar Shukla, an indigo cultivator, Gandhi went to Champaran in Bihar to
investigate the conditions of the farmers there.
• The farmers were suffering under heavy taxes and an exploitative system. They were forced
to grow indigo by the British planters under the tinkathia system.
• Gandhi arrived in Champaran to investigate the matter but was not permitted by the British
authorities to do so.
• He was asked to leave the place but he refused.
• He was able to gather support from the farmers and masses.
• When he appeared in court in response to a summons, almost 2000 locals accompanied him.
• The case against him was dropped and he was allowed to conduct the inquiry.
• After peaceful protests against the planters and landlords led by Gandhi, the government
agreed to abolish the exploitative tinkathia system.
• The peasants also received a part of the money extracted from them as compensation.
• Champaran struggle is called the first experiment on Satyagraha by Gandhi and later
Ahmedabad Mill Strike and Kheda Satyagraha occurred.
• It was during this time that Gandhi was given the names ‘Bapu’ and ‘Mahatma’ by the
people.

- Kheda Satyagraha (1918)

• 1918 was a year of failed crops in the Kheda district of Gujarat due to droughts.
• As per law, the farmers were entitled to remission if the produce was less than a quarter of the
normal output.
• But the government refused any remission from paying land revenue.
• Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, under Gandhi’s guidance, led the farmers in protest against the
collection of taxes in the wake of the famine.
• People from all castes and ethnicities of the district lend their support to the movement.
• The protest was peaceful and people showed remarkable courage even in the face of
adversities like confiscation of personal property and arrest.
• Finally, the authorities gave in and gave some concessions to the farmers.
fi
- Ahmedabad Mill Strike (1918)
• Gandhi used Satyagraha and hunger strike for the first time during an industrial dispute
between the owners and workers of a cotton mill in Ahmedabad.
• The owners wanted to withdraw the plague bonus to the workers while the workers were
demanding a hike of 35% in their wages.
• During the peaceful strike led by Gandhi, he underwent a hunger strike.
• The Ahmedabad Mill strike was successful and the workers were granted the wage hike they
wanted.
In all these movements, Gandhi was able to involve the masses including farmers, artisans and even
the so-called lower castes. This was a change from the previous movements when

Q) Rowlatt Act and Jallianwala Bagh Massacre

The Rowlatt Act, officially known as the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act, 1919, was
passed in March 1919 by the Imperial Legislative Council. It was based on the recommendations of
the Rowlatt Committee, chaired by Sir Sidney Rowlatt. The British government’s primary intention
was to curb revolutionary activities and suppress the growing nationalist movement.
Key Provisions of the Act:
1. The Act authorised the government to arrest individuals suspected of terrorist activities
without the need for evidence.
2. It allowed the government to detain such individuals without trial for up to two years.
3. The police were empowered to search premises without a warrant.
4. Severe restrictions were imposed on the freedom of the press.

Response to the Act:

The Rowlatt Act was widely condemned by Indian leaders and the general public. It was dubbed the
"Black Act" for its draconian provisions. All Indian members of the Imperial Legislative Council
opposed the bill and resigned in protest when it was passed. Prominent leaders who resigned
included Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Madan Mohan Malviya, and Mazhar Ul Haq.
The act symbolised the peak of British authoritarianism and disregard for the rights of Indians,
further alienating the colonial administration from the people.

Rowlatt Satyagraha: The First Nationwide Protest

In response to the Rowlatt Act, Mahatma Gandhi called for a nationwide hartal on 6th April 1919.
This marked the beginning of the Rowlatt Satyagraha, which was the first mass protest led by
Gandhi against British rule.
The movement was based on the principles of non-violence and civil disobedience. However, the
hartal was marred by violent incidents in some provinces, especially in Punjab, where the situation
escalated rapidly. Alarmed by the intensity of the protests, the British government responded with
severe measures, including arrests of prominent leaders such as Satya Pal and Saifuddin Kitchlew.

The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre: A Dark Day in History

- The unrest in Punjab reached its zenith with the tragic events of the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre
on 13th April 1919. The massacre occurred in Amritsar, where a large crowd had gathered at
Jallianwala Bagh, a public garden, on the occasion of the Baisakhi festival. Many in the crowd
were peaceful protesters demonstrating against the Rowlatt Act, while others were pilgrims
celebrating the festival.
- The British authorities had declared martial law in Punjab, which prohibited gatherings of more
than four people. However, unaware of this restriction, people continued to assemble at
 Jallianwala Bagh. General Reginald Dyer, upon learning of the gathering, arrived with a
contingent of armed troops.
- Without issuing any warning, General Dyer ordered his troops to open fire on the unarmed
crowd. The garden's narrow exit was blocked, leaving no escape for the people. The firing lasted
for approximately 10 minutes, with 1650 rounds of ammunition being used. Over 1000 people
were killed, and more than 1500 were injured, including women and children.
- The massacre was a premeditated act of brutality. General Dyer later justified his actions by
claiming that he wanted to "produce a moral effect" and instill fear among the people. His
statement revealed the colonial administration’s utter disregard for human life.

Reactions to the Massacre

- In India: The massacre caused widespread outrage and despair. It dealt a severe blow to the
Indian people's faith in British justice and administration. National leaders, including Gandhi,
Rabindranath Tagore, and Jawaharlal Nehru, condemned the act. Tagore renounced his
knighthood in protest, declaring that such recognition from a government capable of such
brutality was meaningless.
- In Britain: While many in Britain and among the British community in India praised General
Dyer for his actions, there were also voices of dissent. Winston Churchill, the Secretary of State
for War, and former Prime Minister H.H. Asquith were among the prominent figures who
criticised Dyer. However, despite the criticism, Dyer faced no severe punishment, reflecting the
imperialist mindset of the British establishment.

Significance and Legacy

The Rowlatt Act and the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre were turning points in India’s freedom
struggle. The events revealed the brutal and repressive nature of British rule, strengthening the
resolve of Indians to achieve independence. Key impacts include:
1. Rise of Non-Cooperation Movement: Gandhi abandoned his earlier belief in British
fairness and began advocating for complete independence through the Non-Cooperation
Movement.
2. Unification of Indians: The massacre unified Indians across religions, regions, and classes
in their demand for freedom.
3. International Outcry: The massacre brought international attention to the oppressive
policies of the British government in India.
The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre remains a symbol of colonial cruelty and a reminder of the
sacrifices made by countless Indians in their fight for independence.

The Rowlatt Act and the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre illustrate the harsh realities of British colonial
rule in India. These events not only deepened the divide between the rulers and the ruled but also
marked the beginning of a more assertive and united independence movement. The massacre, in
particular, stands as a grim reminder of the human cost of imperialism and the resilience of the
Indian spirit in the face of adversity
Q) Non-Cooperation Movement:
- The Non-Cooperation Movement (NCM) of 1920–1922 was a turning point in India's struggle
for independence. Spearheaded by Mahatma Gandhi, the movement signalled a shift from
constitutional agitation to mass civil disobedience, with millions of Indians participating in a
non-violent challenge against British colonial rule. It was a reaction to widespread
disillusionment with British policies and a call for self-governance through peaceful means.
- The movement had several defining features. Gandhi urged Indians to relinquish British honors
and titles, symbolising the rejection of colonial authority. People were encouraged to resign from
government jobs and nominated positions in local bodies, thereby undermining the
administrative framework of the colonial government. Educational institutions controlled by the
British were boycotted, and students were withdrawn to join indigenous schools promoting
nationalist ideals. A significant emphasis was placed on boycotting foreign goods and using
Indian-made products, fostering economic self-reliance and dealing a blow to British trade
interests.
- Additionally, Indians were asked to abstain from participating in elections to legislative councils,
a move aimed at delegitimising British rule. There was also an appeal for people to avoid serving
in the British army, symbolising a broader rejection of the colonial establishment. The movement
contemplated refusing to pay taxes if initial measures failed to compel the British to meet Indian
demands. The ultimate goal of the Non-Cooperation Movement was the attainment of Swarajya,
or self-rule, through strictly non-violent means. Gandhi assured the people that Swarajya could
be achieved within a year if the movement was pursued with full dedication.
- Several factors contributed to the emergence of the Non-Cooperation Movement:
1. Post-World War I, Indian expectations of political reforms were met with disillusionment.
Despite their contributions to the war effort, Indians found the Government of India Act of 1919
inadequate and were further aggrieved by repressive measures like the Rowlatt Act. The
Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919 shattered faith in British justice and galvanised the nation
against the colonial government. Economic hardships caused by the war added to the discontent,
as soaring prices and stagnant agricultural incomes burdened the common people.
2. The Khilafat Movement, which sought to protect the Ottoman Caliphate, added a significant
dimension to the Non-Cooperation Movement. Led by leaders like Maulana Mohammed Ali,
Maulana Shaukat Ali, and others, it united Hindus and Muslims under a common cause,
strengthening Gandhi’s efforts to create a broad-based movement. The backdrop of the Home
Rule Movement and the Lucknow Pact had already fostered unity among moderates and
extremists in the Indian National Congress, further solidifying the foundation for this large-scale
agitation.
- Despite its initial success and widespread support, the movement was suspended abruptly in
February 1922 after the Chauri Chaura incident. In this incident, a violent mob set fire to a police
station, killing 22 policemen. Gandhi, deeply committed to non-violence, felt that the people
were not ready for a disciplined and peaceful revolution. He believed that such incidents of
violence undermined the moral authority of the movement and called it off. However, this
decision was met with criticism from leaders like Motilal Nehru and C.R. Das, who felt that
isolated incidents should not derail the larger cause.
- The Non-Cooperation Movement marked a decisive step in India’s independence struggle. For
the first time, the Indian National Congress adopted non-constitutional methods, directly
challenging British authority. It awakened the masses to the idea of self-rule and showed the
British the power of collective non-violent resistance. Although the movement was suspended
prematurely, it left a profound impact on the Indian political landscape and laid the foundation
for future struggles for independence.
Q) Simon Commission
- The Simon Commission, set up in 1927, was a pivotal moment in the history of India's struggle
for independence. Its formation, exclusion of Indian members, and the subsequent Indian
response marked a significant chapter in the growing dissatisfaction with British rule in India. To
fully understand the significance of the Simon Commission, it is essential to examine its
background, the reasons for its boycott, and its eventual impact on the Indian independence
movement.
- Background of the Simon Commission: The Government of India Act 1919, which introduced
the system of diarchy, laid down the framework for constitutional reforms in British India. The
Act promised that a royal commission would be set up after ten years (in 1929) to review the
working and progress of the measures enacted by the Act. Diarchy, which divided the governance
of Indian provinces into reserved and transferred subjects, was seen as inadequate by many
Indian leaders, who sought a more comprehensive reform of the system. The British government,
however, was not ready to make any substantial changes in the political structure of India and
proceeded to set up the commission earlier than scheduled, in 1928.
The reason for this hasty appointment was political in nature. The Conservative Party in Britain
feared a defeat in the upcoming elections to the British Parliament, particularly at the hands of
the Labour Party, and thus sought to complete the appointment of the Simon Commission a year
ahead of schedule. The Simon Commission, however, was seen as a direct affront to Indian
sensibilities. The commission was composed entirely of British members, with no Indian
representation. This exclusion sparked outrage across India, with many seeing it as an attempt to
continue denying Indians a say in their own governance. Indian leaders argued that their destiny
could not be determined by a handful of British individuals who had no understanding of the
Indian situation.
Lord Birkenhead, the Secretary of State for India, played a key role in setting up the Simon
Commission. He had previously criticised the Indian political scene, accusing Indians of not
being able to formulate a concrete plan for constitutional reform due to divisions within Indian
society. The commission’s membership included Clement Attlee, who would later become the
Prime Minister of Britain and play a crucial role in India’s independence and partition in 1947.
- The Boycott of the Simon Commission: The exclusion of Indians from the Simon Commission
was seen as a major insult, and the Indian response was one of widespread protests and boycotts.
The Indian National Congress (INC), during its session in Madras in 1927, declared its
decision to boycott the Commission. The Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, also
joined in the boycott, although a section of Muslim leaders, such as Muhammad Shafi,
supported the British government’s stance. In the south, the Justice Party, which represented the
interests of the non-Brahmin community, sided with the British government.
The Commission’s arrival in February 1928 sparked mass protests across the country. People of
all sections, including students, workers, and political leaders, took part in demonstrations,
hartals (strikes), and black-flag protests. The slogan "Simon Go Back" became a rallying cry for
the protests. The police, attempting to quell the movement, resorted to lathi charges, even
against prominent leaders. Among the most significant events of this period was the brutal lathi
charge on Lala Lajpat Rai in Lahore. Lajpat Rai, who was leading the protests against the
Simon Commission, was severely injured during the police attack and succumbed to his injuries
later that year. His death became a martyrdom symbol for the Indian independence movement
and further intensified the resolve to oppose British rule.
- Additionally, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, a prominent leader of the Dalit community, submitted a
report on behalf of the Bahishkrita Hitakarini Sabha in which he addressed the issue of
 education for the depressed classes in the Bombay Presidency. This report was significant
because it highlighted the need for constitutional reforms that would safeguard the rights of
marginalised communities.
- Impact of the Simon Commission: Although the Simon Commission was widely criticised and
rejected by Indian leaders, it did have significant consequences for India’s political trajectory.
The Commission's final report, published in 1930, made several important recommendations for
the future governance of India. Among the most important recommendations was the abolition
of the diarchy system and the proposal for setting up representative governments in the
provinces. The Commission also suggested that separate communal electorates should be
retained until the communal tensions in India had subsided.
- Despite these reforms, the Commission’s findings were largely dismissed by Indian leaders, who
felt that the Commission had failed to understand the aspirations of the Indian people. The Indian
National Congress, which had boycotted the Commission, continued to demand greater political
autonomy and self-governance. Nevertheless, the Simon Commission laid the groundwork for
the Government of India Act 1935, which implemented many of its recommendations and acted
as a precursor to India’s eventual independence.
- The Government of India Act 1935 was a milestone in the history of India’s constitutional
development. It introduced the idea of a federal system in India and allowed for greater Indian
participation in governance. The Act also paved the way for the first provincial elections held in
1937, which saw Congress governments being formed in nearly all provinces. This marked a
significant shift in India’s political landscape, as it allowed Indians to take control of provincial
administrations and laid the foundation for a self-governing India.
In conclusion, the Simon Commission played a crucial role in the Indian struggle for
independence. Its formation and the subsequent exclusion of Indians from its proceedings were
significant triggers for widespread protests across the country. The boycott and protests, led by the
Indian National Congress, Muslim League, and other political bodies, highlighted the growing
demand for self-rule and representation in India’s governance. Despite being viewed as a failure by
many Indians, the Commission’s report and the Government of India Act 1935 that followed it set
in motion political changes that eventually contributed to India’s independence. The Simon
Commission thus marked a critical turning point, galvanising the Indian independence movement
and strengthening the resolve of Indian leaders to seek full autonomy from British rule.

Q) Salt March- Dandi March

India’s struggle for independence. Initiated by Mahatma Gandhi in 1930, it combined simplicity
with profound impact, turning a humble commodity—salt—into a symbol of defiance against
British imperialism. This non-violent act of civil disobedience not only challenged colonial
authority but also united millions of Indians in the fight for freedom.
- By 1930, the Indian National Congress had declared Poorna Swaraj (complete independence) as
its ultimate goal. To achieve this, civil disobedience was chosen as the principal method of
protest, and Gandhi was tasked with organising the first major act of defiance.
- His choice to target the salt tax seemed underwhelming to many, including some Congress
members, as well as the British, who dismissed the plan with disdain.
- However, Gandhi’s decision was both strategic and symbolic. Salt, an essential commodity for
every Indian, was heavily taxed under the 1882 Salt Act, which criminalised the independent
production of salt. This burden fell disproportionately on the poor. Gandhi’s choice of salt struck
a chord with people across all social, economic, and religious divides, aiming to unite Hindus
 and Muslims under a common cause. Additionally, salt taxes accounted for 8.2% of the British
Raj’s revenue, making it a significant economic target.
- Course of the March: Gandhi informed the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, of his plan on March 2, 1930. He
announced that he would march with a small group of followers from his Sabarmati Ashram to
the coastal village of Dandi in Gujarat, where he would break the salt law by making salt from
seawater. On March 12, 1930, Gandhi set out with 80 followers, emphasizing strict non-violence.
The march gained momentum as it progressed, with thousands of Indians joining along the way.
Gandhi addressed large crowds daily, critiquing the British government, and his actions caught
the attention of international media. Foreign journalists covered the march extensively, turning
Gandhi into a global symbol of resistance.
By the time the marchers reached Dandi on April 5, 1930, they were 50,000 strong. On April 6,
Gandhi ceremoniously broke the salt law, inspiring millions of Indians to do the same. This act of
defiance marked the beginning of widespread civil disobedience across India.
- Impact of the Salt March: The Salt March ignited a nationwide movement of non-violent
resistance. Over 60,000 Indians, including Gandhi, were arrested. Protesters targeted not only
the salt tax but other oppressive colonial laws, such as the forest laws, chowkidar tax, and land
revenue laws. Strikes, boycotts of British goods, and picketing of liquor shops became common.
The movement had a profound impact across the country:
• Regional Variations: Leaders like C. Rajagopalachari, K. Kelappan, and Khan Abdul
Ghaffar Khan led parallel salt marches and protests in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Peshawar
respectively. The Khudai Khidmatgars, Khan’s disciplined followers, faced brutal repression
but adhered to non-violence.
• Participation of Women: Thousands of women actively joined the Satyagraha, marking a
significant shift in their involvement in the freedom struggle.
• Global Attention: Incidents like the lathi charge on peaceful protesters at the Dharasana Salt
Works, which led to injuries and deaths, were widely covered by international media,
drawing global condemnation of British policies.
The British government was deeply unsettled by the non-violent nature of the movement, as it left
little room for violent suppression without attracting criticism.

- Achievements and Drawbacks:

The Salt March demonstrated the power of non-violent Satyagraha as a potent tool against
imperialism. It brought India's freedom struggle into the global spotlight and inspired many
Indians, including marginalised communities, to join the movement. The campaign’s inclusive
nature united various sections of society in a shared cause.
However, the movement also had its limitations. It did not secure significant concessions from
the British government, and Muslim participation was limited, highlighting communal divisions.
Nonetheless, the march compelled the British to negotiate, culminating in the Gandhi-Irwin
Pact of 1931. The pact allowed Indians to make salt for personal use and led to the release of
political prisoners, although it temporarily paused the civil disobedience movement.

The Salt March exemplified Gandhi’s genius in transforming a seemingly trivial issue into a mass
movement of defiance against colonial rule. Its legacy endures as a testament to the power of
peaceful resistance and the unifying spirit of India’s struggle for independence. Despite its
limitations, the Salt March laid the groundwork for subsequent movements that ultimately led to
India’s liberation in 1947.
Q) Civil Disobedience Movement
The year 1930 was the year of one of the most famous and world-known movements in the history
of India. It is known as the Civil Disobedience Movement., led by Mahatma Gandhi- launched in
the year 1930. It fundamentally opposed British colonial rule and was a fight for freedom and
independence. The Salt Satyagraha is considered one of the most significant events of India’s
freedom struggle. It also unified the Indian people through one common cause throughout India.
Officially ending with Gandhi’s arrest in January 1932, this movement was among the greatest
moments in India’s fight for independence.
- How was it initiated: Mahatma Gandhi launched the Civil Disobedience movement under his
guidance. The Indian people had been waiting for some such activity as a part of a freedom
struggle since the introduction of repressive policies by the British Government. The Congress
Working Committee passed the resolution at Lahore to launch the mass civil disobedience
movement on January 26, 1930. Before launching the concluding phase, there was a five-week
tour of Gandhi in East Bengal and Assam to awaken people. He said while addressing in Bombay
that we would sacrifice all we have and win either Swaraj or death in the process.
On April 6, 1930, Gandhi wrote a letter to Lord Irwin, the then Viceroy of India, stating that if
the British did not accede to his demands listed in the letter, he would begin civil disobedience.
He demanded that the British grant independence to India, with dominion status and without
affecting any collaborative group. Further, he demanded the withdrawal of all discriminatory
laws. However, this did not meet his demand. After that, Gandhi attempted to strike fear in the
British by forcing them to realise that they were losing Indian cooperation and support, resulting
in major civil disobedience campaigns. During this movement, Gandhi asked Indians to boycott
British institutions and organisations such as courts, government-aided schools, colleges, etc. The
Congress raised a volunteer army called the “Congress Volunteer Corps” under the direct control
of its Working Committee for organising demonstrations against government policies. So popular
was this movement at the time that almost the entire Congress membership resigned from local
civic bodies.
- The reaction by the British Government: To consider the Simon Commission’s reform, Congress
announced the acceptance of the recommendation for a round table conference. Then, the British
Government released all political prisoners, except those charged with violence & granted
amnesty to those who evaded arrest or escaped from prison in the course of the civil
disobedience movement.
Representing the Indian National Congress, Mahatma Gandhi attended the Second Round Table
Conference in London. The second conference session was held from September 7 to December
1, 1931. Lord Irwin represented Britain at this conference. Even though all the parties and
communities were represented, it did not succeed. The British Government was keen on finding a
solution to the constitutional controversy that had plagued India for a long time. Hence, it called
for three sessions of round table conferences, starting from 1929 until 1932, in London to discuss
India’s constitutional progress with main national and provincial political parties and other
prominent Indian personalities and leaders.
- The Karachi Session: The Karachi session of the Congress in 1931 was held at Karachi on
March 27, 1931, under the presidency of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. An annual session was held at
Karachi in March 1931; it passed resolutions on fundamental rights, economic policy, and the
nationalisation of industries. This session drew up a constitution for the civil disobedience
movement. A steering committee consisting of Gandhiji, Vallabhbhai Patel, and Chakravarti
Rajagopalachari (Rajaji) had been formed to call upon the Viceroy to serve an injunction to the
British Government to quit India by a specified date.
- Impact of Civil Disobedience Movement
 1. The impact of the Civil Disobedience Movement was far-reaching. It forced the British
Government to take a more conciliatory stance towards the Indian demand for independence.
It made them realise that they would have to grant India self-governance at some point in
time.
2. This was the first time that women in large numbers took part in such a huge protest. Kasturba
Gandhi, Lilavati Munshi, and Hansaben Mehta participated in the protests.
3. The movement also brought together communities and castes whose social barriers had
separated.
4. The Civil Disobedience Movement also led to the revival of several industries, especially
cotton and handloom handiwork.
5. Manipur joined the Civil Disobedience Movement in the northeast. A student strike and
demonstrations were organised in the area surrounding the princely state of Tripura. The
police firing quelled the movement, but it unified the people against colonial rule.

In conclusion, it is hard to predict whether or not the Civil Disobedience Movement was successful.
It opened the eyes of British people about India, changed Gandhi, and made him famous. Gandhi’s
movement may have failed at first. Still, his passion and persistence towards the non-violent
approach of fighting constitutionally moved the British Government, leading to a more meaningful
conversation about autonomy for India. It was through these heightened conversations that India
finally gained its freedom. Regardless, the strength of Gandhi’s civil disobedience movement
sparked a revolution in India that would continue to grow stronger until India finally gained
independence in 1947.

Q) Gandhi-Irwin Pact
The Gandhi-Irwin Pact, also known as the Delhi Pact, was a crucial agreement in the Indian
independence movement, signed on 5th March 1931 between Mahatma Gandhi, the leader of the
Indian National Congress, and Lord Irwin, the Viceroy of India. This agreement marked a
significant moment in the relationship between the British colonial government and the Indian
nationalist movement.
Background of the Gandhi-Irwin Pact:
- The roots of the Gandhi-Irwin Pact lie in the Civil Disobedience Movement, which began in
1930 with Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March. Gandhi and his followers embarked on a campaign of
nonviolent resistance against British rule, which gained widespread participation. The Salt
March, during which Gandhi and his followers broke the British salt laws, symbolized the
defiance of the Indian people against British colonial policies.
- By 1930, many prominent leaders, including Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, were arrested. The
British response to the movement was one of severe repression. However, as the Civil
Disobedience Movement gained momentum, the British government realized that it would be
difficult to suppress it indefinitely. At the same time, Lord Irwin, the then Viceroy of India, began
to consider the possibility of negotiating with the Indian National Congress to bring about peace
and restore order.
- In January 1931, Gandhi and other political leaders were unconditionally released from jail, and
Irwin invited Gandhi for discussions. The Indian National Congress, under the leadership of
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, authorised Gandhi to represent the party in negotiations with the
British government. This led to the signing of the Gandhi-Irwin Pact in March 1931.

Key Provisions of the Gandhi-Irwin Pact

The Gandhi-Irwin Pact was based on several significant concessions from both sides:
 1. Suspension of the Civil Disobedience Movement: The Indian National Congress agreed to
suspend the Civil Disobedience Movement and its related activities. This was a major
concession by the Congress, as the movement had become one of the largest mass
movements in India’s history.
2. Release of Political Prisoners: The British government agreed to release political prisoners
who had been detained during the Civil Disobedience Movement. However, those involved
in violent activities were excluded from this release.
3. Participation in the Second Round Table Conference: The Indian National Congress
agreed to participate in the Second Round Table Conference, a series of discussions aimed at
constitutional reforms for India. This provided the Congress with an opportunity to directly
voice its demands for political reforms.
4. Right to Make Salt: One of the most symbolic aspects of the pact was the granting of the
right to Indians to produce and sell salt for domestic use, a major demand of the Civil
Disobedience Movement. This was a significant step toward challenging the British
monopoly over salt production and sales in India.

Outcomes of the Gandhi-Irwin Pact

- The Gandhi-Irwin Pact paved the way for several key developments in India’s struggle for
independence. The most important outcome of the pact was its contribution to the Government of
India Act of 1935. The pact marked the beginning of the process that eventually led to the
relaxation of the diarchy system and allowed for a larger number of Indian legislators to enter the
central legislature.
- Additionally, the agreement cemented the Indian National Congress’s status as a legitimate
political force. The widespread support that the Congress had gained during the Civil
Disobedience Movement was now recognized by the British government. Following the pact, all
ordinances that prohibited peaceful protests were revoked, and jailed leaders were released.
Properties confiscated during the movement were also returned to their rightful owners.
- The pact was a symbolic victory for Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy of nonviolent protest. The
fact that the British government agreed to negotiate with Indian leaders demonstrated that the
methods of peaceful resistance were effective in compelling the British to reconsider their
policies.

Demands Not Accepted by Lord Irwin

Despite the significant concessions made by the British government, certain demands made by
Gandhi were not accepted. Two major demands that were rejected included:
1. Public Inquiry into Police Excesses: Gandhi called for a public inquiry into the police
atrocities and excesses committed during the suppression of the Civil Disobedience
Movement. This demand was not accepted by the British government.
2. Commutation of Death Sentences for Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru: Another
major demand that was not accepted was Gandhi’s request for the commutation of the death
sentences of Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru to life imprisonment. The British
government refused to consider this plea, and the three revolutionaries were executed in
March 1931, shortly before the pact was signed.

Significance of the Gandhi-Irwin Pact

The Gandhi-Irwin Pact holds great historical significance for several reasons:
 1. Recognition of the Indian National Congress: The pact marked a turning point in the
relationship between the British colonial government and the Indian National Congress. For
the first time, the British government recognized the Congress as a legitimate political entity
that could represent the aspirations of the Indian people.
2. A Temporary Reconciliation: The pact brought a temporary end to the Civil Disobedience
Movement and provided much-needed relief to the Indian people. The suspension of the
movement allowed for a period of peace, during which both sides could reflect on the future
of India’s political landscape.
3. Opening the Door to Constitutional Reform: By agreeing to participate in the Second
Round Table Conference, the Indian National Congress set the stage for discussions on
constitutional reforms. The negotiations that followed eventually contributed to the drafting
of the Government of India Act 1935, which introduced significant changes to the
governance of India.
4. Victory for Nonviolent Resistance: The pact was a testament to the power of Gandhi’s
philosophy of nonviolence and Satyagraha. It demonstrated that peaceful resistance could
force the British to negotiate and make concessions, further strengthening the resolve of the
Indian nationalist movement.
In conclusion, the Gandhi-Irwin Pact was a landmark agreement in India’s struggle for
independence. It marked a significant shift in British policy, recognized the Indian National
Congress as a key political force, and set the stage for future negotiations on India’s constitutional
reforms. While it did not fulfill all of Gandhi’s demands, it represented a significant step forward in
the Indian independence movement and the continued struggle for self-rule.\
Partition- Detailed Notes
*Partition- the role played by INC and the Muslim league
(One 15m Essay Question)
- Historical Background of the Partition (can be used as intro): British colonialism in India, which
began in the mid-18th century, had profound effects on the socio-political landscape of the region.
The partition was fundamentally driven by religious ideology, which became increasingly
pronounced during British rule. The British employed a "divide and rule" strategy, exacerbating
communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims. The All India Census played a crucial role in this
process by categorising people based on religious and caste identities, making these identities more
rigid and less fluid than they had been previously. The census records categorised individuals
primarily by religion and caste, which contributed to the emergence of distinct communal identities.
This classification fostered a sense of division among communities, particularly between Hindus
and Muslims.
- Colonial Rule and Nationalism: This period saw the emergence of significant political
movements, notably the Indian National Congress (INC) and the All India Muslim League, which
articulated distinct political identities and aspirations for independence.
• The Indian National Congress was founded in 1885 and became a major platform for advocating
self-rule and independence from British colonial rule. Initially, it sought reforms within the British
system but gradually shifted towards demanding complete independence as nationalist sentiments
grew.
• The Indian National Congress was criticised for being dominated by Hindus, leading to the
formation of the All India Muslim League in 1906. This organisation sought to represent Muslim
interests and counterbalance Hindu dominance within the Congress. This organisation later played a
crucial role in the demand for Pakistan during the independence movement.
• Communal Ideologies: The late 19th and early 20th centuries marked a significant transition from
a unified nationalist movement to communal ideologies. This shift was heavily influenced by
British colonial policies that often exacerbated divisions along religious lines.

- Influence of Historians: Historians like James Mill contributed to these communal sentiments
through their writings. Mill's seminal work, A History of British India, published in 1817, divided
Indian history into three periods: Hindu, Muslim, and British. This classification suggested that the
pre-British periods were characterised by darkness and despotism, while British rule was portrayed
as a civilising force. Mill's Eurocentric perspective characterised Indian society as inferior to
European civilisation. He argued that prior to British intervention, Indian society was plagued by
religious intolerance, caste taboos, and superstitious practices, which he believed justified colonial
rule as a means to bring progress and enlightenment.
By focusing on the differences between Hindu and Muslim rulers, Mill's work inadvertently
solidified sectarian identities. This emphasis played into the colonial strategy of "divide and rule,"
which aimed to weaken the growing national movement by fostering disunity among various
religious groups. The portrayal of Muslims as historical oppressors of Hindus contributed to a sense
of victimhood among Hindus, while Muslims were encouraged to see themselves as defenders of
their heritage against perceived Hindu dominance.
- The Partition of Bengal: The Partition of Bengal in 1905, orchestrated by Lord Curzon, was a
pivotal event in the history of British India. This administrative division not only aimed to
streamline governance but also sought to undermine the burgeoning nationalist sentiments among
the Bengali populace. The partition created a Hindu-majority West Bengal and a Muslim-majority
East Bengal, which was perceived as a deliberate attempt to sow discord among communities and
weaken the nationalist movement in one of its strongest 2 regions. Lord Curzon justified this
division by citing administrative challenges due to Bengal's large population, which had become
unwieldy for effective governance. However, many viewed this rationale as a facade for the British
strategy of "divide and rule," aimed at curtailing the rising tide of nationalism that was particularly
potent in Bengal.
The partition split Bengal into two provinces:
- West Bengal: Predominantly Hindu, including areas like Calcutta (now Kolkata)
- East Bengal and Assam: Predominantly Muslim, with Dhaka as its capital.
This division was not merely administrative; it was deeply intertwined with the political
landscape of India at the time. The British hoped that by creating two distinct communities, they
could dilute the strength of the nationalist movement that had been gaining momentum

- Transformation of AIML:
Their founding objectives included-
• Promoting Loyalty to the British Government: The League sought to instill a sense of loyalty
among Indian Muslims towards the British authorities to alleviate fears of governmental intentions,
especially after the blame placed on Muslims for the 1857 revolt.
• Safeguarding Political Rights: It aimed to protect the political rights and aspirations of Muslims,
ensuring their needs were communicated to the government in a respectful manner.
• Fostering Communal Harmony: The League intended to promote friendly relations between
Muslims and other communities in India, countering any rising prejudices.
• Initially, the AIML was aligned with British interests and focused on moderate reforms.
• However, by 1913, it shifted its focus towards advocating for self-governance for India. From
1920 to 1923, the activities of the League were largely suspended. This period saw significant
political changes, including: 3- Simon Commission & Round Table Conferences: The appointment
of the Simon Commission in 1928 and subsequent Round Table Conferences in London highlighted
the growing discontent among Indian political groups regarding British policies.
- Jinnah’s Transformation: By 1934, Jinnah had transformed into a communalist leader, advocating
for distinct Muslim rights and identity. The 1932 Communal Award further entrenched divisions
between Hindus and Muslims.
• 1937 Elections: The first elections under the Government of India Act of 1935 took place in 1937.
Key points include:
- Reserved Seats: The AIML contested 485 reserved seats for Muslims but secured only 110,
indicating limited representation.
- Congress Dominance: The Indian National Congress (INC) won an absolute majority in several
provinces, including Punjab, Bengal, and Sindh. The INC’s victory meant that many Muslim
candidates were elected under its banner rather than through the Muslim League.
• Despite hopes for a coalition with Congress, negotiations faltered due to Congress's refusal to
endorse separate communal electorates. This led Jinnah to accuse Congress ministers of corruption
and bias against minorities.
- Failure of the Cripps Mission: The Cripps Mission, sent to India in March 1942, is intricately
linked to the eventual partition of India in 1947. This mission was an attempt by the British
government to secure Indian support during World War II by offering constitutional reforms.
However, its proposals inadvertently laid the groundwork for the division of India. A significant
aspect of the Cripps proposals was that any province could opt out of the new constitutional
arrangement and sign a separate agreement with Britain. This provision was interpreted as a
potential pathway to partition, as it legitimised the idea that different regions could choose their
political future independently of a united India. The Cripps Mission ultimately failed to gain
acceptance from major Indian political factions, including the Indian National Congress and the
Muslim League. The Congress rejected the offer because it did not meet their demand for complete
independence, while the Muslim League viewed it as insufficient for their aspirations for a separate
Muslim state. The mission's inability to reconcile Hindu-Muslim differences ultimately set the stage
for the division of India into two independent nations—India and Pakistan—in 1947.
- Muhammad Ali Jinnah's advocacy for the Two-Nation Theory was a defining element in the
political landscape of British India, ultimately leading to the partition of the country in 1947. This
theory posited that Hindus and Muslims constituted two distinct nations, each deserving of its own
sovereign state. Jinnah's articulation of this idea gained significant traction during the late
1930s, particularly after the Indian National Congress's electoral successes in 1937-39, which
intensified feelings of insecurity among Muslims regarding their political future in a predominantly
Hindu India.
• Jinnah initially supported Hindu-Muslim unity and was a prominent member of the Indian
National Congress. However, his views shifted dramatically as he became increasingly disillusioned
with Congress's approach to Muslim representation and rights. By the late 1920s, he recognized that
Muslims were at risk of being politically marginalised in a Hindu-majority state. This realisation
prompted him to advocate for a separate Muslim identity and ultimately for a separate nation.
• In 1940, during a pivotal Lahore session of the All-India Muslim League, Jinnah formally
articulated the Two-Nation Theory, emphasizing that Hindus and Muslims belonged to "two
different religious philosophies" with incompatible social customs and traditions.
Two-Nation Theory: The Two-Nation Theory was an idea that played a significant role in the
partition of British India in 1947. This theory suggested that Hindus and Muslims were two
separate nations with distinct identities, cultures, and interests. It was based on the belief that
these two communities could not live together peacefully as one united country.
◦ The concept of the Two-Nation Theory gained momentum during the early 20th century when
demands for separate representation for Muslims in India's political institutions increased.
The All India Muslim League, led by leaders like Muhammad Ali Jinnah, played a crucial role
in advocating for this theory.
◦ The proponents of the Two-Nation Theory argued that Muslims and Hindus had different
religious beliefs, social customs, and historical backgrounds. They believed that Muslims
needed a separate nation to protect their rights and interests, as they feared that their voice
would be marginalised in a united India with a Hindu majority.
◦ This theory reached its pinnacle during the 1940s when the Muslim League passed the Lahore
Resolution 1940, demanding the creation of an independent Muslim state. The idea gained
widespread support among Muslims, especially in the northwestern and northeastern regions
of India, where they were a majority.
◦ As the demand for a separate Muslim state intensified, the British government and political
leaders realised that the division of India was inevitable. The partition led to the creation of
two independent nations: the Union of India (which became the Republic of India later) and
the Dominion of Pakistan (which eventually became the Islamic Republic of Pakistan).
◦ However, the partition was accompanied by widespread violence and mass migrations,
resulting in the loss of millions of lives and the displacement of millions of people. The
aftermath of the partition remains a painful chapter in the history of both India and Pakistan.
• Direct Action Day: The Direct Action Day, proclaimed on August 16, 1946, by the All-India
Muslim League, marked a significant and violent turning point in the struggle for Indian
independence. This day was intended to assert the League's demand for a separate Muslim
homeland, which would later become Pakistan, following the failure of negotiations between the
Muslim League and the Indian National Congress.
The backdrop to Direct Action Day was the escalating tension between Hindus and Muslims in
British India. The Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946, which aimed to provide a framework for India's
post-colonial governance, failed to satisfy the demands of the Muslim League for a separate state.
In response, Muhammad Ali Jinnah called for "direct action" to demonstrate the seriousness of their
demands and to mobilise support among Muslims across India.
The violence that ensued over the next few days became known as the Great Calcutta Killings.
Estimates of casualties vary widely, but it is believed that between 4,000 to 10,000 people were
killed, with many more injured and displaced. The riots involved brutal acts such as killings, rapes,
forced conversions, and widespread arson. This violence not only devastated Calcutta but also
spread to other regions, including Bihar and Noakhali. The violence highlighted the deep-seated
communal divisions within Indian society and underscored the inability of political leaders to
manage these tensions effectively. Following this outbreak of violence, relations between Hindus
and Muslims deteriorated further, paving the way for the eventual partition of India in 1947.
Jinnah's call for direct action signalled a departure from constitutional methods of protest and
indicated a willingness to resort to violence to achieve political goals. His declaration that "we will
either have a divided India or a destroyed India" encapsulated the urgency felt by many in the
Muslim League at that time
- The Mountbatten Plan: By 1947, the demand for independence had intensified, with major
political factions like the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League advocating for their
respective visions of India's future. The Congress aimed for a united India, while the Muslim
League pushed for a separate nation for Muslims, which they termed Pakistan. The British
government, under Prime Minister Clement Attlee, recognized the need to expedite the transfer of
power due to increasing unrest and the untenable nature of British rule.
• The Mountbatten Plan included several key proposals aimed at facilitating a smooth transition to
independence:
1. Partition of British India: The plan proposed that British India be divided into two dominions—
India and Pakistan. This division was contingent upon legislative assemblies voting in favour of
partition in provinces like Bengal and Punjab. If a simple majority of either group voted for
partition, the provinces would be separated accordingly
2. Dominion Status: Both India and Pakistan were to be granted dominion status, which allowed
them autonomy and the right to frame their own constitutions. This status was a compromise that
aimed to facilitate a smoother transition from colonial rule to self-governance
3. Referendums:
- A referendum was held in the Sylhet district of Assam on to determine whether it would remain
part of India or join East Bengal (Pakistan). The district had a Muslim majority but also significant
Hindu representation. The results showed a decisive preference for joining East Bengal,
leading to its incorporation into Pakistan on August 15, 1947
- Similar to Sylhet, a referendum was also proposed for the NWFP to decide its allegiance. The
outcome favoured joining Pakistan as well, reflecting the region's demographic composition
4. Princely States:The Mountbatten Plan stipulated that princely states could choose to join either
dominion but could not remain independent after August 15, 1947. This decision aimed to prevent
fragmentation and ensure that all territories were accounted for within either India or Pakistan based
on geographical contiguity and popular sentiment
5. Boundary Commission: To demarcate borders between the two new countries, two Boundary
Commissions were established—one for Punjab and another for Bengal. These commissions were
tasked with dividing territories based on religious demographic.
The Radcliffe Line is a significant border that divides India and Pakistan. It was drawn by Sir Cyril
Radcliffe, a British lawyer, in 1947 during the process of partitioning British India into two separate
countries – India and Pakistan.
- During that time, when India gained independence from British rule, it was decided that there
would be a separate country for Muslims, which later became Pakistan. The Radcliffe Line was
drawn to determine the boundary between the two newly created nations based on religious
demographics.
- Sir Cyril Radcliffe had the challenging task of drawing the border, even though he had never
been to India before. He was given just five weeks to complete this complicated task. The line he
drew aimed to separate regions with predominantly Muslim populations from those with mainly
Hindu and Sikh populations.
- The Radcliffe Line caused massive population movements as people tried to move to the country
where their religion was the majority. This migration resulted in a tragic and chaotic period with
widespread violence and loss of lives.
- The border was not without controversies and disputes. There were disagreements and conflicts
between India and Pakistan over various regions that lay near the Radcliffe Line. Some of these
disputes, like the ones over Kashmir and Sir Creek, persist today.
• Announcement Date: The Mountbatten Plan was officially announced on June 3, 1947.
• Assent Date: The Indian Independence Act received Royal Assent on July 18, 1947.
- Why did the Congress Agree to Partition in the end? The acceptance of dominion status by the
Indian National Congress, despite the contentious backdrop of Partition, was primarily driven by
the desire for a swift and peaceful transition of power from British colonial rule.
• Rapid Transfer of Power: Dominion status was seen as a crucial mechanism to ensure a relatively
smooth transfer of power. The Congress leadership recognized that accepting this status would
facilitate a quicker exit for the British, thereby averting prolonged conflict and instability that could
arise from outright independence without a structured transition. This approach aimed to minimise
violence and chaos during a time when communal tensions were escalating
• Negotiated Settlement: The acceptance of dominion status also represented a strategic
compromise. By agreeing to this status, Congress hoped to secure greater autonomy while still
negotiating the terms of independence. This was particularly important in the context of rising
demands from various factions within India, including the Muslim League, which was advocating
for Pakistan. The Congress believed that dominion status could serve as a temporary
solution that would eventually lead to full independence
• Long-term Vision: For Congress, accepting dominion status was not merely about immediate
power; it was also about laying the groundwork for future governance structures. The leadership
believed that once dominion status was established, it would be easier to negotiate further autonomy
and ultimately full independence. This vision aligned with their long-term goals of self- governance
and democratic representation
- The implementation of the Mountbatten Plan led to widespread communal violence, displacement
of millions, and significant human suffering as communities were uprooted based on religious lines.
While it aimed for a peaceful transfer of power, its legacy is marred by the turmoil that followed
partition
- Communalism: Mention somewhere in the answer

Communalism in Colonial India: A Shift from Nationalism to Division

- In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, India witnessed a significant shift in its political
landscape, marked by a drift from nationalism to communalism. Nationalism, as a political
ideology, fosters loyalty and devotion to the nation, encouraging unity and a collective identity
based on culture, language, and history. In contrast, communalism focuses on the distinct
interests of specific religious or ethnic communities, often resulting in division and discord
within the nation. This transition from the nationalist vision of a united India to a fragmented one
along religious lines was influenced by various social, political, and historical factors.
- The Role of Early British Writers and Social Reform Movements: The intellectual foundation for
communalism can be traced back to early colonial writings and the religious reform movements
of the time. James Mill, in his History of British India, provided a framework for understanding
the complexities of Indian society, which was later exploited to divide communities. During the
social reform period, ideas shaped by various organizations, including the Deoband movement,
laid the groundwork for a separate religious identity, especially among Muslims.
- The emergence of new heroes, such as Shivaji, Ashoka, Maharana Pratap, Guru Gobind Singh,
Akbar, and Shah Jahan, also played a role in reinforcing religious identities. While these figures
were hailed as symbols of resistance and unity in certain contexts, their elevation within specific
communities often contributed to the broader process of communal division.
- Gandhi's Ram Rajya and the Foundation of the Muslim League: One of the most notable
moments in the early history of communalism in India was the foundation of the All India
Muslim League (AIML) on December 30, 1906. The AIML aimed to promote loyalty to the
British government among Muslims and protect their political rights. The party also sought to
foster amicable relations between Muslims and other communities, but its long-term objectives
were increasingly shaped by communal concerns.
- Gandhi’s vision of a Ram Rajya, which embodied an idealized Hindu rule, did not resonate with
the Muslim community. This divergence of political goals contributed to the growing divide
between the two communities, paving the way for the eventual rise of Muslim separatism.
- The Rise of Jinnah and the Communal Divide: Muhammad Ali Jinnah, initially a strong advocate
of Hindu-Muslim unity, underwent a dramatic transformation in the 1930s, evolving into a
communalist leader. In the early years of the All India Muslim League, Jinnah worked towards
fostering a cooperative relationship with the Indian National Congress (INC). However, by 1934,
Jinnah had become the undisputed leader of the AIML, and his political agenda began to
prioritize Muslim interests over national unity. This shift was largely a response to the rising
Hindu majoritarianism within the INC, which Jinnah perceived as detrimental to the interests of
Muslims.
- In 1932, the introduction of the Communal Award, which granted separate electorates and
reservations for Hindus and Muslims, further exacerbated the rift between the two communities.
This policy institutionalized the communal divide, making it more difficult to bridge the gap
between Hindus and Muslims in the political arena.
- The 1937 Elections and the Role of the Muslim League: The 1937 provincial elections, held
under the Government of India Act, 1935, saw the INC emerge as the dominant political force in
several provinces. However, the Muslim League, which had secured reserved seats for Muslims,
only managed to win a moderate number of seats, reflecting its limited political influence at the
time. In the aftermath of the elections, when the INC formed its government, Jinnah accused the
Congress of Hindu favoritism and began to rally Muslims against the Congress.
- The tension between the Congress and the Muslim League deepened in 1938 with the publication
of the Pirpur Report, which claimed widespread oppression of Muslims in Congress-ruled
provinces. The report fueled fears among Muslims that the Congress, despite its professed
commitment to a secular nation, was largely controlled by Hindus who sought to establish a
Hindu-dominated government. This narrative of Muslim victimhood became central to the
Muslim League's political platform, which increasingly focused on the idea of a separate Muslim
state.
- The Difference Between Periyar and Jinnah: While both Periyar E. V. Ramasamy and Jinnah
were influential political figures, their approaches to communal issues differed significantly.
Periyar, a prominent social reformer in Tamil Nadu, did not adopt a religious outlook in his
political ideology. His focus was on social justice, particularly the rights of the lower castes and
the abolition of caste-based discrimination. Unlike Jinnah, Periyar did not seek political power or
a separate state for any community but instead advocated for a rational and secular society free
from religious dogma. Jinnah, on the other hand, became increasingly aligned with the Muslim
League's communal agenda. His transformation into a communalist figure was a direct response
to the political climate of the time, which he believed marginalized Muslim interests in a
predominantly Hindu-majority India.
- The Heightened Communal Tensions: By the late 1930s, the Muslim League’s portrayal of
Congress rule as discriminatory and anti-Muslim gained traction among many Muslims, further
intensifying the communal divide. In 1939, when the Congress ministers resigned in protest
against British involvement in World War II, the Muslim League celebrated this as a "day of
deliverance," seeing it as a victory against Hindu-majority rule.
- This period marked a decisive turn in Indian politics, with the communal divide between Hindus
and Muslims becoming more entrenched. The growing influence of the Muslim League and the
rise of Jinnah as a communal leader set the stage for the eventual partition of India in 1947.

The shift from nationalism to communalism in colonial India was a complex process shaped by
various political, social, and ideological factors. While early nationalist movements sought unity
based on a shared national identity, the rise of communalism, fueled by figures like Jinnah, led to
the increasing polarization of Indian society along religious lines. The foundation of the Muslim
League, the policies of the British government, and the failure of the Congress to address Muslim
concerns played pivotal roles in this transformation, ultimately contributing to the partition of India
and the creation of Pakistan.

Effects of the Partition:

Regions affected by partition
Punjab
- The former British province of Punjab was divided during the partition of British India.
- The majority Hindu and Sikh eastern region became India's East Punjab state, while the
predominantly Muslim western region became Pakistan's Punjab province.
- Many people were uprooted due to the partition, leading to inter-communal violence.
- Some have described the violence in Punjab as a vengeful genocide.
Bengal
- Bengal province was divided into West Bengal (India) and East Bengal (Pakistan).
- East Bengal later became East Pakistan and gained independence as Bangladesh during the
Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971.
- Despite having a majority of Muslims, some areas like Murshidabad and Malda on the right bank
of the Ganges were awarded to India.
- The Chittagong Hill Tracts and Khulna District were transferred to Pakistan.
Sindh
- Sindh’s affluent upper and middle class, mostly Hindu at the time of partition, lived there.
- Urban areas like Hyderabad, Karachi, Shikarpur, and Sukkur had a significant Hindu population.
- Few Hindus migrated initially, but the situation started changing in late 1947 and early 1948.
Chittagong Hill Tracts
- The sparsely populated Chittagong Hill Tracts, with a 98.5 per cent Buddhist population in 1947,
were granted to Pakistan.
- It provided the Muslim-dominated Chittagong with a hinterland as it was situated on Bengal's
eastern border.
Violence During the Partition of India
In 1947, a significant event called the partition took place, which brought a lot of fear and terror
among the Indian people.
- Large groups of people carrying their belongings were attacked and killed by men on horses with
swords.
- However, those who travelled in small groups without belongings were spared. During this time,
about 2 million people lost their lives in communal riots and violence that occurred.
- Additionally, around 25 million people, which is about 1% of the world's population, were forced
to leave their homes and had nowhere to live or find shelter.
- When the partition was announced, it resulted in mixed feelings of anger and joy.
- Many neighbourhoods experienced riots, and armed men attacked innocent people. Even women
faced a number of hardships.