Opposition to the

partition of India

Opposition to the partition of India was widespread in British India in the 20th century and it
continues to remain a talking point in South Asian politics. Those who opposed it often adhered
to the doctrine of composite nationalism.[3] The Hindu, Christian, Anglo-Indian, Parsi and Sikh
communities were largely opposed to the partition of India (and its underlying two-nation
theory),[4][5][6][7] as were many Muslims (these were represented by the All India Azad Muslim
Conference).[8][9][10]
Map of colonial India (1911)

Khudai Khidmatgar leader Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Mahatma Gandhi, both belonging to the Indian National
Congress, strongly opposed the partition of India, citing the fact that both Muslims and Hindus lived together peacefully
for centuries and shared a common history in the country.[1][2]

Pashtun politician and Indian independence activist Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan of the Khudai
Khidmatgar viewed the proposal to partition India as un-Islamic and contradicting a common
history in which Muslims considered India as their homeland for over a millennium.[1] Mahatma
Gandhi opined that "Hindus and Muslims were sons of the same soil of India; they were brothers
who therefore must strive to keep India free and united."[2]

Sunni Muslims of the Deobandi school of thought "criticized the idea of Pakistan as being the
conspiracy of the colonial government to prevent the emergence of a strong united India" and
helped to organize the Azad Muslim Conference to condemn the partition of India.[11] They also
argued that the economic development of Muslims would be hurt if India was partitioned,[11]
seeing the idea of partition as one that was designed to keep Muslims backward.[12] They also
expected "Muslim-majority provinces in united India to be more effective than the rulers of
independent Pakistan in helping the Muslim minorities living in Hindu-majority areas."[11]
Deobandis pointed to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, which was made between the Muslims and
Qureysh of Mecca, that "promoted mutual interaction between the two communities thus
allowing more opportunities for Muslims to preach their religion to Qureysh through peaceful
tabligh."[11] Deobandi Sunni scholar Sayyid Husain Ahmad Madani argued for a united India in his
book Muttahida Qaumiyat Aur Islam (Composite Nationalism and Islam), promulgating the idea
that different religions do not constitute different nationalities and that the proposition for a
partition of India was not justifiable, religiously.[13]

Khaksar Movement leader Allama Mashriqi opposed the partition of India because he felt that if
Muslims and Hindus had largely lived peacefully together in India for centuries, they could also
do so in a free and united India.[14] Mashriqi saw the two-nation theory as a plot of the British to
maintain control of the region more easily, if India was divided into two countries that were
pitted against one another.[14] He reasoned that a division of India along religious lines would
breed fundamentalism and extremism on both sides of the border.[14] Mashriqi thought that
"Muslim majority areas were already under Muslim rule, so if any Muslims wanted to move to
these areas, they were free to do so without having to divide the country."[14] To him, separatist
leaders "were power hungry and misleading Muslims in order to bolster their own power by
serving the British agenda."[14]

In 1941, a CID report states that thousands of Muslim weavers under

the banner of Momin Conference and coming from Bihar and Eastern
U.P. descended in Delhi demonstrating against the proposed two-nation
theory. A gathering of more than fifty thousand people from an
unorganized sector was not usual at that time, so its importance should
be duly recognized. The non-ashraf Muslims constituting a majority of
Indian Muslims were opposed to partition but sadly they were not
heard. They were firm believers of Islam yet they were opposed to
Pakistan.[15]

In the 1946 Indian provincial elections, only 16% of Indian Muslims, mainly those from upper
class, were able to vote.[16] Many lower class Indian Muslims opposed the partition of India,
believing that "a Muslim state would benefit only upper-class Muslims."[17]

The All India Conference of Indian Christians, representing the Christians of colonial India, along
with Sikh political parties such as the Chief Khalsa Diwan and Shiromani Akali Dal led by Master
Tara Singh condemned the call by separatists to create Pakistan, viewing it as a movement that
would possibly persecute them.[5][6]

Critics of the partition of India argue that an undivided India would have boasted one of the
strongest armies in the world, had more competitive sports teams, fostered an increased
protection of minorities with religious harmony, championed greater women's rights, possessed
extended maritime borders, projected elevated soft power, and offered a "focus on education
and health instead of the defence sector".[18]

Pakistan was created through the partition of India on the basis of religious segregation;[19] the
very concept of dividing the country of India along religious lines has been criticized as being a
backward idea for the modern era.[20][21] After it occurred, critics of the partition of India point to
the displacement of fifteen million people, the murder of more than one million people, and the
rape of 75,000 women to demonstrate the view that it was a mistake.[22]

Organisations and prominent individuals opposing the

partition of India

Political parties

First Session of All-India Jamhur Muslim League, which was established by Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi to support a united
India (1940).[23]

All India Anglo-Indian Association led by its president Frank Anthony "vociferously opposed
Partition".[7][24]

All India Azad Muslim Conference was an organisation headed by the Premier of Sind Allah
Bakhsh Soomro, which represented the religiously observant Muslim working class; in one of
the largest gatherings of Muslims in colonial India, it rallied in Delhi to oppose the partition of
India.[9][25]

All India Conference of Indian Christians opposed the partition of India, as well as the creation
of separate electorates based on religion; it supported swaraj and helped to secure to rights of
minorities in the Constitution of India.[5]

All-India Jamhur Muslim League was erected "in 1940, to oppose Jinnah's scheme of
Pakistan".[23]

All India Momin Conference saw itself as articulating the interests of common, rather than
upper-class Muslims and passed a resolution against the partition of India in 1940.[25][26] It
said: “the Partition scheme was not only impracticable and unpatriotic but altogether un-
Islamic and unnatural, because the geographical position of the different provinces of India
and the intermingled population of the Hindus and Muslims are against the proposal and
because the two communities have been living together for centuries, and they have many
things in common between them.”[27]

All India Muslim Majlis opposed the partition of India "as impracticable".[28][29]

All India Shia Political Conference protested the idea of creating a Pakistan, being against the
partition of colonial India.[30][25] It also supported common electorates.[31]

Anjuman-i-Watan Baluchistan allied itself with the Indian National Congress and opposed the
partition of India.[32][25]

Central Khalsa Young Men Union declared its "unequivocal opposition" to the creation of a
separate Muslim state in northwestern India, as with other Sikh organisations.[6]

Chief Khalsa Diwan declared its "unequivocal opposition" to the creation of a separate Muslim
state in northwestern India, as with other Sikh organisations.[6]

Communist Party of India opposed the partition of India and did not participate in the
Independence Day celebrations of 15 August 1947 in protest of the division of the country.[33]

Indian National Congress firmly opposed the partition of India, though it later reluctantly
accepted it after the failure of the Cabinet Mission Plan. According to Congress it was
unavoidable from India's side.[34]

Jamiat Ahl-i-Hadis was a member party of the All India Azad Muslim Conference, which
opposed the partition of India.[25]
 Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind was "uncompromisingly against the formation of Pakistan", rejecting the
idea of the partition and instead advocating for composite nationalism in a united India (cf.
Muttahida Qaumiyat Aur Islam).[35]

Khaksar Movement opposed the partition of India and were "outspoken critics of the Pakistan
scheme".[36][37]

Khudai Khidmatgar stood out against the partition of India, using nonviolent principles to
resist British rule in the country.[38]

Krishak Praja Party condemned idea of a partition plan as "absurd and meaningless".[39][25]

Majlis-e-Ahrar-ul-Islam passed a resolution in 1943 declaring itself to be against the partition

and "introduced a sectarian element into its objections by portraying Jinnah as an infidel in an
attempt to discredit his reputation."[40]

Sind United Party held that "Whatever our faiths we must live together in our country in an
atmosphere of perfect amity and our relations should be the relations of the several brothers
of a joint family, various members of which are free to profess their faith as they like without
any let or hindrance and of whom enjoy equal benefits of their joint property."[9]

Shiromani Akali Dal led by Master Tara Singh saw the idea of the creation of a Muslim state as
inviting possible persecution of Sikhs, who thus "launched a virulent campaign against the
Lahore Resolution".[6]

Unionist Party (Punjab), which had a base of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs, opposed the
partition of India from the perspective of seeing the Punjabi identity as more important than
one's religious identity.[41][42]

Politicians
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a key player in the Indian independence movement, stated in India Wins Freedom that "as a
Muslim, I for one am not prepared for a moment to give up my right to treat the whole of India as my domain and share in
the shaping of its political and economic life. To me it seems a sure sign of cowardice to give up what is my patrimony
and content myself with a mere fragment of it."[43] He argued that if India were divided into two states, "there would remain
three and half crores of Muslims scattered in small minorities all over the land. With 17 per cent in UP, 12 per cent in Bihar
and 9 per cent in Madras, they will be weaker than they are today in the Hindu majority provinces. They have had their
homelands in these regions for almost a thousand years and built up well known centres of Muslim culture and civilisation
there."[43]

M lik Khi H Ti h P i fP j b dl d f h U i i P d h ii f I di
Malik Khizar Hayat Tiwana, the Premier of Punjab and leader of the Unionist Party, opposed the partition of India,
referencing the pain that it would cause if the Punjab Province were divided.[44] He felt that Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus of
the Punjab all had a common culture and was against dividing India to create a religious segregation between the same
people.[45] Malik Khizar Hayat Tiwana, himself a Muslim, remarked to the separatist leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah: "There
are Hindu and Sikh Tiwanas who are my relatives. I go to their weddings and other ceremonies. How can I possibly regard
them as coming from another nation?"[45] Tiwana advocated for amity between the religious communities of undivided
India, proclaiming March 1st as Communal Harmony Day and aiding in the establishment of a Communal Harmony
Committee in Lahore presided over by Raja Narendra Nath with its secretary being Maulvi Mahomed Ilyas of
Bahawalpur.[45]

Abul Kalam Azad stated that the creation of a Pakistan would only benefit upper class
Muslims who would come to monopolize the economy of the separate state; he warned that if
it would be created, it would be controlled by international powers, "and with the passage of
time this control will become tight".[46][47]

Abdul Matlib Mazumdar supported Hindu-Muslim unity and opposed the partition of India,
being a prominent Muslim leader in eastern Hindustan.[31]

Abdul Qayyum Khan, a barrister from the North-West Frontier Province of colonial India,
declared that he would resist the partition of India with his own blood; he reversed his position
in 1945 and joined the All India Muslim League[48]

Abdul Samad Khan Achakzai argued against the two-nation theory, favouring a united India.[28]

Allah Bakhsh Soomro, the Chief Minister of Sind, was vehemently opposed to partitioning
India on the basis of religious lines; he chaired the All India Azad Muslim Conference to
advocate for a united and independent India.[9] Allah Bakhsh Soomro proclaimed that the very
concept of "The Muslims as a separate nation in India on the basis of their religion, is un-
Islamic."[49]

Ansar Harvani, a nationalist Muslim, voted against the resolution to partition India.[50]

Altaf Hussain, a Pakistani politician and founder of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement political
party, called the partition of India the "greatest blunder" that resulted in "the division of blood,
culture, brotherhood, relationships".[51][52]

Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed supported Mahatma Gandhi's vision of a united India.[53]

Fazl-i-Hussain was opposed to the separatist campaign to create a Muslim state through the
division of India.[54][55]

Frank Anthony, president of the All India Anglo-Indian Association, "vociferously opposed
Partition".[24]
Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah, who was elected as the Chief Minister of Sind from 1937–1938
and also 1942–1947, rejected the idea to partition India.[48]

Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi advocated a joint Hindu-Muslim revolution and called everyone to
"all rise against" the "conspiracy" of a partition plan.[56][36]

Kanaiyalal Maneklal Munshi saw the idea of the partition of India as one that catered to the
policies of divide and rule by the British government and he thus strongly opposed it, calling
for an Akhand Hindustan (Hindi-Urdu for "united India").[57]

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan opposed the partition of India and campaigned against British rule
in the country through nonviolence.[38]

Khan Abdul Jabbar Khan favoured a united India and was an ally of the Indian National
Congress.[58] He stood against communalism and battled the Muslim League after it became
apparent that a Pakistan would be created out of the provinces of northwest colonial India.[59]

Khwaja Abdul Majid was a social reformer and lawyer "who supported Gandhi in his
opposition to the partition of India."[60]

Khwaja Atiqullah, the brother of the Nawab of Dhaka, "collected 25,000 signatures and
submitted a memorandum opposing the partition".[61]

Lal Khan, a Pakistani politician and founder of The Struggle Pakistan, criticized the partition of
India and advocated for Indian reunification, which he stated would heal continuing wounds
and solve the Kashmir conflict.[62] Advocating for a common revolution, Khan declared that
"Five thousand years of common history, culture and society is too strong to be cleavaged by
this partition."[63]

Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi opposed the partition of India and founded the All-India Jamhur
Muslim League to advocate for a united India.[23]

Mahatma Gandhi opposed the partition of India, seeing it as contradicting his vision of unity
among Indians of all religions.[64]

Malik Khizar Hayat Tiwana, the Premier of Punjab, opposed the partition of India, seeing it as a
ploy to divide the Punjab Province and Punjabi people.[44][65] He felt that Muslims, Sikhs and
Hindus of the Punjab all had a common culture and was against dividing India on the basis of
religious segregation.[45] Malik Khizar Hayat Tiwana, himself a Muslim, remarked to the
separatist leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah: "There are Hindu and Sikh Tiwanas who are my
relatives. I go to their weddings and other ceremonies. How can I possibly regard them as
coming from another nation?"[45] March 1 was proclaimed by Tiwana as Communal Harmony
Day, with the Communal Harmony Committee being established by him in Lahore, with Raja
Narendra Nath as its president and Maulvi Mahomed Ilyas as its secretary.[45]

Maulana Hifzur Rahman, a nationalist Muslim, voted against the resolution to partition
India.[50]

Maulana Syed Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari was the creator of the Majlis-e-Ahrar-ul-Islam, which
passed a resolution in 1943 declaring itself to be against the partition and "introduced a
sectarian element into its objections by portraying Jinnah as an infidel in an attempt to
discredit his reputation."[40]

Markandey Katju views the British as bearing responsibility for the partition of India; he
regards Jinnah as a British agent who advocated for the creation of Pakistan in order "to
satisfy his ambition to become the ‘Quaid-e-Azam’, regardless of the suffering his actions
caused to both Hindus and Muslims."[66] Katju claimed that after witnessing Hindus and
Muslims joining hands in the First War of Indian Independence in 1857, the British government
implemented a divide and rule policy to cause them to fight one another rather than rise up to
fight against colonial rule.[66] He also claims that the British government orchestrated the
partition of India in order to prevent a united India from emerging as an industrial power that
would rival the economy of any western state.[66]

Master Tara Singh declared that his party, the Shiromani Akali Dal would fight "tooth and nail"
against the partition of India and creation of Pakistan.[6]

Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar referred to Jinnah as Kafir-e-Azam ("The Great Kafir").[67] He, as with
other Ahrar leaders, opposed the partition of India.[68]

Maulana Sayyid Husain Ahmad Madani strongly opposed the campaign for a separate Muslim
state, instead advocating for composite nationalism in a united India (cf. Muttahida Qaumiyat
aur Islam).[69] Five decades earlier, Sayyid Jamal al-Din al-Afghani Asadabadi advocated for
the same; he held that Hindu-Muslim unity in India as opposed to unity between Indian
Muslims and foreign Muslims, would effectively combat British colonial rule, leading to an
independent India.[70][71]

Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, actively worked to prevent the
partition of India, arguing that concept violated the Islamic doctrine of the ummah.[72][73]
Maulana Maududi saw the partition as creating a temporal border that would divide Muslims
from one another.[72] He advocated for the whole of India to be reclaimed for Islam.[74]

M. C. Davar opposed the partition of India, creating the "United Party of India (UPI) with the
aim of removing the chasm between the Congress and the Muslim League."[75]
Mohan Bhagwat, the 6th Sarsanghchalak of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, declared in
November 2021 that "The only solution to the pain of Partition lies in undoing it."[76]

Muhammad Tayyab Danapuri was a Barelwi scholar who wrote against Jinnah in his books.[77]

Mohammed Abdur Rahiman, a peace activist, "mobilised the Muslim masses against the two-
nation theory of Muslim League."[48]

Mufti Mahmud, associated with the Darul Uloom Deoband, opposed the partition of India.[78]

Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari argued against Jinnah's two-nation theory.[28]

Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan, coming from the background with ties to the Indian National
Congress and Majlis-e-Ahrar-ul-Islam, opposed the Muslim League.[79]

Purushottam Das Tandon opposed the partition of India, advocating unity, stating that
"Acceptance of the resolution will be an abject surrender to the British and the Muslim League.
The admission of the Working Committee was an admission of weakness and the result of a
sense of despair. The Partition would not benefit either community – the Hindus in Pakistan
and the Muslims in India would both live in fear."[80]

Rafi Ahmed Kidwai supported Mahatma Gandhi's vision of a united India.[53]

Saifuddin Kitchlew, a Kashmiri Muslim leader and President of the Punjab Provincial Congress
Committee, was strongly opposed to the partition of India, calling it "a surrender of
nationalism in favour of communalism".[81][82] Kitchlew was an Indian nationalist who opposed
British colonial rule and held "that a divided India would only debilitate the Muslim cause, in
terms of its political emancipation and economic prosperity."[83]

Salman Khurshid criticized the partition of India, opining that a united India with a liberal
democracy and proportional representation would have been better for the Muslims of the
Indian subcontinent.[84] Khurshid praised Nelson Mandela for refusing to accept a partition of
South Africa.[84]

Shaukatullah Shah Ansari argued against Jinnah's two-nation theory.[28]

Sheikh Abdullah supported Mahatma Gandhi's vision of a united India.[53]

Shibli Nomani argued against Jinnah's two-nation theory.[28]

Sikandar Hayat Khan, the Prime Minister of Punjab, was opposed to the partition of India as he
saw the consequence of dividing the Punjab as painful.[44]

Syed Sultan Ahmed backed M. C. Davar in his opposition to the partition of India.[75]
 Syed Mohammad Sharfuddin Quadri, a leader who joined the Indian independence movement
at the time of the Salt March, opposed the two-nation theory and was imprisoned in the same
jail cell as Mahatma Gandhi[48]

Syed Habib-ul-Rahman of the Krishak Praja Party said that partitioning India was "absurd" and
"chimerical". Criticising the partition of the province of Bengal and India as a whole, Syed
Habib-ul-Rahman said that "the Indian, both Hindus and Muslims, live in a common
motherland, use the offshoots of a common language and literature, and are proud of the
noble heritage of a common Hindu and Muslim culture, developed through centuries of
residence in a common land".[85]

Tarun Vijay, a member of the Rajya Sabha aligned with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, is
critical of the partition of India, faulting the British for it, and advocates for Indian reunification
due to the “same cultural thread” that he states runs throughout the subcontinent.[84] Vijay
believes that nature has established one contiguous entity known as Hindustan or Bharat has
exited throughout history and that in his travels to Pakistan and Bangladesh, the people there
expressed a “close affinity with Indians”.[84] Vijay praised Abraham Lincoln for refusing to
accept separatist tendencies in the United States during the time of the American Civil War.[84]

Ted Grant, founder of the International Marxist Tendency, heavily criticized the partition of
India, calling it "a crime carried out by British Imperialism" that was done in order "to divide the
subcontinent to make it easier to control from outside once they had been forced to abandon
a military presence."[86]

Tikka Raja Shatrujit Singh of Kapurthala stated his opposition to the partition of India and
advocates for Indian reunification, citing the communal harmony that existed in the
Kapurthala State of colonial India, which contained Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus who lived
peacefully.[84] According to him, a secular and united India would have been a global
superpower.[84]

Ubaidullah Sindhi organised a conference in 1940 in Kumbakonam to stand against the

separatist campaign to create Pakistan, stating "if such schemes were considered realistically,
it would be apparent at once how damaging they would be not only for Indian Muslims but for
the whole Islamic world."[27]

Zahid Ali Khan opposed the partition of India, believing that it would divide the Muslims of the
Indian subcontinent.[87]

Zakir Hussain supported Mahatma Gandhi's vision of a united India.[53]

Military officers
 Nathu Singh, an officer of the British Indian Army who opposed the partition of India, felt that
the British decided to deliberately divide India in order to weaken it in hopes that Indians would
ask the British to lengthen their rule in India.[88] Singh said that the armed forces of undivided
India were not affected by the "virus of communalism" and "were capable of holding the
country together and thereby avoiding Partition."[88] Singh was unable to forgive the politicians
for failing to consult with the Indian Army before accepting the partition of India.[88]

Historians and other academics

"To welcome Partition is to imply that people with different backgrounds and different blood-lines cannot live together in
one nation, a regressive suggestion."

—Rajmohan Gandhi, Professor at the Center for South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies of the University of Illinois at
Urbana–Champaign

Alain Daniélou, a French historian, saw the partition of India as a "great mistake" both "on the
human level as well as on the political one".[89] Daniélou stated that it "burdened India" and
added to the region Pakistan, which he called an "unstable state".[89] He said that as a result of
 the division of India, "India whose ancient borders stretched until Afghanistan, lost with the
country of seven rivers (the Indus Valley), the historical centre of her civilisation."[89]

Rajmohan Gandhi, at the Oxford Union, stated in 2018 that “To welcome Partition is to imply
that people with different backgrounds and different blood-lines cannot live together in one
nation. A regressive suggestion.”[21] Gandhi opined that "The corollary that those possessing a
common religion or common race enjoy blissful companionship in their homes, nations or
regions is, well, hilarious."[90] He holds that "tyranny was multiplied by partition".[21]

Maulvi Syed Tufail Ahmad Manglori, Indian educationalist and historian, opposed the partition
of India and campaigned against the idea of separate electorates based on religion.[91] He
authored Rooh-e-Raushan Mustaqbil (‫)روح روشن مستقبل‬, which argued against the Pakistan
separatist movement.[91]

Arvind Sharma, Professor of Comparative Religion at McGill University, along with Harvey Cox
(Professor of Divinity at Harvard University), Manzoor Ahmad (Professor at Concordia
University) and Rajendra Singh (Professor of Linguistics at the Université de Montréal), has
stated that the malaise and sectarian violence within South Asia is a consequence of the
partition of India, which took place without a referendum in pre-1947 colonial India; these
professors have stated that "Inhabitants of the subcontinent of India are poignantly reminded
at this moment of the grave injustice that was done to them in 1947, when British India was
partitioned without taking the wishes of its inhabitants into account."[92] Sharma, Cox, Ahmad
and Singh further wrote that "We regret that the fate of a quarter of the population of the globe
was decided arbitrarily by the representative of an imperial power and by those who were not
even duly elected by adult franchise."[92] As such, Sharma, Cox, Ahmad and Singh in The New
York Times in 1992 demanded that "a plebiscite be held over the entire territory that comprised
British India on the question of its partition into India and Pakistan."[92]

Scientists
Pervez Hoodbhoy criticized the partition of India, calling it an "unspeakable tragedy" that
"separated people who at one time could live together in peace".[93]

Writers
Ashis Ray, president of the Indian Journalists' Association, criticized the partition of India at a
debate organized by the Oxford Union in 2018, holding that Hindus and Muslims could have
lived together peacefully in a united India.[90]

Hasrat Mohani, an Urdu poet who coined the Hindustani language phrase Inquilab Zindabad
(translation: "Long live the revolution!") was against the two-nation theory and chose to remain
in independent India after the partition occurred.[48]

Jaun Elia opposed the partition of India due to his Communist ideology, remembering his birth
city Amroha with nostalgia after he moved to Karachi.[94][95] Elia said that the formation of
Pakistan was a prank played on the people by elites from Aligarh.[96][97]

M. Alexeyev, writing in the Bolshevik less than one year after the partition of India occurred,
stated:[98]

Because of the fear of the peasant revolution, the leaders of the Muslim
League in full agreement with British imperialism favoured the
partition of India and maintenance of British domination. They
demanded formation of the Muslim State, by kindling religious
animosity between the Hindus and the Muslims. ... The partition of
India could not solve and did not solve a single problem including the
Hindu-Muslim problem. On the contrary it intensified the religious
differences, especially in connection with the partition of the province
of the Punjab, and facilitated the incitement of bloody conflicts
between the Hindus, Sikhs and Musulmans. Millions of refugees rushed
from one dominion to another. Hindus and Sikhs fled to Hindustan and
Muslims to Pakistan. Whole villages were depopulated, harvests were
not gathered, fields were not sown. ... armed bands organised on fascist
lines, flooded with agents of the British secret police, organised
massacre of Musulmans in Hindustan, and of Hindus and Sikhs in
Pakistan. Fratricidal clashes in Hindustan and Pakistan were handy to
British imperialism and its agents. The partition of India was effected
with a view to maintain political and economic domination of British
imperialism in the country divided into parts. ... The partition of India
was accomplished by the Labour Government which is more supple
and more capable of making use of social and national demagogy, than
the previous Conservative Government. It was easier for the Labour
Party to accomplish this manoeuvre because the leaders of the Indian
National Congress had always been maintaining with them a certain
contract and more willingly came to a compromise with the Labour
Cabinet. It is characteristic that the Conservative Party supported the
 plan of partitioning India, proposed by the Labour Government. This
testifies to the fact that the whole of this plan is a British imperialist
plan and corresponds with its interests and its calculations. It is not
without reasons that during the debate on the Bill in the British House
of Commons and the House of Lords, the leaders of the Conservative
Party greeted the Government's plan as one which came to the rescue
of the British imperialism, and the Labour Government as the loyal
defender of the interests of the British Empire. Having divided India
and conferred on Hindustan and Pakistan “the title of dominion”,
British imperialism there by maintained its colonial domination over
India. British capital fully and completely as in the past occupies a
commanding position in the economy of Hindustan and Pakistan. A
powerful lever of the colonial exploitation of India is the banking
system. All the big banks in India, with the exception of two, are
managed by British monopolists. Thus they are holding in their hands
the largest amount of capital which they can invest in industries,
Railways, Ports etc. Indian industry is fully dependent on the British
bankers. More than half of jute and tea industry of Hindustan, 1/3rd of
iron and steel industry, the whole mineral output, rubber plantations
etc. belong to British capital.[98]

Saadat Hasan Manto strongly opposed the partition of India, which he saw as an
"overwhelming tragedy" and "maddeningly senseless".[99][100] The literature he is remembered
for is largely about the partition of India.[99]

Sri Aurobindo, a poet, saw the partition of India as a "monstrosity" and on 15 August 1947,
stated that he hoped "the Nation will not accept the settled fact as for ever settled, or as
anything more than a temporary expedient."[89] He further said that "if it lasts, India may be
seriously weakened, even crippled; civil strife may remain always possible, possible even a
new invasion and foreign conquest. The partition of the country must go...For without it the
destiny of India might be seriously impaired and frustrated. That must not be."[89] Aurobindo
saw the two-nation theory as "new-fanged", "contrary to the facts" and being "invented by
Jinnah for his purposes"; Aurobindo wrote that "More than 90% of the Indian Muslims are
descendants of converted Hindus and belong as much to the Indian nation as the Hindu
 themselves. Jinnah is himself a descendant of a Hindu named Jinnahbhai" (cf. Jinnah
family.[89]

Tarek Fatah, a Pakistani Canadian author and journalist, has criticized the partition of India,
calling the division of the country "tragic" and lamenting that his homeland of Punjab "was
sliced in two by the departing British to create the new state of Pakistan."[101] He states that
the British government partitioned India so that they would be able to combat Soviet influence
through the establishment of British military installations in what was then northwestern
colonial India (now Pakistan).[101]

Religious leaders and organizations

All India Conference of Indian Christians opposed the partition of India, as well as the creation
of separate electorates based on religion; it supported swaraj and helped to secure to rights of
minorities in the Constitution of India.[5]

Darul Uloom Deoband continues to oppose the two-nation theory, instead advocating for
composite nationalism and a united India.[102]

Jamaat-e-Islami actively worked to prevent the partition of India, with its leader Maulana Abul
A'la Maududi arguing that concept violated the Islamic doctrine of the ummah.[72][73] The
Jamaat-e-Islami saw the partition as creating a temporal border that would divide Muslims
from one another.[72]

Mohammad Sajjad "played a stellar role in ideologically countering the Muslim League and
Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s demand for Pakistan, besides campaigning vigorously on the plank of
composite nationalism."[103]

Zakir Naik criticized the partition of India and creation of Pakistan, calling it a tragedy.[73] Naik
holds that those who advocated the creation of Pakistan out of the northwestern provinces of
colonial India were "not even practising Muslims".[73]

Indian Reunification proposals

The subject of undoing the partition and reunifying India has been discussed by both Indians
and Pakistanis.[104] In The Nation, Kashmiri Indian politician Markandey Katju has advocated the
reunification of India with Pakistan under a secular government.[105] He stated that the cause of
the partition was the divide and rule policy of Britain, which was implemented to spread
communal hatred after Britain saw that Hindus and Muslims worked together to agitate against
their colonial rule in India.[105] Katju serves as the chairman of the Indian Reunification
Association (IRA), which seeks to campaign for this cause.[106][107]
Pakistani historian Nasim Yousaf, the grandson of Allama Mashriqi, has also championed Indian
Reunification and presented the idea at the New York Conference on Asian Studies on 9 October
2009 at Cornell University; Yousaf stated that the partition of India itself was a result of the
divide and rule policies of the British government that sought to create another buffer state
between the Soviet Union and India to prevent the spread of Communism, as well the fact that a
"division of the people and territory would prevent a united India from emerging as a world power
and keep the two nations dependent on pivotal powers."[108] Yousaf cited former Indian National
Congress president Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who wrote in the same vein:[108]

If a united India had become free...there was little chance that Britain
could retain her position in the economic and industrial life of India.
The partition of India, in which the Muslim majority provinces formed
a separate and independent state, would, on the other hand, give
Britain a foothold in India. A state dominated by the Muslim League
would offer a permanent sphere of influence to the British. This was
also bound to influence the attitude of India. With a British base in
Pakistan, India would have to pay far greater attention to British
interests than she might otherwise do. ... The partition of India would
materially alter the situation in favour of the British.[108]

Yousaf holds that "Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the President of the All-India Muslim League and later
founder of Pakistan, had been misleading the Muslim community in order to go down in history
as the saviour of the Muslim cause and to become founder and first Governor General of
Pakistan."[108] Allama Mashriqi, a nationalist Muslim, thus saw Jinnah as "becoming a tool in
British hands for his political career."[108] Besides the pro-separatist Muslim League, Islamic
leadership in British India rejected the notion of partitioning the country, exemplified by the fact
that most Muslims in the heartland of the subcontinent remained where they were, rather than
migrating to newly created state of Pakistan.[108] India and Pakistan are currently allocating a
significant amount of their budget into military spending—money that could be spent in
economic and social development.[108] Poverty, homelessness, illiteracy, terrorism and a lack of
medical facilities, in Yousaf's eyes, would not be plaguing an undivided India as it would be more
advantaged "economically, politically, and socially."[108] Yousaf has stated that Indians and
Pakistanis speak a common lingua franca, Hindustani, "wear the same dress, eat the same food,
enjoy the same music and movies, and communicate in the same style and on a similar
wavelength".[108] He argues that uniting would be a challenge, though not impossible, citing the
fall of the Berlin Wall and the consequent German Reunification as an example.[108]

French journalist François Gautier and Pakistani politician Lal Khan have expressed the view that
Indian reunification would solve the conflict in the region of Jammu & Kashmir.[109][62]

See also

Madani–Iqbal debate

Aaj Himalay Ki Choti Se

Composite Nationalism and Islam

Gandhism

Hindu–Muslim unity

Hindustan

Indian independence movement

Indian nationalism

Malerkotla

Violence against women during the partition of India

References

1. Samuel Totten (2018). Dirty Hands and Vicious Deeds: The US Government's Complicity in Crimes
against Humanity and Genocide. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9781442635272.

2. Majmudar, Uma (2012). Gandhi's Pilgrimage of Faith: From Darkness to Light. SUNY Press.
ISBN 9780791483510.

3. Na, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im; Naʻīm, ʻAbd Allāh Aḥmad (2009). Islam and the Secular State. Harvard
University Press. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-674-03376-4. "The Jamiya-i-ulama-Hind founded in 1919, strongly
opposed partition in the 1940s and was committed to composite nationalism."
4. Shaw, Jeffrey M.; Demy, Timothy J. (2017). War and Religion: An Encyclopedia of Faith and Conflict [3
volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 371. ISBN 9781610695176. "Upon the assurances of the Congress Party that Sikh
interests would be respected as an independent India, Sikh leadership agreed to support the Congress
Party and its vision of a united India rather than seeking a separate state. When Partition was announced
by the British in 1946, Sikhs were considered a Hindu sect for Partition purposes. They violently opposed
the creation of Pakistan since historically Sikh territories and cities were included in the new Muslim
homeland."

5. Thomas, Abraham Vazhayil (1974). Christians in Secular India. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press. pp. 106–
110. ISBN 978-0-8386-1021-3.

6. Kudaisya, Gyanesh; Yong, Tan Tai (2004). The Aftermath of Partition in South Asia. Routledge. p. 100.
ISBN 978-1-134-44048-1. "No sooner was it made public than the Sikhs launched a virulent campaign
against the Lahore Resolution. Pakistan was portrayed as a possible return to an unhappy past when
Sikhs were persecuted and Muslims the persecutor. Public speeches by various Sikh political leaders on
the subject of Pakistan invariably raised images of atrocities committed by Muslims on Sikhs and of the
martyrdom of their gurus and heroes. Reactions to the Lahore Resolution were uniformly negative and
Sikh leaders of all political persuasions made it clear that Pakistan would be 'wholeheartedly resisted'.
The Shiromani Akali Dal, the party with a substantial following amongst the rural Sikhs, organized several
well-attended conferences in Lahore to condemn the Muslim League. Master Tara Singh, leader of the
Akali Dal, declared that his party would fight Pakistan 'tooth and nail'. Not be outdone, other Sikh political
organizations, rival to the Akali Dal, namely the Central Khalsa Young Men Union and the moderate and
loyalist Chief Khalsa Dewan, declared in equally strong language their unequivocal opposition to the
Pakistan scheme."

7. Frank Anthony (1969). Britain's Betrayal in India: The Story of the Anglo-Indian Community. Allied
Publishers. p. 157.

8. Ashraf, Ajaz (17 August 2017). "India's Muslims and the Price of Partition" (https://www.nytimes.com/20
17/08/17/opinion/india-muslims-hindus-partition.html) . The New York Times. "Many Indian Muslims,
including religious scholars, ferociously opposed the Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan."

9. Ahmed, Ishtiaq (27 May 2016). "The dissenters" (https://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/the-dissenters/) .

The Friday Times. "However, the book is a tribute to the role of one Muslim leader who steadfastly
opposed the Partition of India: the Sindhi leader Allah Bakhsh Soomro. Allah Bakhsh belonged to a
landed family. He founded the Sindh People’s Party in 1934, which later came to be known as ‘Ittehad’ or
‘Unity Party’. ... Allah Bakhsh was totally opposed to the Muslim League’s demand for the creation of
Pakistan through a division of India on a religious basis. Consequently, he established the Azad Muslim
Conference. In its Delhi session held during April 27–30, 1940 some 1400 delegates took part. They
belonged mainly to the lower castes and working class. The famous scholar of Indian Islam, Wilfred
Cantwell Smith, feels that the delegates represented a ‘majority of India’s Muslims’. Among those who
attended the conference were representatives of many Islamic theologians and women also took part in
the deliberations."
10. "Asia and the Americas". Asia and the Americas. Asia Press. 46: 212. 1946. "Many Muslim organizations
are opposed to it. Every non-Muslim, whether he is a Hindu or Sikh or Christian or Parsi, is opposed to it.
Essentially the sentiment in favor of partition has grown in the areas where Muslims are in a small
minority, areas which, in any event, would remain undetached from the rest of India. Muslims in provinces
where they are in a majority have been less influenced by it ; naturally, for they can stand on their own feet
and have no reason to fear other groups. It is least evident in the Northwest Frontier Province (95 per
cent Muslim) where the Pathans are brave and self-reliant and have no fear complex. Thus, oddly enough,
the Muslim League's proposal to partition India finds far less response in the Muslim areas sought to be
partitioned than in the Muslim minority areas which are unaffected by it."

11. Moj, Muhammad (2015). The Deoband Madrassah Movement: Countercultural Trends and Tendencies.
Anthem Press. p. 84. ISBN 9781783084463.

12. Faruqi, Ziya-ul-Hasan (1963). The Deoband School and the Demand for Pakistan. Asia Publishing House.
pp. 106–108.

13. Ali, Asghar (2007). Islam in Contemporary World. Sterling Publishers. p. 61. ISBN 9781932705690.

14. Yousaf, Nasim (31 August 2018). "Why Allama Mashriqi opposed the partition of India?" (https://www.glo
balvillagespace.com/why-allama-mashriqi-opposed-the-partition-of-india/) . Global Village Space.
Retrieved 24 January 2019.

15. Fazal, Tanweer (2014). Nation-state and Minority Rights in India: Comparative Perspectives on Muslim
and Sikh Identities. Routledge. p. 162. ISBN 978-1-317-75179-3.

16. Orissa Review - Volume 22. Home Department, Government of Orissa. 1965. p. 16.

17. Rabasa, Angel; Waxman, Matthew; Larson, Eric V.; Marcum, Cheryl Y. (2004). The Muslim World After
9/11. Rand Corporation. ISBN 978-0-8330-3755-8. "However, many Indian Muslims regarded India as their
permanent home and supported the concept of a secular, unified state that would include both Hindus
and Muslims. After centuries of joint history and coexistence, these Muslims firmly believed that India
was fundamentally a multireligious entity and that Muslims were an integral part of the state.
Furthermore, cleaving India into independent Muslim and Hindu states would be geographically
inconvenient for millions of Muslims. Those living in the middle and southern regions of India could not
conveniently move to the new Muslim state because it required travel over long distances and
considerable financial resources. In particular, many lower-class Muslims opposed partition because they
felt that a Muslim state would benefit only upper-class Muslims. At independence, the division of India
into the Muslim state of Pakistan and the secular state of India caused a massive migration of millions of
Muslims into Pakistan and Hindus into India, along with the death of over one million people in the
consequent riots and chaos. The millions of Muslims who remained in India by choice or providence
became a smaller and more interspersed minority in a secular and democratic state."
18. Tiwari, Anuj (August 14, 2021). "How India Would Have Looked Like Today If The Partition Had Never
Happened?" (https://www.indiatimes.com/trending/social-relevance/what-if-the-india-pakistan-partition-n
ever-happened-547218.html) . IndiaTimes. Retrieved 12 October 2021.

19. Sinha, Jai B. P. (2014). Psycho-Social Analysis of the Indian Mindset. Springer. p. 190. ISBN 978-81-322-
1804-3. "The partition of the Indian subcontinent was based on the formula of religious segregation.
Many Muslims migrated to Pakistan, but many more also decided to stay back. The country had an
obligation to protect Islamic interests as Muslims in India tied their destiny with the rest. There were also
Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and other communities which were living mostly in peace for
centuries."

20. Natesan, G. A. (1941). The Indian Review, Volume 42. G.A. Natesan & Company. p. 318. "Then by the very
force of the logic of hatred and separation that it had pursued, it had to go to the extreme of demanding a
partition of India. The modiæval theory of religious groups constituting a political community, which
collapsed before an advancing nationalism in Europe, was revived. An idea similar to that of the
Crusades, of Christendom versus Islam, suddenly appeared (it is said with British inspiration) in India. It
was an astonishing throw-back."

21. "Oxford Union debate: House regrets the partition of India" (https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/news/o
xford-union-debate-house-regrets-the-partition-of-india-salman-khurshid-rajmohan-gandhi-mridula-mukhe
rjee-ashis-ray) . National Herald. 23 March 2018. Retrieved 4 July 2020. "He went on to say, “To
welcome Partition is to imply that people with different backgrounds and different blood-lines cannot live
together in one nation. A regressive suggestion.” He lamented that the “Muslim majorities who got
Pakistan did not need it; Muslim minorities remaining in India who needed security became more
insecure.” “If tyranny had ended with partition, I would have welcomed division. In fact, however, tyranny
was multiplied by partition.”"

22. Dalrymple, William (29 June 2015). "The Great Divide: The Violent Legacy of Indian Partition" (https://ww
w.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/29/the-great-divide-books-dalrymple) . The New Yorker.

23. Sajjad, Mohammad (January 2011). "Muslim resistance to communal separatism and colonialism in
Bihar: nationalist politics of the Bihar Muslims". South Asian History and Culture. 2 (1): 16–36.
doi:10.1080/19472498.2011.531601 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F19472498.2011.531601) .
S2CID 143529965 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:143529965) . "Maghfoor Aijazi had set up
the All India Jamhoor Muslim League, in 1940, to oppose Jinnah's scheme of Pakistan."

24. Mansingh, Surjit (2006). Historical Dictionary of India. Scarecrow Press. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-8108-6502-0.
"Anthony was vocally critical of the British Raj in India for its racial discrimination in matters of pay and
allowances, and for failing to acknowledge the sterling military and civil contributions made by Anglo-
Indians to the Raj. Anthony vociferously opposed Partition and fought for the best interests of his
community as Indians, not Britishers."

25. Qasmi, Ali Usman; Robb, Megan Eaton (2017). Muslims against the Muslim League: Critiques of the Idea
of Pakistan. Cambridge University Press. p. 2. ISBN 9781108621236.
26. The Partition Motif in Contemporary Conflicts. SAGE. 2007. p. 265. ISBN 978-0-7619-3547-6.

27. Ali, Afsar (17 July 2017). "Partition of India and Patriotism of Indian Muslims" (http://www.milligazette.co
m/news/15756-partition-of-india-and-patriotism-of-indian-muslims) . The Milli Gazette.

28. Chhibber, Pradeep K.; Verma, Rahul (2018). Ideology and Identity: The Changing Party Systems of India.
Oxford University Press. p. 81. ISBN 9780190623890.

29. Natesan, G. A. (1943). The Indian Review. G.A. Natesan & Company: 315. "The Muslim Majlis opposes
partition of India "as impracticable"." {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

30. Sarila, Narendra Singh (2017). The Shadow of the Great Game: The Untold Story of India's Partition. Little,
Brown Book Group. ISBN 978-1-4721-2822-5. "Consequently, the Shia Political Conference also
participated in the Muslims' protest against Jinnah's scheme."

31. Mainyu, Eldon A. (2011). Abdul Matlib Mazumdar. Aud Publishing. ISBN 9786137449219.

32. Kashikar, S. G. (2004). Dialogue With Pakistan. India First Foundation. p. 29. ISBN 978-81-89072-02-5.
"Momins' Conference, Anjuman-I-Watan (Baluchistan) and All-India Shia Conference also expressed their
opposition. The Deobandi School of Islam was against the Two-Nation Theory and "played a glorious role
in the freedom struggle."

33. Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2009). Decolonization in South Asia: Meanings of Freedom in Post-
independence West Bengal, 1947–52. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-01823-9. "As a protest against
Partition, the Hindu Mahasabha and the Communist Party of India (CPI) did not participate in the
celebrations of 15 August."

34. Raja Ram Mohun Roy, Keshab Chandra Sen, Surendranath Banerjea, V.O. Chidambaram Pillai, Srinivasa
Ramanujan, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, Jayaprakash Narayan (1990). Remembering
Our Leaders, Volume 3. Children's Book Trust. ISBN 9788170114871. "The Indian National Congress and
the nationalists of Bengal firmly opposed the partition."

35. Chakravartty, N. (2003). Mainstream, Volume 42, Issues 1-10. p. 21. "The Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind was
uncompromisingly against the formation of Pakistan and remained in India after the partition, while the
Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam came to be in Pakistan."

36. Malik, Muhammad Aslam (2000). Allama Inayatullah Mashraqi: A Political Biography. Oxford University
Press. p. 131. ISBN 9780195791587. "The resolution was a bad omen to all those parties, including the
Khaksars, which were, in one way or the other, opposing the partition of the subcontinent."

37. Talbot, Ian (2013). Khizr Tiwana, the Punjab Unionist Party and the Partition of India. Routledge.
ISBN 9781136790294. "He also enlisted the support of the Khaksars“ who had been bitter opponents of
Sikander." They, nevertheless possessed the virtue of being outspoken critics of the Pakistan scheme."
38. Tharoor, Shashi (2003). Nehru: The Invention of India (https://archive.org/details/nehruinventionof00th
ar) . Arcade Publishing. ISBN 9781559706971. "Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (1891–1991): the “Frontier
Gandhi"; Congress leader of the North-West Frontier Province, organized nonviolent resistance group
called the Khudai Khidmatgars; opposed partition and was repeatedly jailed for long periods by the
government of Pakistan."

39. Islam, Shamsul (4 December 2015). "Saying No to Partition: Muslim leaders from 1940-1947" (https://ww
w.sabrangindia.in/indepth/saying-no-partition-muslim-leaders-1940-1947) . Sabrang. Retrieved 8 June
2020.

40. Khan, Adil Hussain (2015). From Sufism to Ahmadiyya: A Muslim Minority Movement in South Asia.
Indiana University Press. p. 148. ISBN 9780253015297. "Soon thereafter, in 1943, the Ahrar passed a
resolution officially declaring itself against partition, which posed a problem in that it put the Ahrar in
direct opposition to the Muslim League. The Ahrar introduced a sectarian element into its objections by
portraying Jinnah as an infidel in an attempt to discredit his reputation."

41. Talbot, Ian (2013). Khizr Tiwana, the Punjab Unionist Party and the Partition of India. Oxford University
Press. p. 486.

42. Ahmed, Ishtiaq (27 May 2016). "The dissenters" (https://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/the-dissenters/) .

The Friday Times. "Here, not only anti-colonial Muslims were opposed to the Partition – and there were
many all over Punjab – but also those who considered the continuation of British rule good for the
country – Sir Fazl-e-Hussain, Sir Sikander Hyat and Sir Khizr Hayat Tiwana for instance – were opposed
to the Partition. The campaign against Sir Khizr during the Muslim League agitation was most
intimidating and the worst type of abuse was hurled at him."

43. Ali, Asghar Ali (15 August 2010). "Maulana Azad and partition" (https://www.dawn.com/news/553160/m
aulana-azad-and-partition) . Dawn. Retrieved 10 June 2020.

44. Mansingh, Surjit (2006). Historical Dictionary of India. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810865020. "Both
Sikander Hayat Khan and his successor, Khizr Hayat Khan Tiwana, vehemently opposed the idea Partition
when it was mooted in the early 1940s, partly because as Punjabi Muslims they did not agree with Jinnah
on the need for a Pakistan and largely because the thought of partitioning Punjab, as an inevitable
consequence, was so painful."

45. Talbot, Ian (1996). Khizr Tiwana, The Punjab Unionist Party and the Partition of India. Curzon Press.
pp. 77, 303. "Khizr was opposed to the division of India on a religious basis, and especially to
suggestions about partitioning Punjab on such a basis. He sincerely believed that Punjabi Muslims had
more in common with Punjabi Hindus and Sikhs."
46. "In Prophetic Historical Interview, Indian Islamic Scholar Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Warned Against
Creation Of Pakistan Based On Hindu-Muslim Disunity: 'We Must Remember That An Entity Conceived In
Hatred Will Last Only As Long As That Hatred Lasts' " (https://www.memri.org/reports/prophetic-historic
al-interview-indian-islamic-scholar-maulana-abul-kalam-azad-warned-against) . Memri. 21 February
2014.

47. Naqvi, Saeed (10 November 2018). "View: The lesser known Maulana Abul Kalam Azad who sought
'United India' to the bitter end" (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/view-the
-lesser-known-maulana-abul-kalam-azad-who-sought-united-india-to-the-bitter-end/articleshow/6656607
7.cms) . The Economic Times.

48. Naqvi, Raza (14 August 2017). "Meet the Muslim freedom fighters who strongly opposed the Partition of
India" (https://www.inuth.com/india/meet-the-muslim-freedom-fighters-who-strongly-opposed-the-partiti
on-of-india/) . IE Online Media Services. Retrieved 22 August 2020.

49. Malkani, K. R. (1984). The Sindh Story. Allied Publishers. p. 121.

50. Raghavan, G. N. S. (1999). Aruna Asaf Ali: A Compassionate Radical. National Book Trust, India. p. 91.
ISBN 978-81-237-2762-2. "Three nationalist Muslims were among those who opposed the resolution:
Ansar Harwani, Maulana Hifzur Rahman and Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew. “This is a surrender”, Kitchlew said."

51. Baruah, Amit (2004-11-07). "Accept Line of Control temporarily: Altaf Hussain" (https://www.thehindu.co
m/2004/11/07/stories/2004110705711000.htm) . The Hindu. Retrieved 16 March 2019. ""The division
of the sub-continent was the greatest blunder," he thundered to cheers from the audience. "It was the
division of blood, culture, brotherhood, relationships," he said, switching from English to Urdu."

52. " 'Two-Nation Theory' a complete fraud: MQM leader Altaf Hussain" (https://www.aninews.in/news/world/
europe/two-nation-theory-a-complete-fraud-mqm-leader-altaf-hussain20190224204557/) . Asian News
International. 24 February 2019. Retrieved 16 March 2019. ""The said theory was invented by the British
Empire to deceive and divide the people of the Indian Sub-Continent," he added. He said this while
addressing live to his millions of followers through social media. He categorically asserted that the
division of the Indian sub-continent was a blunder. "British Empire had occupied Indian sub-continent and
Indians were slaves to the British rulers and hence they introduced that theory so as to keep the Muslims
and Hindus divided so that the British could rule for a longer time. Unfortunately, Muslim and Hindu
populations had accepted that fraudulent and mischievous notion of Two-Nation Theory," he said. He
further said that the said theory was to prevent any revolution against the tyrant occupation of the British
Empire and also to fail the freedom movement for India."

53. Khurshid, Salman (2014). At Home in India: The Muslim Saga. Hay House, Inc. ISBN 9789384544126.

54. Malhotra, Aanchal (2019). Remnants of Partition: 21 Objects from a Continent Divided. Oxford University
Press. p. 292. ISBN 978-1-78738-120-9. "My father's half-brother, Sir Fazl-i-Hussain, was a found member,
along with Sir Sikander Hyat Khan and others who were opposed to the Quaid-e-Azam's vision of Pakistan
as an independent nation of Muslims."
55. Ahmed, Ishtiaq (27 May 2016). "The dissenters" (https://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/the-dissenters/) .
The Friday Times. "Here, not only anti-colonial Muslims were opposed to the Partition – and there were
many all over Punjab – but also those who considered the continuation of British rule good for the
country – Sir Fazl-e-Hussain, Sir Sikander Hyat and Sir Khizr Hayat Tiwana for instance – were opposed
to the Partition."

56. Yousaf, Nasim (26 June 2012). "Justification of Partition in Books & Educational Syllabi Breeds Hatred
and Terrorism" (http://www.milligazette.com/news/3905-justification-of-partition-in-books-educational-sy
llabi-breeds-hatred-and-terrorism) . The Milli Gazette.

57. Ghose, Sankar (1 January 1991). Mahatma Gandhi. Allied Publishers. p. 315. ISBN 9788170232056.
"Later, K.M. Munishi, with Gandhi's blessing, also resigned from the Congress to plead for Akhand
Hindustan as a counter blast to Pakistan. Gandhi, who previously thought that swaraj was impossible
without Hindu-Muslim unity, subsequently came to the conclusion that as Britain wanted to retain her
empire by pursuing a policy of divide and rule, Hindu-Muslim unity could not be achieved as long as the
British were there."

58. Hamdani, Yasser Latif (21 December 2013). "Mr Jinnah's Muslim opponents" (https://www.pakistantoday.
com.pk/2013/12/21/mr-jinnahs-muslim-opponents/) . Pakistan Today. Retrieved 10 June 2020. "Dr.
Khan Abdul Jabbar Khan and his brother Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan were also opponents of Mr. Jinnah
and the Muslim League. The Khan Brothers were close to the Congress and thought that in an
independent United India their interests were more secure."

59. Ashraf, Ajaz (20 January 2018). "On Frontier Gandhi's death anniversary, a reminder of how the Indian
subcontinent has lost its way" (https://scroll.in/article/865696/on-frontier-gandhis-death-anniversary-a-re
minder-of-how-the-indian-subcontinent-has-lost-its-way) . Scroll.in.

60. McDermott, Rachel Fell; Gordon, Leonard A.; Embree, Ainslie T.; Pritchett, Frances W.; Dalton, Dennis
(2014). Sources of Indian Traditions: Modern India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Columbia University Press.
p. 906. ISBN 9780231510929. "Khwaja Abdul Majid (1875–1962) was a lawyer, educationalist, and social
reformer who supported Gandhi in his opposition to the partition of India."

61. Jassal, Smita Tewari; Ben-Ari, Eyal (2007). The Partition Motif in Contemporary Conflicts (https://archive.
org/details/partitionmotifco00jass) . SAGE Publications India. p. 246 (https://archive.org/details/partiti
onmotifco00jass/page/n246) . ISBN 9788132101116. "The brother of the Nawab of Dhaka, Khwajah
Atiqullah collected 25,000 signatures and submitted a memorandum opposing the partition (Jalal 2000:
158). The anti-partition movement was 'actively supported' by 'Abdul Rasul, Liakat Hassain, Abul Qasim,
and Ismail Hussain Shirazi' (Ahmed 2000: 70)."

62. Samaddar, Ranabir (27 February 2008). "Indian review of 'Partition - can it be undone?' " (https://www.mar
xist.com/indian-review-of-partition.htm) . In Defence of Marxism. Retrieved 29 June 2020.
63. Khan, Lal; Ghosh, Paramita (24 October 2007). "Can Partition be Undone? – An Interview with Lal Khan" (h
ttps://radicalnotes.org/2007/10/24/can-partition-be-undone-an-interview-with-lal-khan/) . Radical
Notes. Retrieved 29 June 2020.

64. Gandhism. JSC Publications. 2015. ISBN 9781329189133. "As a rule, Gandhi was opposed to the
concept of partition as it contradicted his vision of religious unity."

65. Singh, Pashaura; Fenech, Louis E. (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies. Oxford University Press.
ISBN 9780191004124. "Khizr Hayat Khan Tiwana, a Unionist, who was the last Premier of the unified
Punjab opposed Jinnah and the 1947 partition of India from a Punjabi nationalist perspective."

66. Markandey Katju (8 July 2014). "The truth about partition" (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/sat
yam-bruyat/the-truth-about-partition/) . The Times of India.

67. Hussain, Syed Taffazull (2019). Sheikh Abdullah-A Biography: The Crucial Period 1905-1939. 2019
Edition. Syed Taffazull Hussain. p. 90. ISBN 978-1-60481-603-7.

68. "Impact: International Fortnightly". Impact: International Fortnightly. News & Media. 4–6: 5. 1974.
"Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar, 81, a leader in the Ahrar party, opposed to the partition of India."

69. Ahmad, Ishtiaq (27 May 2016). "The dissenters" (https://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/the-dissenters/) .

The Friday Times. "We are indeed informed about the strong opposition by Congress stalwart Maulana
Abul Kalam Azad and the leader of the Jamiat-Ulema-e-Islam, Maulana Hussain Ahmed Madni, to the
demand for a separate Muslim state made by the All-India Muslim League, but the general impression in
both India and Pakistan is that Indian Muslims as a whole supported the Partition."

70. "AFḠĀNĪ, JAMĀL-AL-DĪN" (http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/afgani-jamal-al-din) . Encyclopaedia

Iranica. 22 July 2011. "In Hyderabad 1880-81 Afḡānī published six Persian articles in the journal
Moʿallem-e šafīq, which were reprinted in Urdu and Persian in various editions of Maqālāt-e Jamālīya. The
three major themes of these articles are: 1. advocacy of linguistic or territorial nationalism, with an
emphasis upon the unity of Indian Muslims and Hindus, not of Indian Muslims and foreign Muslims; 2.
the benefits of philosophy and modern science; and 3. attacks on Sayyed Aḥmad Khan as a tool of the
British. On nationalism, he writes in “The Philosophy of National Unity and the Truth about Unity of
Language” that linguistic ties are stronger and more durable than religious ones (he was to make exactly
the opposite point in the pan-Islamic al-ʿOrwat al-woṯqā a few years later). In India he felt the best anti-
imperialist policy was Hindu-Muslim unity, while in Europe he felt it was pan-Islam."

71. Aslam, Arshad (28 July 2011). "The Politics Of Deoband" (https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/t
he-politics-of-deoband/277847) . Outlook. "Much before Madani, Jamaluddin Afghani argued that
Hindus and Muslims must come together to overthrow the British. Husain Ahmad would argue the same
thing after five decades."
72. Oh, Irene (2007). The Rights of God: Islam, Human Rights, and Comparative Ethics (https://archive.org/de
tails/rightsgod00ohir) . Georgetown University Press. p. 45 (https://archive.org/details/rightsgod00ohir/
page/n52) . ISBN 978-1-58901-463-3. "In the debate over whether Muslims should establish their own
state, separate from a Hindu India, Maududi initially argued against such a creation and asserted that the
establishment of a political Muslim state defined by borders violated the idea of the universal umma.
Citizenship and national borders, which would characterize the new Muslim state, contradicted the notion
that Muslims should not be separated by one another by these temporal boundaries. In this milieu,
Maududi founded the organization Jama'at-i Islamic. ... The Jama'at for its first few years worked actively
to prevent the partition, but once partition became inevitable, it established offices in both Pakistan and
India."

73. Gupta, Shekhar. "Why Zakir Naik is dangerous" (https://www.rediff.com/news/column/why-zakir-naik-is-d

angerous/20160718.htm) . Rediff. Retrieved 29 April 2020.

74. Esposito, John L.; Sonn, Tamara; Voll, John Obert (2016). Islam and Democracy After the Arab Spring.
Oxford University Press. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-19-514798-8. "Mawdudi (d. 1979) was opposed to the partition
of India, preferring that Muslims reclaim all of India for Islam."

75. Goyal, Purshottam (25 April 2013). "Passionate advocate of subcontinental amity" (https://www.thehindu.
com/opinion/op-ed/passionate-advocate-of-subcontinental-amity/article4651250.ece) . The Hindu.
Retrieved 9 June 2020.

76. "Solution to pain of Partition is undoing it: Mohan Bhagwat" (https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/del

hi/solution-to-pain-of-partition-is-undoing-it-mohan-bhagwat-7641842) . The Indian Express. 26
November 2021. Retrieved 9 December 2021.

77. Raza, Atrooba (21 March 2020). "20 Muslim Leaders who opposed Pakistan Movement & Quaid-e-Azam"
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1ver5Tbg-U&) (in Urdu). Election Box. Retrieved 9 June 2020.

78. Pirzada, Sayyid A. S.; Pirzada, Syed Sharifuddin (2000). The Politics of the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam Pakistan:
1971-1977. Oxford University Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-0-19-579302-4. "Mufti Mahmud, in his speech on
the occasion, pointed out that "the JUIP was against a division of the country". He said that since the
party had opposed the partition of India (linking with the stance of ..."

79. "Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society". 55–56. Pakistan Historical Society. 2007: 166.

80. Reddy, Kittu (2003). History of India: a new approach. Standard Publishers. p. 453. ISBN 978-81-87471-
14-1.

81. Suresh, Sushma (1999). Who's who on Indian Stamps. Mohan B. Daryanani. p. 211. ISBN 978-84-931101-
0-9.

82. Sharma, Sita Ram (1992). Education and National Integration in India: Historical perspective. Akashdeep
Publishing House. p. 294. ISBN 978-81-7158-280-8. "Dr. Kitchlew, President of the Punjab Provincial
Congress Committee, opposed the resolution and characterized it as a surrender of 'nationalism in favour
of communalism'."
83. Sharma, Unnati (9 October 2019). "Dr Saifuddin Kitchlew, the freedom fighter who is hailed as the hero of
Jallianwala Bagh" (https://theprint.in/theprint-profile/saifuddin-kitchlew-freedom-fighter-hero-jallianwala-
bagh/302658/) . ThePrint. Retrieved 29 July 2020.

84. "An undivided India?" (https://www.ndtv.com/video/news/the-big-fight/an-undivided-india-100356) .

NDTV. 29 August 2009. Retrieved 19 October 2020.

85. Singh, Kewal (1991). Partition and Aftermath: Memoirs of an Ambassador. Vikas Publishing House.
p. 30. ISBN 978-0-7069-5811-9.

86. Khan, Lal (2005). Crisis in the Indian Subcontinent, Partition: Can it be Undone?. The Struggle
Publications. p. 12. "We have to understand that the partition of the subcontinent into Pakistan and India
was a crime carried out by British Imperialism. Initially, British Imperialism tried to maintain control of the
whole of the subcontinent, but during 1946–1947, a revolutionary situation erupted across the whole of
the Indian subcontinent. British Imperialism realised that it could no longer contain the situation. Its
troops were mainly Indian, and they could not be relied on to do the dirty work for the imperialists. It was
in these conditions that the imperialists came up with the idea of partition. As they could no longer hold
the situation, they decided that it was preferable to whip up Muslims against Hindus and vice versa. With
this method, they planned to divide the subcontinent to make it easier to control from outside once they
had been forced to abandon a military presence. They did this without any concern for the terrible
bloodshed that would be unleashed."

87. Hamdani, Yasser Latif. "Mr Jinnah's Muslim opponents" (https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/12/2

1/mr-jinnahs-muslim-opponents/) . Pakistan Today. Retrieved 10 June 2020.

88. V. K. Singh (2005). Leadership in the Indian Army: Biographies of Twelve Soldiers. SAGE Publishing.
ISBN 978-93-5280-566-2.

89. François Gautier (2001). A Western Journalist on India: The Ferengi's Columns. Har-Anand Publications.
pp. 74–75. ISBN 978-81-241-0795-9.

90. Roy, Amit (26 March 2018). "At Oxford, a stereotype on Partition is busted" (https://www.telegraphindia.c
om/india/at-oxford-a-stereotype-on-partition-is-busted/cid/1339828) . The Telegraph. Retrieved 4 July
2020.

91. "Syed Tufail Ahmad Manglori" (https://www.milligazette.com/news/1-community-news/9629-syed-tufail-

ahmad-manglori/) . The Milli Gazette. 26 November 2013. Retrieved 3 November 2020.

92. Arvind Sharma; Harvey Cox; Manzoor Ahmad; Rajendra Singh (December 16, 1992). "Time to Undo
Damage of Indian Partition" (https://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/16/opinion/l-time-to-undo-damage-of-in
dian-partition-966992.html) . The New York Times.

93. "Pak was born in a state of confusion: Hoodbhoy" (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/P

ak-was-born-in-a-state-of-confusion-Hoodbhoy/articleshow/50516062.cms) . The Times of India. 10
January 2016. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
 94. Jalil, Xari (5 November 2011). "Master of loneliness and frenzy" (https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/201
1/11/05/master-of-loneliness-and-frenzy/) . Pakistan Today. Retrieved 10 June 2020.

95. "Biography of Jaun Elia" (https://thegkguide.com/jaun-elia/) . The GK Guide. 3 March 2019. Retrieved
10 June 2020.

96. Naqvi, Sibtain (November 20, 2016). "History: The city of lost dreams" (https://www.dawn.com/news/129
7169) . Dawn. "Among these new immigrants was the first generation of educated, socially-mobile
Muslims; graduates of Aligarh or Osmania University who had played an important role in the Pakistan
movement. As Jaun Alia once acidly remarked, “Pakistan ... ye sab Aligarh ke laundon ki shararat thi”
(Pakistan — this was the mischief of boys from Aligarh)."

97. Hoda, Najmul (December 21, 2020). "Despite Its Characteristic Boast, Aligarh Muslim University Could
Not Chart a Path for Modernity and Progress of Indian Muslims" (https://www.newageislam.com/islam-p
olitics/najmul-hoda/despite-its-characteristic-boast-aligarh-muslim-university-chart-path-modernity-progr
ess-indian-muslims/d/123841) . New Age Islam. "The politics of Muslim separatism was
institutionalised in Aligarh, which, by the 1940s, had become, in Jinnah’s words, “the arsenal of Muslim
India”. Later, poet Jaun Elia would quip that Pakistan was a prank played by the juveniles of Aligarh
(“Pakistan — ye sab Aligarh ke laundon ki shararat thi”). That this practical joke, by its sheer thoughtless
adventurism, turned out to be a monumental tragedy, which sundered the country into two and the
Muslim community into three, is yet to be confronted by Aligarh."

98. Alexeyev, M. (15 June 1948). "Indian Union and Pakistan After the Partition of India" (https://www.revoluti
onarydemocracy.org/archive/IndiaPak.htm) . Bolshevik. Communist Party of the Soviet Union. 11.

99. Manzoor, Sarfraz (11 June 2016). "Saadat Hasan Manto: 'He anticipated where Pakistan would go' " (http
s://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jun/11/saadat-hasan-manto-short-stories-partition-pakistan) .
The Guardian. Retrieved 2 March 2019. "The partition was brutal and bloody, and to Saadat Hasan Manto,
a Muslim journalist, short-story author and Indian film screenwriter living in Bombay, it appeared
maddeningly senseless. Manto was already an established writer before August 1947, but the stories he
would go on to write about partition would come to cement his reputation. ... But it is for his stories of
partition that he is best remembered: as the greatest chronicler of this most savage episode in the
region’s history."

100. Bhalla, Alok; Study, Indian Institute of Advanced (1997). Life and works of Saadat Hasan Manto. Indian
Institute of Advanced Study. p. 113. "One can, however, assert that the finest short/ stories about the
period were written by Saadat Hasan Manto. For him the partition was an overwhelming tragedy."

101. Fatah, Tarek (21 August 2012). "Pakistan: The demon the West created" (https://torontosun.com/2012/0
8/21/pakistan-the-demon-the-west-created/wcm/1523ba09-c724-41a4-ae6b-b32beb26cfed) . Toronto
Sun. Retrieved 3 July 2020.
102. Lindsay, David (2012). Confessions of an Old Labour High Tory. ISBN 9781471606175. "Even the Darul
Uloom Deoband, although it supported Indian independence, opposed and opposes the Muslim League's
theory of two nations, and therefore opposed and opposes partition."

103. Ashraf, Ajaz (6 September 2016). "The forgotten story of two Maulanas who mocked Jinnah's idea of
Pakistan" (https://scroll.in/article/814820/the-forgotten-story-of-two-maulanas-who-mocked-jinnahs-idea
-of-pakistan) . Scroll.in. Retrieved 3 November 2020.

104. O'Mahony, Anthony; Siddiqui, Ataullah (2001). Christians and Muslims in the Commonwealth: A Dynamic
Role in the Future. The Altajir Trust. ISBN 978-1-901435-08-5. "In South Asia, recent years have seen the
subject of reunification being considered by people in both India and Pakistan. Inevitably, there is a
diversity of views on such a subject. Among Indians and Pakistanis who generally agree on the merits of
reunification, some regard it as feasible only when national prejudices of one country against the other
are overcome."

105. Markandey Katju. "The truth about Pakistan" (https://web.archive.org/web/20131110103720/http://www.

nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/columns/02-Mar-2013/the-truth-about-p
akistan) . The Nation. Archived from the original (http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-
daily-english-online/columns/02-Mar-2013/the-truth-about-pakistan) on 10 November 2013. Retrieved
29 January 2019.

106. "Mission Statement of the Indian Reunification Association" (https://indicanews.com/2019/02/07/missio

n-statement-of-the-indian-reunification-association/) . Indica News. 7 February 2019.

107. Markandey Katju (10 April 2017). "India And Pakistan Must Reunite For Their Mutual Good" (https://www.
huffingtonpost.in/markandey-katju/india-and-pakistan-must-reunite-for-their-mutual-good_a_2203315
8/) . The Huffington Post.

108. Yousaf, Nasim (9 October 2009). "Pakistan and India: The Case for Unification (NYCAS)" (https://web.arc
hive.org/web/20120209020135/http://www.allamamashraqi.com/images/Pakistan_and_India_-_The_Ca
se_for_Unification..pdf) (PDF). New York Conference on Asian Studies. Archived from the original (htt
p://www.allamamashraqi.com/images/Pakistan_and_India_-_The_Case_for_Unification..pdf) (PDF) on
2012-02-09. Retrieved 2020-04-03.

109. Gautier, François (2008). A new history of India. Har-Anand Publications. p. 206.

External links

The tragedy of Partition (https://www.deccanherald.com/content/270909/tragedy-partition.

html) - Deccan Herald

Facts Don't Back The Argument That Most Indian Muslims Wanted Partition by Rupa
Subramanya (https://www.huffingtonpost.in/rupa-subramanya/facts-dont-back-the-argument-
that-most-indian-muslims-wanted-pa_a_22488885/) - The Huffington Post
 Gandhi opposed Partition by Mohammed Ayoob (https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/g
andhi-opposed-partition/article25570495.ece) - The Hindu

At Oxford, a stereotype on Partition is busted (https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/at-oxford

-a-stereotype-on-partition-is-busted/cid/1339828) - The Telegraph

Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947 (https://archive.org/details/m
uslim-league-attack-on-sikhs-and-hindus-in-the-punjab-1947-gurbachan-singh-talib-ram-swar
up/) - Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Opposition_to_the_partition_of_India&oldid=1
103066005"

Last edited 5 days ago by ArvindPalaskar