Why did the Partition of India take place? Was it the inevitable result of a Subcontinent divided by religion and facing a power vacuum at the end of the Raj? Or was it a chance occurrence, arising from a unique set of historical circumstances? Many believe that, in fact, nobody was particularly keen on Partition — yet it happened anyway. A confluence of complex socio-economic realities and political compulsions in the wake of an intense and troubled colonial encounter provided a setting for the simultaneous climax of Partition and Independence amidst the dying embers of the British Raj.
The dissolution of British imperial authority in 1947 was as remarkable an event of modern times as was the camel-in-the-tent entry of the empire into the Subcontinent in the first place. The epic that was Partition continues to be perhaps the most tragic and controversial event of our times. Some commentators plead for an erasure of the memory of Partition, rather than to remind each generation of this crucial but painful outcome of the struggle for freedom. Literary evidence is adduced to illustrate the public's disillusionment with the leadership for having accepted the dismemberment of the country, and several related theses remain strong in popular literature and opinion. First, that Partition was demanded by the Muslim League and its leader, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and that the Indian National Congress resisted it until nearly the end. Second, that the constituent assembly election of 1946 proved that the Muslim masses endorsed the Pakistan proposal by voting for the Muslim League. Third, that the bitter experience of the Calcutta killings of August 1946, in the wake of Jinnah's call for Direct Action, changed the nature of the entire political movement.
It is understandable that the sensibilities of literary celebrities – concerned more with the human dimension of Partition than with the dilemma of those involved in the related negotiations – would inevitably differ from historical writings. Similarly, the emotive sensibilities of literary creations are bound to be more profoundly moving than are their prosaic historical counterparts. But if Jinnah was opposed to majority rule, and the myth of nationalism was exploded by the Pakistan resolution, then what were the alternative options that were available but not accepted?
The legacy of Partition still haunts the collective consciousness of the Subcontinent. It has bedevilled good-neighbourly relations between the two sovereign states of India and Pakistan in the endless questioning: Who, exactly, was responsible for this sordid political drama? The British, the Indian National Congress, the Muslim League – all have been blamed. Both Jinnah and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi have also shared the limelight for their political designs and attitudes, and, according to many, must share the responsibility for Partition. But the complex process of understanding why Jinnah chose to snap his bonds of nationalism and began to champion the cause of what he called 'Muslim India' raise several crucial questions. When did this journey from nationalism to communalism begin? When did Jinnah wear the mantle of aggressive communalism, and why? Why this metamorphosis from the liberal Jinnah to the 'anti-Hindu' Jinnah? What kind of transformation took place in the Indian political scenario to bring the relations between Hindus and Muslims to a point of no return?