Islamic Terrorism in India

Most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims

The Seeds Of Partition Were Sown 80 Years Before 1947

Posted by jagoindia on September 22, 2009

At Meerut, on March 16, 1888, Sir Syed referred to Hindus and Muslims as two nations, in fact as two warring nations who could not lead a common political life if ever the British left India.

So who was really responsible for Partition?
September 17, 2009

Sanjeev Nayyar

Jaswant Singh’s book has raised a fresh controversy on who was responsible for the Partition of India. Some think it was Mohammed Ali Jinnah; others say Jawharlal Nehru/Sardar Patel. The truth is that the seeds for Partition were sown at least 80 years before Partition actually happened.

Dr B R Ambedkar wrote in 1941, ‘The curious may examine the history of the 1857 mutiny, if he does, he will find that in part at any rate it was actually a jihad proclaimed by the Muslims against the British that owing to the occupation of India by the British the country had become Dar-ul-Harb’ (See Thoughts on Pakistan). This is substantiated by Professor Sheshrao More in The 1857 Jihad (Manas Publications). It is because Muslims took an active part in the 1857 mutiny that the British were anti-Muslim in the early post-mutiny period.

With the advent of British rule Muslim insecurity leapfrogged.

The condition of Muslims was best stated by a liberal, R M Sayani, in his presidential address at the 12th session of the Congress in 1896: ‘Before the advent of the British in India, the Muslims were the rulers of the country. The rulers and their chiefs were Muslims, so were the great landlords and officials. The court language was their own (Persian was the official language of India till 1842)… The Hindus were in awe of them. By a stroke of misfortune, the Muslims had to abdicate their position and descend to the level of their Hindu fellow-countrymen. The Muslims resented the treatment.’

Sayani argued that when the British introduced English education in the country, the Hindus embraced it, but Muslims resented competing with the Hindus, whom they once regarded as their inferiors. Hence Muslims were gradually ousted from their lands and offices, while Hindus rose under the Raj [History and Culture of Indian People, Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, Vol. X: 295]

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan came at a critical juncture in the 1870s, and worked for a political rapprochement with the British. They were swayed in 1857, but a little tact and generous forgiveness could change Muslims into loyal supporters. Sir Syed conceived the idea of a Muslim college like Oxford and Cambridge — the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh. At Meerut, on March 16, 1888, Sir Syed referred to Hindus and Muslims as two nations, in fact as two warring nations who could not lead a common political life if ever the British left India.

For the British, Sir Syed’s overtures came at a very opportune moment. After two generations of English education, Hindus showed signs of political development. The British seized the opportunity offered by Sir Syed of enlisting the support of the politically undeveloped Muslims as a counterpoise to the progressive Hindu community.

Differences were accentuated in connection with the legislation for local self-government on an elective basis, and for the first time a demand was made for separate representation for Muslims. Said Muhammad Yusuf on May 3, 1883, “But it would be an advantage and more fit recognition of the claims of the Muslim population if provision could be made in the bill for the election of Muslims by reserving a certain number of membership for that community.”

The divide was visible in the number and frequency of Hindu-Muslim riots thereafter.

The British role in India’s division is best summed up by Sardar Patel. He said on August 9, 1945, “The British talk of Hindu-Muslim quarrels, but who has thrust the burden on their shoulders? Give me just a week’s rule over Britain; I will create such disagreements that England, Wales and Scotland will fight one another for ever” (Patel — A Life by Rajmohan Gandhi).

So when was Pakistan conceived? Dr Ambedkar wrote in 1941, “There is evidence that some of them knew this to be the ultimate destiny of the Muslims as early as 1923. In support of this reference may be made to the evidence of Khan Saheb Sardar M Gulkhan (who was president, Islamic Anjuman, Dera Ismail Khan) who appeared as witness before the NWF Committee to report upon the administrative relationship between the settled area of NWFP and the tribal area and upon the amalgamation of the settled districts with Punjab [ Images ].

“Many believe the Khilafat Movement (1919), a protest by Indian Muslims against Turkey’s abolition of the Caliph, religious leader of the Arab world, to be the first step towards India’s Partition. Gandhi spearheaded this movement but failed to realise that the Pan-Islamic idea cut at the very root of Indian nationality. What did the movement achieve?

“First, Muslim fanaticism secured a position of prestige in Indian politics; thereafter their religious loyalty took precedence over national loyalty. Two, the Muslim population hitherto divided among various groups and political pulls now became a solid force. Three, a new fanatic leadership riding on the crest of the Khilafat wave came to wield the reigns of the Muslim leadership.”

Could the Hindus have avoided Partition? Not if you believe the above-quoted words of Dr Ambedkar.

The British had ensured that the armed forces consisted primarily of Muslim soldiers from the area that is modern day Pakistan. They sought to justify this predominance by saying that men of the north-west belonged to the martial classes.

Some studies show that the predominance of the men of the north-west took place as early as the mutiny of 1857, some 20 years before the theory of martial and non-martial classes were projected in a distinct form in 1879. Their predominance was due to the fact that they had helped the British suppress the mutiny in which the Bengal army was completely involved. The British changed the composition of the Indian army [ Images ] between 1914 and 1930.

After 1930 there is no information available on the communal composition of the Indian Army. Some believed that Muslims constituted 60-70 percent. Obviously it was high enough to cause alarm to the Hindus. Veer Savarkar was probably one of the few leaders who kept exhorting Hindus to join the Indian Army in large numbers.

My conclusion, hence, is that:

It is a myth that Nehru, Jinnah or Patel were responsible for Partition. They were merely implementing a partition plan scripted in the 19th century.

Hindus were apprehensive that Muslims wanted to rule India again. Muslims feared that under the principal of one man one vote, it would be a government for and by the Hindus.

Separate electorates for Muslims, reservations, caste and religion-based divisions are some of the tactics used by the British to divide India

All those who wish to know the underlying thoughts behind Partition should read Dr B R Ambedkar’s book Thoughts on Pakistan back to back.

Sanjeev Nayyar is the founder of

4 Responses to “The Seeds Of Partition Were Sown 80 Years Before 1947”

  1. S said

    Mr. Sanjeev Nayyar, it is pointless to say that the British were responsible for the partition. Have you read the 1400 year old history of jihad and the behaviour of muhmmadans towards the Kafirs (Hindus) ? Do you understand that most of your major temples were destroyed by muhammadans, including, but not limited to, Mahakaal Temple at Ujjain and Somnath ? Do you not know that Qutub Minar was a Hindu temple ? That Jama Masjid stands on the site of temples ? That the muhammadans destroyed 10,000 temples in the city of Kannauj ?

    And if I agreed with you and blamed the British for the partition of India, would that explain the terrorism in Kashmir, the sole state in India where the muhammadans are a majority ? Would it explain the everyday riots in U.P. ?

    I am not saying that the Brits were right in colonizing India, they were on a looting spree, as were most of the Europeans at that time, and they can only be described as uncivilized savages but at least they did not try to wipe out all traces of Hinduism from India, and they did not destroy the temples of Hindus. Compared to the British, the muhammadans can only be described as beasts, beneath animals.

    Mr. Sanjeev Nayyar, you must understand, as must a lot of people in Europe, that islam is the problem.

  2. hindu terrorist said

    The seeds of partition were sown in 718 AD. when the first muslim invader of hindu India, mohammed bin kassem al thaqafi, from basra defeated the hindu raja dhahir in sindh, and planted the flag of islam.
    We are taught to hate british, but the british were civilised people. They looted us economically, (thats what colonies are for) but they didnt destroy our culture. Also, the analysis given above is right. The british Indian army in 1946, – the best institution the british ever created – was not 60-70% but 30%. Full one third of the army was muslims, who predominantly came from the so-called martial race. Punjabi muslims and pathans. The hindu martial races were also represented, sikhs, jats, rajputs, marathas. But since an overwhelming 30% of the army was muslim and came from that area that they were asking for pakistan, the british had to give in. (After partition, 97% of the Indian army is hindu/sikh, only 3% is muslim. Remove 2 regiments, J&K rifles and J&K light Infantry it is almost 99% hindu) The army is the consoloditor of power, since time immemorial. If the army regiments start fighting the civil war amongst themselves, it will lead to a holocaust, and bloodbath. Hence, along with the idiots in congress, the british too surrendered to muslim threats. Basically to avoid a bloodbath.

  3. hindu militant said

    This is right analysis. The british were not responsible for partition. The british view was that united India is the best gift we are giving to India. But the muslims were adamant. The british Indian army, the best institution the british created, was 30% muslim in 1946, which mainly comprised of punjabi muslims and pathans, of the NWFP the areas they were asking for pakistan. Not 60-70% as stated above. If the army regiments start fighting against each other, or worse against members of the opposing community, it will create a blood bath. The army is the consolidator of power. Since time immemorial. hence the british were also forced to accept partition to avoid a bloodbath. AFTER independence, the Indian army is 97% hindu/sikh. Only 3% muslims that too only 2 regiments, the J&K rifles, and J&K light infantry, if these 2 regiments ar also removed the army is 99% hindu.

  4. Dr. O. P. Sudrania said

    Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, also the founder of AMU, did raise the point initially and the British picked it up. Under the same plan they caused the first division of Bengal at the dawn of the last century, which was subsequently reversed within a few years.

    It is also true that Jinnah was not communal in the beginning and even left India to start practice in England and was brought back by Liyaqat Ali to lead the Muslim politics. After the Lahore Muslim League Conference following Dhaka, Jinnah picked the baton for Muslims militantly.

    Both Jinnah and Nehru were as well as Sheikh Abdullah were all self centered politicians. Least concerned with the country or the people. Non of them could be classed pro-people in the least.

    As observed rightly by someone above British were European watfayerers and came for loot, not for religion and I agree with this observation.

    Then British at that time like most of Europe were suffering from utter poverty and destitution. They were least bothered for religious ideology. Even now, religion is secondary to the westerns as opposed to Muslims. Muslims consider themselves first Muslims then only anything else. This was remarked by Ambassador Henrrietta Isom also in her article published in East Oregonian late last year quoting a study in Pakistan.

    Lastly Muslims tend to be more loyal to Quran than local jurisprudence and social customs which unfortunately is considered
    inferior by them. Lately there is a spate of “Islamic Apologists” all over including US where Obama is also cleverly playing his dual card of appeasing Muslims on one hand and keeping his link with US through presenting himself as a Western loyalist through his Christian faith intact.

    Who divided and why divided India is a long chapter and longer the time lapses, more mist will surround it with more and more intense controversies. That may not serve any purpose for a practical solution of current problems. Because at that time there was UK only and now there are multiple forces competing and acting against the same ideology from outside the borders eyeing on this territory.

    The present problems as we blame Pakistan are not without the covert support of those external inimical forces and sources. The current unclassified documents from both US and UK will through more light on it. But that is a different issue.

    Presently India is lumbered more with her own internal political bickerings most of them are legacies of Nehru and his dynasty. I see no reprieve at the moment. Pakistan is a failed country, but India is on its verge with both internal and external divisive forces until some drastic measures are taken.

    Currently the chances of such acute reform seem very remote. Till that time, the world itself has to see a sea change in its milieu as regards the various religious and political forces competing with each other invincibly covertly and overtly.

    I believe next couple of years should be crucial to unfold its plans globally. Because the world has been brought so close and compact that today nothing called “loco-regional” will remain confined.

    The knowledge of the past is good, but the point is that we hardly
    take any lessons from “History” and the history keeps repeating itself. In fact the last century has seen the worst wars in the history and war related crimes too, as the science progressed.

    God bless
    Dr. O. P. Sudrania

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: