Hyderabad: As India marked another Republic Day recently, it is worth revisiting the events that led to its birth in 1947 – and the accompanying trauma of Partition. The division of the subcontinent displaced millions, unleashed horrific communal violence, and left behind wounds that continue to shape India and Pakistan’s relations even today.
Popular narratives often lay the blame at the feet of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his demand for Pakistan. Yet, a closer look supported by several historians and political observers suggests that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and the Congress leadership may have been equally, if not more, responsible for the tragic division. Many believe that a more accommodating approach by Congress could have kept the subcontinent united.
Former Andhra Pradesh law minister Asif Pasha was among those who held this view. The senior Congress leader, who died last month, days before the release of his biography, “No Regrets,” argues that the roots of Partition were planted long before Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, rose to prominence. He traces the origins back to 1909, when the British introduced separate electorates under the Indian Councils Act, also known as the Morley-Minto Reforms. This system allowed Muslims to elect their own representatives apart from the Hindu majority, thereby institutionalising communal divisions in Indian politics.
While conceived as a safeguard for minorities, the new arrangement gradually hardened religious identities and distanced communities in the public sphere. Over time, it created the mindset that politics must necessarily be community-based, paving the way for the Muslim League’s eventual call for a separate homeland. “Once the British legitimised communal representation, it became difficult to re-imagine Indian nationalism in purely secular or inclusive terms,” Pasha observed.
But if the seeds were sown by the colonial rulers, Indian leaders, too, made choices that widened the rift. The 1946 British Cabinet Mission Plan, Pasha said, seemed to offer a viable middle path. The plan proposed a loose federal structure with wide provincial autonomy, particularly for Muslim-majority provinces, while keeping India united. Jinnah and the Muslim League accepted it, seeing in it a formula that would allay Muslim fears of Hindu domination.
However, Nehru’s response altered the course of history. At a press conference, he asserted that the Constituent Assembly would not be bound by the plan, effectively undermining its binding nature. This remark shattered the fragile consensus, drove Jinnah to abandon the plan and revive the demand for Pakistan with greater intensity. “Nehru’s insistence on a strong central government was perceived by many as dismissing Muslim concerns about majoritarian rule,” Pasha pointed out in his book.
Several contemporaries, including Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, later lamented this moment as a tragic turning point. Azad, who became India’s first education minister, wrote in his memoir “India Wins Freedom” that Nehru’s approach had undermined national unity and squandered a historic opportunity to address legitimate Muslim apprehensions.
Mahatma Gandhi, steadfast in his pursuit of Hindu-Muslim harmony, went so far as to suggest making Jinnah the Prime Minister to avert Partition. Gandhi believed that such a gesture could have preserved unity. But by then, real power within Congress had shifted decisively to Nehru and Sardar Patel. The latter, though initially opposed to the idea of Partition, eventually endorsed it as the most practical way to end what seemed like perpetual internal conflict and bloodshed.
The combination of British policies like separate electorates and the political missteps of Indian leaders steadily deepened the communal divide until it became unbridgeable. Thus, Partition appeared less like a choice and more like an inevitability, though many believe it could still have been avoided with more foresight and flexibility.
“Understanding Partition in its full complexity means confronting these uncomfortable truths – not to assign blame, but to draw lessons from history,” says Pasha. The temptation to blame Jinnah as the sole architect of India’s division oversimplifies a far more tangled story.
As the subcontinent continues to grapple with rising communal polarisation, border tensions and competing nationalisms, the Partition debate remains painfully relevant.
This post was last modified on January 28, 2026 7:52 pm