The Partition of India: Muslim League, Electoral Dynamics, and the Two-Nation Theory

The partition of India in 1947, creating India and Pakistan, was a defining moment in South Asian history, driven by British colonial policies, communal politics, and the failure of Hindu-Muslim unity. The All-India Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, secured a mandate for Pakistan through its elected members, while the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Hindu Mahasabha fueled communal polarization by endorsing a Hindu-centric Two-Nation Theory. This article chronicles the key events leading to partition, examines the Muslim League’s electoral role, details voting dynamics, and analyzes the ideological contributions of Hindu nationalist groups, drawing on verified sources.

Chronological Progression of Events

1. 1857–1905: Colonial Roots of Communal Divide
   • The 1857 Indian Rebellion led to direct British rule, with the “divide and rule” policy exploiting Hindu-Muslim differences to maintain control (Wolpert, 2009).
   • In 1905, Viceroy Lord Curzon partitioned Bengal into Muslim-majority Eastern Bengal and Hindu-majority Bengal, sparking Hindu-led protests and the Swadeshi movement. The partition, reversed in 1911, heightened communal consciousness among Muslims (Metcalf & Metcalf, 2006).
2. 1906: Formation of the Muslim League
   • On December 30, 1906, the All-India Muslim League was founded in Dhaka to safeguard Muslim interests against the perceived Hindu bias of the Indian National Congress (Jalal, 1985). Led by Nawab Salimullah and Aga Khan III, it demanded separate electorates, granted by the 1909 Morley-Minto Reforms, institutionalizing communal voting (Wolpert, 2009).
3. 1915–1916: Hindu Mahasabha and Lucknow Pact
   • In 1915, the Hindu Mahasabha was established by Madan Mohan Malaviya to advocate Hindu interests, later led by V.D. Savarkar, who promoted Hindutva (Jaffrelot, 1996).
   • The 1916 Lucknow Pact saw the Congress and Muslim League unite for self-governance, with Congress accepting separate electorates. This unity was fragile, as communal tensions persisted (Chandra et al., 1989).
4. 1925: Rise of the RSS
   • On September 27, 1925, K.B. Hedgewar founded the RSS to promote Hindu unity and a Hindu Rashtra. Influenced by Savarkar’s Hindutva, the RSS viewed Muslims as cultural threats, fostering communal polarization through shakhas (Andersen & Damle, 1987).
5. 1928–1930: Nehru Report and Two-Nation Ideation
   • The 1928 Nehru Report proposed a unitary constitution with joint electorates, rejecting Muslim League demands. Jinnah’s Fourteen Points (1929) sought safeguards like separate electorates, but Congress’s rejection pushed him toward separatism (Jalal, 1985).
   • In 1930, Allama Iqbal proposed a separate Muslim state in northwest India, laying the ideological foundation for the Two-Nation Theory (Wolpert, 2009).
6. 1937: Provincial Elections and Communal Tensions
   • The 1936–37 elections, under the Government of India Act 1935, had a restricted electorate of 30 million (15% of adults), limited to property owners and taxpayers (Brown, 1994). The Congress won 711 of 1,585 seats, while the Muslim League secured 106, failing to form governments. Congress’s refusal to share power in provinces like Uttar Pradesh alienated the League (Jalal, 1985).
   • Savarkar, as Hindu Mahasabha president, articulated the Two-Nation Theory in 1937, declaring Hindus and Muslims as “two antagonistic nations” (Savarkar, 1969). This mirrored Jinnah’s rhetoric, fueling communal divides.
7. 1940: Lahore Resolution
   • On March 23, 1940, the Muslim League’s Lahore Resolution, moved by A.K. Fazlul Huq, demanded “independent states” in Muslim-majority regions, formalizing the Pakistan demand. Jinnah’s Two-Nation Theory argued that Hindus and Muslims were distinct nations (Jalal, 1985). The RSS and Hindu Mahasabha’s Hindu Rashtra rhetoric, as in Golwalkar’s We or Our Nationhood Defined (1939), reinforced this separatism (Golwalkar, 1939).
8. 1942: Quit India and Communal Alliances
   • The Congress’s Quit India Movement (August 1942) demanded British withdrawal, leading to arrests of its leaders. The Muslim League supported the British war effort, gaining influence, while the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha opposed the movement, aligning with British interests (Sarkar, 1983).
   • The Hindu Mahasabha formed coalitions with the League in Sindh, Bengal, and the North-West Frontier Province. In Bengal, Syama Prasad Mookerjee served under Fazlul Huq’s League-led government, normalizing communal politics (Jaffrelot, 1996).
9. 1945: Simla Conference
   • The June 1945 Simla Conference, convened by Viceroy Wavell, treated the Congress and Muslim League as representatives of Hindus and Muslims, respectively, sidelining the Hindu Mahasabha. Jinnah’s veto power strengthened the League’s demand for Pakistan (Wolpert, 2009).
10. 1946: Provincial Elections and Muslim League’s Mandate
    • Electoral Dynamics:
      • The 1945–46 elections had an electorate of 41 million (28% of adults), restricted by property and literacy qualifications. Of 92 million Muslims (24% of 386.6 million total population), 9 million (25% of 37 million adult Muslims) were eligible to vote, primarily male elites (Brown, 1994).
      • Separate electorates allowed only Muslims to vote for 492 reserved Muslim seats (31% of 1,585 total seats) (Talbot, 1998).
    • Election Results:
      • The Congress won 923 seats (58.23%), while the Muslim League secured 425 of 496 Muslim seats (87%), validating its claim to represent Muslims (Talbot, 1998). The League won all 30 Muslim seats in the Central Legislative Assembly.
      • Estimated Muslim voter turnout was 50–60% (4.5–5.4 million), with the League securing 4–4.5 million votes (50–55% of eligible Muslim voters, 10–12% of total Muslim population) (Hardy, 1972).
    • Role of Elected Members:
      • Elected League members, including Liaquat Ali Khan, A.K. Fazlul Huq, and Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, leveraged their mandate in the Constituent Assembly and provincial legislatures to push for Pakistan. In Punjab, the League won 73 of 86 Muslim seats but was blocked by a Unionist-Congress-Sikh coalition. In Bengal, it won 113 of 119 Muslim seats, forming a ministry (Jalal, 1985).
      • These elites, often landowners and lawyers, mobilized support through religious networks, portraying Pakistan as an Islamic state, though its definition remained vague (Talbot, 1998).
    • Majority of Voters:
      • Muslim voters were primarily male landowners, professionals, and religious leaders. In Muslim-minority provinces (e.g., United Provinces), urban elites supported the League, fearing Hindu dominance. In Muslim-majority provinces, landowners and pirs rallied voters (Hardy, 1972).
11. 1946: Communal Violence
    • The League’s “Direct Action Day” on August 16, 1946, triggered the Great Calcutta Killing (4,000–10,000 deaths), followed by riots in Bengal, Bihar, and Punjab. The RSS and Hindu Mahasabha’s anti-Muslim rhetoric, including calls for Hindu militarization, escalated tensions (Sarkar, 1983). The violence convinced Congress leaders like Vallabhbhai Patel that partition was necessary to avert civil war (Chandra et al., 1989).
12. 1947: Punjab Coalition Collapse
    • In Punjab, the Unionist-led coalition under Khizar Hayat Tiwana collapsed on March 2, 1947, after League-led protests and riots. Governor’s Rule was imposed on March 5, signaling the inevitability of Punjab’s division (Talbot, 1998).
13. 1947: Cabinet Mission Failure
    • The 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan proposed a federal India with grouped provinces but collapsed due to Congress-League disagreements over power-sharing. Elected League members, like Liaquat Ali Khan in the Interim Government, obstructed unity efforts, demanding partition (Wolpert, 2009).
14. 1947: Mountbatten Plan
    • Viceroy Lord Mountbatten, appointed in March 1947, announced the partition plan on June 3, 1947, dividing British India, Punjab, and Bengal based on religious majorities. The plan included referendums in the North-West Frontier Province and Sylhet, and a Boundary Commission under Cyril Radcliffe (Metcalf & Metcalf, 2006).
    • Accepted by Congress, the League, and Sikh leaders, the Indian Independence Act (July 18, 1947) created India and Pakistan on August 15, 1947. Elected League members, including Liaquat Ali Khan, ensured Pakistan’s creation (Jalal, 1985).
15. 1947: Post-Partition Role of League Members
    • Twenty-seven Muslim League members remained in India’s Constituent Assembly, elected from areas allocated to India. Figures like Begum Aizaz Rasul contributed to India’s Constitution, with some later migrating to Pakistan (Talbot, 1998).
16. August 1947: Partition and Aftermath
    • The Radcliffe Line triggered mass migration (14–18 million) and violence (200,000–2 million deaths). The RSS and Hindu Mahasabha aided Hindu-Sikh refugees but fueled anti-Muslim violence. Disputes over Kashmir, Hyderabad, and Junagadh sparked conflicts (Metcalf & Metcalf, 2006).

Role of the Two-Nation Theory in RSS and Hindu Mahasabha

• Hindu Mahasabha:
  • Savarkar’s 1937 speech declared Hindus and Muslims as “two antagonistic nations” (Savarkar, 1969). His Hindutva (1923) excluded Muslims from India’s nationhood, advocating their marginalization. The Mahasabha’s coalitions with the League in Sindh, Bengal, and NWFP normalized communal politics (Jaffrelot, 1996).
  • B.R. Ambedkar noted the alignment, stating, “Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah… agree… that there are two nations” (Ambedkar, 1940).
• RSS:
  • Golwalkar’s We or Our Nationhood Defined (1939) defined only Hindus as the nation, labeling non-Hindus as threats (Golwalkar, 1939). The RSS’s shakhas promoted anti-Muslim sentiment, contributing to communal violence (Andersen & Damle, 1987).
  • The RSS’s opposition to Quit India and alignment with British interests indirectly aided the League’s separatism (Sarkar, 1983).
• Impact:
  • The RSS and Hindu Mahasabha’s Two-Nation Theory mirrored the League’s rhetoric, validating Pakistan’s demand and undermining coexistence. Their rhetoric and coalitions fueled the communal violence that made partition inevitable (Jaffrelot, 1996).

Voting Dynamics and Muslim League’s Mandate

• Who Could Vote:
  • The 1946 electorate of 41 million (28% of adults) was restricted to property owners and literates. Of 92 million Muslims, 9 million (25% of 37 million adults) were eligible, mostly male elites (Hardy, 1972).
• Majority of Voters:
  • Muslim voters were landowners, professionals, and religious leaders. Urban elites in minority provinces and rural pirs in majority provinces supported the League (Talbot, 1998).
• Total Muslim Votes:
  • With 50–60% turnout, 4.5–5.4 million Muslims voted, with the League securing 4–4.5 million votes (50–55% of eligible voters, 10–12% of Muslims) (Hardy, 1972).

Conclusion

The partition of India resulted from British policies, Muslim League separatism, Congress missteps, and Hindu nationalist ideologies. Elected Muslim League members, leveraging 4–4.5 million votes from a 9-million-strong elite electorate, secured Pakistan’s creation. The RSS and Hindu Mahasabha’s Two-Nation Theory, paralleling the League’s, fueled communal divides, making partition inevitable. The legacy of mass migration, violence, and geopolitical rivalry continues to shape South Asia.

References

1. Ambedkar, B.R. (1940). Pakistan or the Partition of India. Bombay: Thacker & Co.
2. Andersen, W.K., & Damle, S.D. (1987). The Brotherhood in Saffron: The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Hindu Revivalism. Boulder: Westview Press.
3. Brown, J.M. (1994). Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Chandra, B., Mukherjee, M., Mukherjee, A., Panikkar, K.N., & Mahajan, S. (1989). India’s Struggle for Independence. New Delhi: Penguin Books.
5. Golwalkar, M.S. (1939). We or Our Nationhood Defined. Nagpur: Bharat Prakashan.
6. Hardy, P. (1972). The Muslims of British India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Jaffrelot, C. (1996). The Hindu Nationalist Movement in India. New York: Columbia University Press.
8. Jalal, A. (1985). The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Metcalf, B.D., & Metcalf, T.R. (2006). A Concise History of Modern India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Sarkar, S. (1983). Modern India: 1885–1947. New Delhi: Macmillan.
11. Savarkar, V.D. (1969). Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? (5th ed.). Bombay: Veer Savarkar Prakashan.
12. Talbot, I. (1998). Pakistan: A Modern History. London: Hurst & Company.
13. Wolpert, S. (2009). A New History of India (8th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.