• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Trending:
  • Kashmir
  • Elections
Saturday, June 20, 2026

Daily Times

Your right to know

  • HOME
  • Latest
  • Iran-Israel war
  • Gilgit Baltistan Election
  • Pakistan
    • Balochistan
    • Gilgit Baltistan
    • Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
    • Punjab
    • Sindh
  • World
  • Editorials & Opinions
    • Editorials
    • Op-Eds
    • Commentary / Insight
    • Perspectives
    • Cartoons
    • Letters to the Editor
    • Featured
    • Blogs
      • Pakistan
      • World
      • Lifestyle
      • Culture
      • Sports
  • Business
  • Sports
  • E-PAPER
    • Lahore
    • Islamabad
    • Karachi
Ahmad Faruqui

Ahmad Faruqui

<em>The writer can be reached at [email protected]</em>

The bloody legacy of partition

Published on: March 7, 2018 1:00 AM

The Second World War had bankrupted the United Kingdom. It was in no position to continue holding on to the British Empire. The first to go would be India, home to 400 million of the 500 million subjects of Her Majesty.

Prime Minister Clement Attlee surprisingly defeated the war hero Winston Churchill in the elections of 1945. After reviewing the options for giving dominions status to India, Attlee concluded that there was no way to reduce the communal hatred that had erupted between the warring communities in India. In Churchill’s phrase, a ‘shameful flight’ happened as the British panicked, divided India, and quit.

The partition of 1947 dislocated more some 10-15 million people and killed between 1-2 million. Writers continue to analyse why partition happened, assess its immediate consequences, and apportion blame.

In ‘Midnight Furies,’ Nisid Hajari pushes the envelope by asking why partition instituted perpetual enmity between India and Pakistan.

Jinnah, the man who had passionately advocated the creation of Pakistan, had said that the only way to end the communal hatred in India was to put the warring communities into two countries, Hindustan and Pakistan. He had argued they would live in peace.

In putting forward the concept of Pakistan and negotiating its creation with the Congress on the one hand and the British on the other, Jinnah faced an unenviable task. It was made more difficult by the aloof nature of his personality.

The only advisor Jinnah had was apparently Jinnah himself. In one meeting, Jinnah had said once Pakistan was created, his followers would regard his word as the word of God. A premier of Punjab had said that a better name for Pakistan would be Jinnistan.

His successor, Khizar Hayat Khan, continued the long running battle with Jinnah. He had ruled Punjab through an inclusive “unionist” government comprised of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. The League’s two-nation theory was exclusivist. Jinnah tried without much success to turn him around because he knew there would be no Pakistan without Punjab.

In Kashmir the popular Muslim leader, Shaikh Abdullah, ‘had rejected the demands for Pakistan, insisting that Hindus and Muslims were one people, and India one nation.”

The carnage that followed the partition was comparable to what had happened during the horrific battle of Somme in the Great War. In one part of Punjab, ‘the killings stopped when there was no one left to kill.’ In another area, ‘Vultures feasted so extravagantly that they could no longer fly’

Even the Aga Khan had voiced his concerns: “The bitter enmity now raised by the League and its leaders will have to be paid for a hundred percent.’

At the end of March 1946, Jinnah had consulted with Lt.-Gen. Sir Arthur Smith, the deputy commander-in-chief of the British Indian Army, about the security of Pakistan. The general had stated unequivocally that without a full Punjab and a full Bengal, Pakistan wouldn’t survive. This gave Jinnah pause and ‘barely a year before independence, Jinnah essentially gave up the demand for Pakistan.’

But soon the Pakistan fever returned. Among other initiatives, he started a secret correspondence with Winston Churchill who ended up putting his support behind the idea of Pakistan, turning around many skeptical members of parliament. This has led Alex von Tunzelmann to call him Pakistan’s uncle.

To push his argument, Jinnah famously declared to much applause among the Muslims: ‘We will have India divided or India destroyed.’ Eventually the Crown granted his wish. But what he got was a ‘moth-eaten’ Pakistan.

The carnage that followed the partition was comparable to what had happened during the horrific battle of Somme in the Great War. In one part of Punjab, ‘the killings stopped when there was no one left to kill.’ In another area, ‘Vultures feasted so extravagantly that they could no longer fly.’

People who had lived together as neighbours for centuries, who spoke the same language, ate the same food, played the same games, and dressed in the same clothes, people who had fought together as comrades in arms during the two world wars, turned on each other with a ferocity that would put wild beasts to shame.

Saadat Hasan Manto, the great Urdu writer who migrated from India to Pakistan, wrote graphically about the horrors of partition. He lamented that in his mind, he ‘could not separate India from Pakistan, and Pakistan from India.’

After independence, concerned about the menace of provincialism, Jinnah imposed Urdu as the official language of Pakistan. At Dacca University on 24 March, 1948, Jinnah stated that ‘the state language of Pakistan is going to be Urdu and no other language. Anyone who tries to mislead you is the real enemy of Pakistan.’

The Bengali students jeered and “leaped onto their seats and shouted, ‘No, no!’ as he spoke. The Quaid seemed taken aback, and paused for a moment before resuming his speech. He held no other public meetings before returning to Karachi at the end of the month. It was his first and last visit to East Bengal.”

In 1952, language riots erupted in East Pakistan, the first signs of a fissure between the East and the West. In the decades that followed, relations deteriorated as the Bengalis felt discriminated against and exploited by the West. When they won the national elections in 1970, the army, drawn almost entirely from the West, refused to transfer power to them. The ensuring civil war and subsequent war with India resulted in the secession of East Pakistan where 55 percent of the population resided. The Muslims of India were now divided across three countries.

In October 1947, war broke out in Kashmir. What appeared to be an independent incursion by a few thousand tribesmen who had embarked on a holy war to seize Kashmir quickly turned into a full-scale war between the armies of Pakistan and India a few months later, with Jinnah’s authorisation.

The UN mediated a ceasefire on January 1, 1949, with the understanding that a plebiscite would be carried out in Kashmir once both parties had withdrawn their forces. Since neither side was willing to withdraw its forces, the plebiscite was doomed never to see the light of day.

Maj.-Gen. Akbar Khan, who had led the campaign in Kashmir under the code name of General Tariq, became frustrated with Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, Jinnah’s deputy, and sought to depose him in 1951. The coup failed and he was arrested.

However, in 1958 another army general pulled off a coup. Ayub, ‘the man of steel,’ said he was the true heir to Jinnah and imposed martial law, which would have been anathema to Jinnah. Ayub created a new capital, Islamabad. He would be followed by three other men of steel making similar claims of being saviours of the nation and fight losing wars with India.

When creating Pakistan, Jinnah had not anticipated that the country would be governed by the military or that it would turn into an Islamic Republic. He did not anticipate that wars with India would become a fixture of daily life. Nor did he imagine that East Pakistan would secede.

He had thought that India would be called Hindustan after partition. But it retained its name and Pakistan was viewed as the seceding country.

Jinnah did not live to see that the nation he had created turn into a totally different nation. The phrase, ‘two nation theory,’ had acquired yet another meaning.

The author has written Rethinking the National Security of Pakistan. [email protected]

Published in Daily Times, March 7th 2018.

Filed Under: Commentary / Insight

Submit a Comment




Primary Sidebar




Latest News

PM Shehbaz, Saudi Crown Prince agree on economic package amid Iran–US diplomacy push

Minister takes notice of deaths due to contaminated food

Lawmakers hail Pakistan diplomatic success, call for economic stability

PRAC slams Sindh budget for ‘ignoring’ local governments

James Burrows, legendary director behind Friends and Cheers, dies at 85

Pakistan

PM Shehbaz, Saudi Crown Prince agree on economic package amid Iran–US diplomacy push

Minister takes notice of deaths due to contaminated food

Lawmakers hail Pakistan diplomatic success, call for economic stability

PRAC slams Sindh budget for ‘ignoring’ local governments

Seven killed, three injured in twin explosions in KP’s Bannu district

More Posts from this Category

Business

Pakistan aims to bring 3.5 million shopkeepers into tax net this fiscal year

KP presents Rs2.17tr budget for FY27

KP budget tied to Imran Khan meeting

Govt slashes petrol price by Rs74

Petrol prices to drop up to Rs59: Dar

More Posts from this Category

World

US strike on suspected drug-smuggling boat kills three in eastern Pacific

Donald Trump

Trump praises Pakistan’s leadership, credits role in Iran negotiations

Andy Burnham wins Makerfield by-election, intensifying pressure on UK PM Starmer

More Posts from this Category




Footer

Home
Lead Stories
Latest News
Editor’s Picks

Culture
Life & Style
Featured
Videos

Editorials
OP-EDS
Commentary
Advertise

Cartoons
Letters
Blogs
Privacy Policy

Contact
Company’s Financials
Investor Information
Terms & Conditions

Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Youtube

© 2026 Daily Times. All rights reserved.

Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
  • Manage options
  • Manage services
  • Manage {vendor_count} vendors
  • Read more about these purposes
View preferences
  • {title}
  • {title}
  • {title}
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.