Division of India. Partition of British India. Formation of the Indian Union and Pakistan. Depiction in art

The partition of British India in 1947 created violent clashes between Hindus and Muslims and huge refugee flows: up to 6.5 million Muslims crossed from India to Pakistan and up to 4.7 million Hindus and Sikhs moved in the opposite direction. Up to 500 thousand people died due to clashes on religious grounds and subsequent migrations. By the beginning of the 20s of the XIX century. England extended its control over all of India, including territories that later became part of Pakistan. In 1946, a special government mission sent from Britain developed a plan to preserve the integrity of India, providing for regional autonomy for the Muslim population. It was proposed to single out two geographical zones with a predominance of Muslims: one of them was supposed to cover North-West Balochistan, North-West Frontier Province, Punjab and Sindh, the other - North-East Assam and Bengal. The rest of India was seen as a single entity with a Hindu majority. It was recommended to give the central government only minimal rights.

However, this plan, adopted by the League, was rejected by the Indian National Congress, after which the division of British India became inevitable. On August 14, 1947, two new independent states appeared on the political map of the world - India and Pakistan.

India is a federal republic. The head of state is the president. Elected by a college of electors consisting of both houses of parliament and state legislatures for a 5-year term. The legislature is a bicameral parliament. It consists of the Council of States (no more than 250 seats, of which 12 are appointed by the president, the rest are elected from the legislatures of states and territories) and the People's Assembly (545 seats, 543 are elected by popular vote, 2 are appointed by the president). Executive power is exercised by the government, headed by the prime minister, who is appointed by the president.

The position of Japan before World War II. Post-war structure of Japan

On November 25, 1936, in Berlin, the governments of Japan and Germany signed the Anti-Comintern Pact, the second article of the secret annex to which read: “The contracting parties, for the period of validity of this agreement, undertake, without mutual consent, not to conclude any political treaties with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which would be contrary to the spirit of this agreement." Thus, the question of concluding a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union was actually removed by the Japanese side (at least for some time) from the agenda. The acquisition of powerful allies in the West (soon Italy and a number of other European states that were part of Germany's orbit joined the Anti-Comintern Pact) encouraged Japan to expand its expansion in China and further aggravate Japanese-Soviet relations. In the mid-1930s, the Japanese army general staff began to the planning of operations for the mastery of northern China. In 1935, one such plan called for the formation of a special army that would include the Japanese "garrison army in China, one brigade from the Kwantung Army, and three divisions from the ground forces in the mother country and Korea. The allocated forces were planned to capture Peking and Tianjin. The political goals of the empire were formulated in the document "Basic Principles of State Policy", which, in fact, set out to turn Japan "nominally and in fact into a stabilizing force in East Asia."

The Tripartite Pact was signed in Berlin at 2015 September 27, 1940. The following is the text of the pact: “The government of the Great Japanese Empire, the government of Germany and the government of Italy, recognized as a preliminary and necessary condition for a long-term peace to provide each state with the opportunity to take its place in the world, consider the creation of a new order necessary for the peoples in the Great Eastern Asia and Europe could reap the benefits. The coexistence and mutual prosperity of all the nations concerned, express their determination to cooperate mutually and take concerted action in the indicated areas with regard to skills based on these principles. The governments of the three states, eager to cooperate with all powers, are making detailed efforts around the world, full of desire to demonstrate immunity to the whole world, for which the government of the Great Japanese Empire, the government of Germany and the government of Italy have concluded an agreement. "By the beginning of July 1941, the Japanese army , despite the protests emanating from the governments of America and Great Britain, carried out the capture of the southern part of Indochina, and after a short time came close to the Philippines, Singapore, the Dutch Indies and Malaya. In response, America imposed a ban on the import of all strategic materials into Japan and at the same time froze Japanese assets in its banks. Thus, the war that soon broke out between Japan and the United States was the result of a political conflict that America tried to resolve with economic sanctions.

Japan was occupied two weeks after the surrender. At the same time, the United States prevented the creation of zones of occupation of the victorious countries in Japan. Since the correlation of forces between the USSR and Western powers in the Far East was completely different from that in Europe, and the Soviet contribution to the defeat of Japan was made only at the last stage of the Pacific War in the conditions of the Cold War that had actually begun, Moscow was forced to agree with this. As a result, American troops under the command of General MacArthur occupied Japan alone, although they formally represented the interests of all countries that fought against Japan.

By signing an unconditional surrender, Japan thereby at least accepted the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. The powers that had defeated Japan were faced with the task of such a post-war settlement in that country as would prevent its revival as an aggressive force. This was possible only through democratization, the elimination of landlordism as a source of samurai adventurism, the dissolution of monopoly groups - zaibatsu as a source of aggression, demilitarization and punishment of war criminals as a warning for the future.

One of the most democratic bourgeois constitutions in the world was introduced in Japan, written by specialists from the Propaganda Department of MacArthur's headquarters and translated into Japanese (Japanese lawyers themselves prepared several extremely reactionary versions of the Constitution, with which the victorious countries could not agree). Not daring to liquidate the institution of Imperial power, the authors of the Constitution limited it to decorative functions. The constitution declares Japan's refusal to solve foreign policy problems by military means and forbids her to have the Armed Forces. The agrarian reform carried out at the insistence of the powers ended the process of defeudalization begun in the Meiji era.

The explosions in India are a reminder that this country has several home-grown Kosovo at once, threatening to destroy this country. First of all, we are talking about the northwestern state of Jammu and Kashmir. However, India has a number of other, smaller Kosovos, such as the self-proclaimed Sikh "state" of Khalistan in the Punjab and troubled areas in the country's northeast.

A series of bombings in India's western state of Rajasthan, injuring and killing nearly 300 people, has again raised awareness that it is experiencing serious inter-ethnic and inter-religious problems. And separatism is a serious headache for India, home to 700 nationalities.

Characteristically, the Indian separatists celebrated the recognition of Kosovo's independence as if they recognized not the Kosovo Albanians, but themselves. Thus, the leader of the terrorists and supporters of the independence of Kashmir Shabir Shah, expressing admiration for the "fighters for the independence of Kosovo", drew direct parallels with the situation in the rebellious Indian state, saying that "the day when Kashmir will become free" is not far off.

The Kosovo precedent was not ignored by the Sikh separatists, whose organization "Center for Khalistan Affairs" is located in the United States. Its leader, Amarjit Singh, bluntly stated that Delhi's reluctance to recognize Kosovo was due to fear of a possible repetition of this precedent in other parts of the country.

First of all, it is the state of Jammu and Kashmir, disputed with Pakistan, where the Muslim majority lives, striving for independence. The radicalization of sentiments began to be noted after India's refusal to grant autonomy to the state.

The fact is that 60 years ago, the UN promised Jammu and Kashmir a referendum on self-determination, but Delhi never did this, fearing "secession."

War broke out twice between India and Pakistan because of the rebellious state. And later, in 1999 and 2002. the region was just one step away from a nuclear conflict. Until now, Pakistan has supported the terrorist war in Kashmir by hosting militant training bases on its territory, from where they penetrated into India. Formally, Islamabad, under pressure from the United States, stopped their support. However, a holy place is never empty and Al-Qaeda has come to replace it.

It is worth noting that the West and China, which have their own interests in the region, have a significant influence on the situation. Like many other terrorists, India's separatists enjoy "outside" support. According to Western human rights activists, the number of Indians killed since 1989 alone is over 80,000, and several thousand more have gone missing.

Another problematic point in India is the Sikh Khalistan in the state of Punjab in the west of the country. Recall that the struggle for the creation of an independent Sikh state with a state religion, representing in many respects a synthesis of Islam and Hinduism, began as early as 1944. The peak of the intensity of the struggle was 1984, when Indian troops stormed the main stronghold of the Sikhs - their shrine Golden Temple in Amritsar and conducted a series of sweeps across the state. In response, the Sikhs killed the head of the country, Indira Gandhi, and launched a campaign of terror against the Hindus. And although today the Sikhs gravitate toward peaceful forms of struggle, they have not abandoned the idea of ​​independence, especially since, as in the case of Kashmir, Pakistan is providing assistance to the separatists.

Other serious pockets of separatism are located in the northeast of the country in the states of Assam, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura. Near the border with China, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Burma, where they get help.

There are many similar problems in India. For example, in Andhra Pradesh, "a showcase state of neo-liberalism," an average of 200 extremists die per year. Trouble is in Tamil Nadu, home to many Tamils ​​associated with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which operates in Sri Lanka. Under the suspicion of the authorities are representatives of the Adivasi people of the state of Jharkhand, who are seen as Maoists and "revolutionaries". It is also restless in the states of Gujarat and Mumbai (Bombay), where many Muslims live.

In many ways, the problems of separatism in India are "British heritage". Before the arrival of the British, there were several independent states in South Asia, which they conquered and united under their rule. Leaving, they divided the former colony along religious lines, drawing the border in such a way as to quarrel the same Muslims with the Hindus. In addition, they promised other troubled regions to hold referendums on independence after a certain time. The Hindus did not do this and the confrontation began. And with independence, these "time bombs" exploded. And especially strong in Jammu and Kashmir.

It is significant that many other "separatist" centers are located in rural areas. The thing is that the gap between the incomes of urban and rural residents is constantly growing. The latter believe that they are being unfairly choked with taxes in order to feed the city at their expense.

It is worth noting that the same Punjab, where the Sikhs live, is one of the most economically developed regions of India, in which 45% of the country's agricultural products are produced. Sikh leaders say that "a small and prosperous Punjab is hindered from developing by a huge and impoverished India, which draws all the juices from the state." Assam is dissatisfied with the fact that India uses its oil, from which its inhabitants receive almost nothing. In Tripura, they are unhappy with the "plunder" from Delhi and the fact that the Hindus allow refugees from Bengal to immigrate here, "who take away our people's work."

And on the TV screens and in the famous Bollywood one life, and outside the windows - another. And among the main reasons fueling separatism is precisely the economic disproportion.

However, India managed to minimize the consequences of the separatist antics. Delhi has granted significant autonomy to many problem areas in the northeast of the country. And at the head of the rebellious regions are the former leaders of the rebels. This dealt the separatists a more serious blow than all the military operations.

It is indicative that India is pursuing a purposeful "power policy" in the separatist regions. She completely refuses the efforts of international mediators, does not let "human rights activists" and foreign journalists go there, rightly believing that under their mask representatives of foreign, including American intelligence services, who fed the Kashmiri separatists during the Afghan war of 1979– 88 years

The "stubbornness" of the Indians is quite understandable. For them, the preservation of the separatist regions as part of the Indian state is the very "litmus test" for the territorial integrity of the entire country. After all, if the rebellious states, and especially Kashmir, secede, the next will be other provinces inhabited by 150 million Muslims.

According to the Hindus themselves, they have not yet forgotten how the once-unified "British India" on a religious basis was bloodily destroyed, when a "multi-religious" Indian state and Muslim Pakistan were formed, from which it soon and again, not without blood, separated Bangladesh. And if so, they will ignore Kosovo and oppose with all their might a repetition of the events of the late 1940s and early 1950s, which could destroy the country and plunge the peoples living in it into bloody chaos. And this is a scenario that is beneficial for the West, and above all for the United States, which are striving in every possible way to prevent the appearance on the map of regional superpowers that can pose a global challenge to them in the future.

In the actual Pakistani aspect of the partition of India and subsequent events, one cannot fail to note the special role of Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948). A bold and clever lawyer, at first he fought for self-government and the expansion of India's rights together with the Hindus. Moreover, until the 1920s, his position was very moderate, he was in the Tilak camp. Showing remarkable ability to maneuver, he managed to assure the British of his complete loyalty, being one of the leaders of the Movement in Support of the Caliphate, a radical pan-Islamist organization. Be that as it may, by 1935 he had become the representative of the Bombay Muslims in the Central Legislative Assembly of India. On March 22-24, 1940, a historic document was adopted - the Lahore Resolution http://storyofpakistan.com/lahore-resolution/. The text of the Lahore Resolution is abridged. Access mode - open. . At a session of the All India Muslim League in Lahore, Jinnah spoke about how far, in his opinion, the differences in the historical path of development of the Hindu and Muslim parts of the dominion of India had gone. He declared: "Muslims are a nation in terms of any definition of a nation." In the resolution, the following words are the main ones: “No constitutional plan that does not take into account geographical and religious boundaries will be acceptable to Muslims ... Since Muslims predominate in the northeast, sovereign and independent states must be created there.” This document can be considered the starting point of the political practice of the theory of "two nations" - Hindus and Muslims. The ideologists of this theory are sure that Islam and Hinduism in our case are not religious systems, but clear criteria for distinguishing two completely different nations. Perhaps the theory would have remained purely paper calculations for some and the dream of a lifetime for others, if not for the Second World War.

Of course, Neville Chamberlain declared war on Germany without questioning either the Muslims of India or the Hindus themselves. This was partly predictable: Chamberlain could not then imagine that European affairs could somehow affect the remote colony of the empire. However, after the failure of fascist Germany in the battle near Moscow in late 1941 - early 1942, its ally - Japan - refused to attack the USSR. But its leadership did not even think of a way out of the "axis" system. That is why Japan directed all its remarkable potential, accumulated during the years of the militaristic government under Emperor Hirohito (1901-1989), to India. The British government was well aware of how unreliable a sector of the front India would be at the slightest intensification of hostilities - and how even less reliable it would become when anti-English sentiment intensified there. In addition, the British Indian army was very large (2.5 million people), which made the situation in India especially important. The mission of Sir Stanford Cripps Jajal A. is sent to India. The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan. Cambridge, 1985. P. 47.. Britain's promises were very, very great: free elections after the war, dominion status with independent elections, the possibility of secession from the dominion, the protection of national minorities. As a result, Cripps left with nothing: partly because of the resistance and distrust of local Hindus and Muslims, partly because of the cunning intrigues of the local English colonial administration, Gupta S.R., who did not like him. New Light on the Cripps Mission // India Quarterly. Vol. 28, ch. 1. Pp 69-74. However, his apparently unsuccessful trip conveyed two important ideas to the people of India, one can say that England, in a difficult situation, revealed two cards. Firstly, it became clear that very soon Britain would leave the Indian subcontinent, and secondly, that this would be done only after the Brown J. Modern India war. The making of an Asian Democracy. London, 1999. P. 328. Under such a temptation, exacerbated by the immoderate wartime initiatives, a mass movement for full independence unfolded here. It entered world historiography as the Quit India Movement, and into Soviet and Russian historiography as the August Movement. The essence of this movement is that in 1942 the Indian National Congress proclaimed as its goal the transition to complete independence from Great Britain as part of the "civil disobedience" movement. The leader of the movement was Mahatma Gandhi, who delivered an impassioned national liberation speech in a park in Bombay on August 8, 1942. Immediately after that, a war of arrests swept through the country, there was even the idea of ​​forcibly exporting Gandhi to Africa Fisher D. The Proudest Day: India's Long Road to Independence. Norton, 1998. P. 329, however, unrealized. In principle, the ups and downs of these events would not have been directly related to the subject of our study, if not for one fact.At such an important moment for British India, the Muslim leaders refused to support the August movement.Jinna called on all Muslims to cooperate with the British, to volunteer in the Indian military and paramilitary formations Wolpert S. Jinnah of Pakistan, N.Y., 1984. Pp 209-215. We believe that with this policy he achieved four goals at once. secondly, he made it clear to the leaders of the Hindus that they were not authorities for him, that very soon he could move on to an independent foreign and domestic policy. gather around him a large number of allies, formally showing himself a patriot, raising the population to defend their native land. Fourthly, it was the volunteer detachments, which were mentioned above, that formed the paramilitary basis of the future Muslim movement. In general, researchers note a significant increase in the size of the Muslim League, which has already allowed it to seize control over the territories of Sindh, Bengal and the northwestern border of British India Syed N.A. Origins of Muslim consciousness in India: a world-system perspective. London, 1991. P. 213. Anyway, the uprising was suppressed, but some of its outbreaks associated with famine in Bengal were noted until the end of 1943. Dyson, T., Maharatna A. Excess mortality during the Great Bengal Famine: A Re-evaluation" in The Indian Economic and Social History Review, Vol 28, No. 3, 1991. P. 11-12. construction and methods to achieve them.

Nevertheless, right up to the last day of colonial rule, supporters of the idea that two states should not be created on the ruins of India remained in England. Thus, it is known that in 1946 the Cabinet of Ministers developed a plan for a decentralized state based on a compromise between the Muslim League and the Indian National Congress. It provided for the minimization of the powers of the center, the essential autonomy of the provinces. However, Jawaharlal Nehru rejected the plan to build a state without a single center, and then Jinnah returned to the demands of an independent Muslim state Wolpert, S. A New History of India. N.Y., 1990. Plans for mutually beneficial reconciliation were not destined to come true.

The Labor cabinet of Clement Attlee (1883-1967) was very clearly oriented towards fundamental change in India. That is why, when Attlee, the ambassador of the failure of the London Agreement, came to the conclusion that Wavell's policy as viceroy would not bring the desired results in this direction, he thought about the organizational conclusions. Thus, Lord Mountbatten of Burma became viceroy in India, taking office on March 24, 1947. Along the way, a promise was proclaimed to make India independent before June 1948. On June 3, the famous "Mountbatten Plan" was proposed, which provided for the following conditions for gaining independence by India:

• 1. The division of the communities of Punjab and Bengal will be decided by a simple majority of each of the religious groups.
• 2. The question of the Sidha will be decided at his discretion.
• 3. The fate of the northwestern border and certain areas of Bengal will be decided by local referendums.
• 4. India will be declared independent by August 15, 1547.
• 5. Bengal will be able to secede as soon as it wants.
• 6. To resolve all issues, a border commission is created.

Smaller principalities were thus only allowed to self-determine within India or Pakistan Sankar G. Jawaharlal Nehru, a biography. Paris, 1991. P. 193. (without a referendum, but on the basis of the prince's decision). The border between the two new states was established along the so-called Radcliffe line - a demarcation line named after Sir John Radcliffe (1899-1977). It would not be superfluous to analyze the text of the Indian Independence Act itself as a source http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/10-11/30#IDA3KLY. Access mode: open. Paragraph 1 of article 1 reads: "Two independent dominions appear in India - India and Pakistan." The territorial division, constituted by paragraphs 1-3 of Article 2, provided that East Bengal, West Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan depart to Pakistan; Bengal is divided into western and eastern. The future of Sylhet and the North East Frontier is subject to referenda. Punjab is now divided into East Punjab and West Punjab. The demarcation process is under the control of specially appointed governors-general, whose power is limited by the Government of India Act, 1935. A special article is devoted to the refusal of the monarch of Great Britain from power and responsibility for what is happening in the mentioned territories. The process of lawmaking and the formation of the army in the two states was also discussed. On June 3, 1947, Mountbatten, Nehru, Jinnah and the Sikh leader Baldev Singh delivered a radio communiqué, and on June 4 the text was announced at a press conference. On August 15, British sovereignty over India ceased to exist as a reality of international law. Stein B. Arnold, D. A History of India, 2010, P. 359 remained in every state: in India, Lord Mountbatten of Burma continued his work in this post, in Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah achieved this post by hook or by crook. The posts of prime ministers also became important in the political system of the new states, which went to Jawaharlal Nehru and Likat Ali Khan, respectively.

Plan
Introduction
1 Background
1.1 Late 19th - early 20th centuries
1.2 1920-1932
1.3 1932-1942
1.4 1942-1946

2 Section 1947
2.1 Mountbatten plan
2.2 Geography of the section: Radcliffe line
2.3 Mass population migrations
2.4 Punjab
2.5 Bengal
2.6 Sindh

3 Refugees
3.1 Punjabi refugees in Delhi
3.2 Refugees settled in India
3.3 Refugees settled in Pakistan

4 Consequences
4.1 India and Pakistan
4.2 Foreign relations
4.3 Current religious demographics of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh

5 Depiction in art

Bibliography

Introduction

Partition of India Partition of India listen)) - the division of the former British colony of British India into the independent states of the Dominion of Pakistan (August 14, 1947) and the Indian Union (August 15, 1947). This event led to major bloody clashes, in which, according to official figures, about 1 million people died, as well as to mass migrations of the population (about 18 million people, of which almost 4 million "were not found" in subsequent censuses).

The term does not apply to the following events:

secession of Ceylon (separate colony since 1798, independence since 1948)

secession of Burma (separate colony since 1937, independence since 1948)

Separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan in 1971

territorial dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir

the formal existence of Sikkim as a "state under the sovereignty of India" in 1947-1975 (then entered India as the 22nd state)

· the independence of Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives (having long-standing ties with India, they were never included in British India), and their borders were not affected in any way by the consequences of the partition.

1. Background

1.1. Late XIX - early XX centuries.

· Major religions of British India as of 1909

· Percentage of Muslims as of 1909

· Percentage of Hindus as of 1909

· Percentage of Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains as of 1909

· Main languages ​​according to comp. for 1909 (northern regions)

· Population density (1901) .

The All-Muslim Indian League was formed in Dhaka in 1906 by Muslims who disapproved of the predominance of Hindus in the Indian National Congress and its secular orientation. Among the first to put forward the demand for a separate state for the Muslims of British India was the writer and philosopher Allama Iqbal, who made such a demand in his 1930 presiding speech at the league congress, pointing out the danger of turning the Hindustan peninsula into a Hindu-controlled state. A similar demand was made by the Assembly of Sindh in 1935. Iqbal, Maulana Mohammad Ali Jowhar and a number of other figures made great efforts to convince M. A. Jinnah, who until that time campaigned for the unity of Muslims and Hindus, to lead the movement for a new Muslim nation. By 1930, Jinnah began to come to the conclusion that in a united India, the fate of minorities (including Muslims) would depend entirely on the Hindus, who dominated the Congress. The League of Muslims, led by Jinnah, received poor results in the local elections in 1937.

In 1940, Jinnah made a statement at a conference in Lahore, in the text of which there were very veiled allusions to the creation of a separate "Muslim nation". Although the document did not yet contain territorial claims, it was the territorial claims that became the main point of contention between Muslims and Hindus for the next 7 years. At that time, all Muslim parties did not want the partition of India.

Hindu organizations, such as the Hindu Mahasabha and others, although they also opposed the division of the country, at the same time insisted on demarcation (power, influence, land, etc.) between the Hindu and Muslim communities. In 1937, at the 19th session of the Hindu Mahasabha in Ahmedabad, Vir Savarkar stated in his chairman's address:

Most of the leaders of the Indian National Congress were secularists and strongly opposed the demands to divide India along religious lines. Mahatma Gandhi and Allama Mashriqi believed that Hindus and Muslims can and should live in friendship. Gandhi objected to partition, stating that:

For many years, Gandhi and his supporters fought to keep Muslims in the Indian National Congress Party (the mass exodus of Muslim activists from the party began in the 1930s), which irritated both Indian nationalists and Muslim activists (Gandhi was assassinated shortly after the division of India by the Hindu nationalist N. Godse, who believed that Gandhi pacified the Muslims at the expense of the Hindus). Mutual suspicion was fueled by political and communal leaders on both sides, which erupted during the riots organized by the Muslim League, notably on the Day of Direct Action in August 1946 in Calcutta, when more than 5,000 people were killed and many more injured. As order crumbled throughout northern India and Bengal, pressure mounted from those who desired a political partition of the former colony as a means of avoiding further unrest.

Prior to 1946, the definition of Pakistan in the Muslim League's demands was so vague that it could be understood both as a separate state and as a member of the Indian Confederation.

Some historians believe that Jinnah intended to use the threat of partition as a trade item to gain greater independence from India for the Muslim-populated provinces in western British India.

Other historians claim that Jinnah actually saw Pakistan extending even into areas where Hindus were in the majority. At the very least, Jinnah put a lot of effort into annexing Kashmir, a predominantly Muslim principality, as well as Hyderabad and Junagadh, principalities with a predominantly Hindu population but Muslim rulers.

The British colonial administration did not have direct authority over the entire territory of British India: the provinces were ruled directly by the British authorities, and the "principalities" - on the basis of numerous power-sharing agreements between them and the British. The British colonial administration consisted of the Secretary of State for India, the Indian Administration (India Office), the Governor General of India and the Indian Civil Service (Indian Civil Service). The registered political parties were the following: All India Muslim League, Communist Party of India, Hindu Mahasabha, Indian National Congress, Khaksar Tehreek and Unionist Muslim League (the latter was active mainly in Punjab).

2. Section 1947

The two separate countries legally came into being at midnight on August 15, 1947. The transfer of power ceremony was held the day before in Karachi, which at that time became the capital of the newly formed Dominion of Pakistan, due to which British Viceroy Louis Mountbatten was able to attend the ceremony in both Karachi and Delhi. Another reason was that the emergence of Pakistan did not look like its separation from sovereign India. Therefore, Pakistan celebrates Independence Day on August 14, while India celebrates on August 15. Another reason - purely technical - is that Pakistani time is 30 minutes behind Indian time, so at the time of signing the act in Pakistan it was still August 14, and in India it was already August 15.

2.1. Mountbatten plan

The actual partition between the two new dominions was carried out in accordance with the "June 3rd Plan", also known as the Mountbatten Plan.

The border between India and Pakistan was determined based on the report of the British government commission and was originally called the "Redcliffe line" (after the London lawyer Cyril Radcliffe). Pakistan arose as two unconnected enclaves - East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and West Pakistan (now Pakistan proper), between which lay India. Pakistan was formed from territories inhabited predominantly by Muslims, and India - predominantly by Hindus.

On July 18, 1947, the British Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act, which completed the formal division. The Government of India Act 1935 was amended to create the legal basis for the existence of the two new dominions. After partition, Pakistan became a new member of the UN. The Indian union, formed from states with a predominance of Hinduism, adopted the name India, which automatically gave it the right to inherit the seat of British India (UN member since 1945) in the UN and become its successor.

625 principalities were given the opportunity to choose which of the two countries to join.

2.2. Section Geography: Redcliffe Line

Before the Boundary Commission began formal hearings, governments were appointed for the eastern and western parts of the Punjab. The territory of the British province was temporarily divided, based on the predominance of the Hindu or Muslim population in the districts. In both Punjab and Bengal, the Boundary Commission consisted of two Muslim and two non-Muslim judges, chaired by Sir Cyril Radcliffe. The purpose of the Punjab Commission was formulated as follows: “To demarcate the boundaries between the two parts of the Punjab, based on the definition of areas with a predominance of Muslim and non-Muslim population. In carrying out this task, other factors should also be taken into account.” Each of the parties (Muslims and Congress/Sikhs) put forward their demands through a council that did not have the right to make decisions. The judges also did not have a mandate to compromise and on all important issues they voted two votes to two, leaving Cyril Radcliffe in charge of making decisions.

2.3. Mass migrations of the population

Immediately after the official partition, a massive "population exchange" began between the two states, which lasted several months. After the official borders were established, about 14.5 million people crossed them, hoping to find relative safety among their fellow believers. According to the 1951 Displaced Persons Census, shortly after partition, 7,226,000 Muslims moved to Pakistan (including present-day Bangladesh) from India, while 7,249,000 Hindus and Sikhs moved to India from Pakistan (including present-day Bangladesh). About 11.2 million people or 78% of the total population exchange took place in the west, mostly in the Punjab; 5.3 million Muslims moved from India to West Punjab in Pakistan, 3.4 million Hindus and Sikhs moved from Pakistan to East Punjab in India.

The newly formed governments were completely unprepared to deal with migrations of this magnitude, leading to widespread violence on both sides of the border. The number of victims, according to various estimates, fluctuates around 500 thousand (according to the minimum estimates - 200 thousand, according to the maximum - about 1 million).

2.4. Punjab

The Indian state of Punjab was created in 1947 when, under the Partition of India, the former province of British India Punjab was divided between India and Pakistan. The Muslim western part of the province became the Pakistani province of Punjab, and the eastern part, populated mainly by Hindus and Sikhs, became the Indian state of Punjab. Many Hindus and Sikhs lived in the west, and many Muslims in the east, which caused mass migration and bloody clashes during the partition. Lahore and Amritsar were at the heart of the conflict, the British did not know whether to make them part of India or Pakistan. In the end, they decided that both cities were part of Pakistan, but due to the lack of sufficient border control, Amritsar became part of India, and Lahore of Pakistan.

2.5. Bengal

The former province of British India, Bengal, was divided into two parts. West Bengal went to India and East Bengal to Pakistan. East Bengal was renamed East Pakistan in 1955 and became the independent state of Bangladesh in 1971.

Sindhi Hindus were expected to remain in Sindh after partition, as there had traditionally been good relations between Hindus and Sindhi Muslims. By the time of partition, there were about 1.4 million Hindu Sindhis in Sindh, most of whom lived in cities such as Hyderabad, Karachi, Shikarpur and Sukhur. However, within just a year, about 1.2 million of them were forced to leave their homes and go to India, as attacks on Hindu homes increased as Muslim migrants from Hindu regions arrived in Sindh. Sindhi Hindus suffered the most from the partition, as they lost not only their homes, but also their homeland (unlike the Punjabis, who traditionally lived both on the lands of the future Pakistan and on the lands of the future Hindu state).

3. Refugees

3.1. Punjabi refugees in Delhi

An estimated 25 million people - Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs (according to 1947) - crossed the new borders to find themselves in "their" territories. Estimates are based on comparisons between 1941 and 1951 censuses adjusted for population growth in areas of migration.

The city of Delhi received the largest number of refugees compared to other cities - the population of Delhi grew over the period 1941-1951 from 1 to almost 2 million (Indian censuses of 1941 and 1951). Refugees were settled in various historical and military sites, such as the Old Fort of Purana Qila, the Red Fort, in the military barracks in Kingsway (near the present Delhi University).

Later, more and more permanent houses began to appear in the refugee camps due to the large-scale construction program launched by the Government of India from 1948. Programs were also launched to educate refugees, provide them with jobs, cheap loans to start their businesses, etc. However, refugees in Delhi have benefited much more from these programs than refugees elsewhere.

3.2. Refugees settled in India

Many Sikhs and Punjabi Hindus settled in the Hindu parts of Punjab and Delhi. Hindus originally from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) settled in East India and North East India, many settled in neighboring states such as West Bengal, Assam, and Tripura. Some migrants were sent to the Andaman Islands.

The Hindus of Sindhi were left without a homeland. Their government assumed responsibility for their rehabilitation. Refugee camps were set up for them. However, not a single Sindhi Hindu received the slightest help from the Government of India, and many never received any compensation from the Indian Government.

Many refugees have coped with the "trauma" of poverty. The loss of the homeland, however, had a deeper and more lasting effect on the culture of Sindhi, it can be said that in India it is in decline.

In late 2004, the Sindhi diaspora opposed in a public litigation in the Supreme Court of India to petition the government of India to remove the word "Sindh" from the Indian national anthem (composed by Rabindranath Tagore before partition) on the grounds that it infringed on the sovereignty of Pakistan.

3.3. Refugees settled in Pakistan

The refugees who arrived in Pakistan - where they were called Muhajirs - came from various regions of India. In particular, a significant number of Punjabis from East Punjab arrived there, fleeing the riots. Despite economic difficulties, difficult living conditions, the Punjabis in Pakistan did not experience problems with cultural and linguistic assimilation - on the contrary, Punjabis still make up an influential majority in Pakistan, although their language has received not a state, but only a regional status. On the other hand, Muslims who came to Pakistan from other parts of India - present-day Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Bihar, Hyderabad, etc., faced similar problems. The descendants of these non-Punjabi refugees in Pakistan often consider themselves Muhajir, while assimilated Punjabi refugees no longer make this political distinction. Large numbers of Punjabi refugees settled in Sindh, especially in the cities of Karachi and Hyderabad. They are united by their refugee status and their native language Urdu, and form a significant political force in Sindh. In the 1970s to support the interests of refugees and their descendants, the Muhajir movement was formed. Over time, the movement acquired supporters from the local population and was renamed the Muttahid Qaumi Movement; it is currently the most influential liberal party in Pakistan.

4. Consequences

4.1. India and Pakistan

Partition caused widespread violence, but despite this, India and Pakistan made efforts to improve relations. One of the biggest disputes was over Kashmir:

· The first Indo-Pakistani war in 1947: with the support of Pakistani troops, tribal leaders organized an invasion of Kashmir, which had previously been ceded to India by the decision of the ruler of the principality, Hari Singh, despite the fact that the majority of the population of the principality were Muslims. The UN decision did not satisfy either side.

· The Second Indo-Pakistani War of 1965: armed groups, supported by Pakistani troops, invaded the Indian part of Kashmir. The result is mixed, with most sources saying India won.

· The third Indo-Pakistani war of 1971: after India supported the supporters of the independence of Bangladesh, which broke away from Pakistan, the latter launched air raids on India in response. In response, India seized 13,000 sq. km of Pakistani territory, which were later returned as a gesture of goodwill.

· Kargil war: May-July 1999, Pakistani troops and militants invaded the Indian part of Kashmir, when posts were not set up high in the mountains. India has reclaimed all the lost territory.

The nuclear arms race continues between India and Pakistan.

4.2. International relationships

Partition failed to end the enmity between Hindus and Muslims. Over a million Bengali Hindus and Muslims were killed by Pakistani troops during the 1971 Bangladesh War of Independence. Hindus living in Pakistan are being persecuted (see Hinduism in Pakistan, Lahore Temple Demolition 2006). On the other hand, Muslims in India are repeatedly subjected to violence by Hindus: the 2002 clashes in Gujarat are a typical case.

4.3. Current religious demographics of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh

Despite massive migrations during and after partition, the secular and federal state of India still has the third largest Muslim population in the world (after Indonesia and Pakistan). In Bangladesh and Pakistan, also formed as a result of the partition, the percentage of minorities is significantly smaller.

India (population 1095 million according to 2006 estimates compared to 361 million according to the 1951 census)

80.5% Indian (839 million)

13.10% Muslim (143 million)

2.31% Christian (25 million)

2.00% Sikhs (21 million)

1.94% Buddhists, Jains, Zoroastrians, etc. (20 million)

Pakistan (2005 est. 162 million compared to 34 million in 1951 census)

98.0% Muslim (159 million)

1.0% Christian (1.62 million)

1.0% Hindus, Sikhs and others (1.62 million)

Bangladesh (2005 est. 144 million compared to 42 million in 1951 census)

86% Muslim (124 million)

13% Indians (18 million)

1% Christians, Buddhists and animists (1.44 million)

5. Image in art

A huge amount of historical literature was written about the partition of India, as well as many works of fiction (novels, stories, poems, poems, plays) in which the pain and horror of the events were reflected.

Bibliography:

1. Bharadwaj, Prashant, Khwaja, Asim Ijaz and Mian, Atif R., "The Big March: Migration Flows after the Partition of India" . Available at SSRN.

2. Sword For Pen, TIME Magazine April 12, 1937

3. Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Sikkim.

4. Nasim Yousaf: Hidden Facts Behind British India's Freedom: A Scholarly Look into Allama Mashraqi and Quaid-e-Azam's Political Conflict

5. V.D.Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya Hindu Rasthra Darshan (Collected works of V.D.Savarkar) Vol VI, Maharashtra Prantik Hindusabha, Poona, 1963, p 296

6. Jalal Ayesha Jalal The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, The Muslim League and the Demand Pakistan. - Cambridge University Press, 1985.

7. Thomas RGC, Nations, States, and Secession: Lessons from the Former Yugoslavia, Mediterranean Quarterly, Volume 5 Number 4 Fall 1994, pp. 40-65, Duke University Press

8. (Spate 1947, pp. 126-137)

9. Death toll in the partition

10. }