“The truth is like a lion. You don’t have to defend it. Let it loose and it will defend itself” – Saint Augustine
Who do you think is truly responsible for the partition of India in 1947?It’s a question often thrown around in political debates, but the answer is never simple. While it’s tempting to blame a single political figure, that wouldn’t be ethically valid. We know the Indian National Congress, leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulana Azad, and Sardar Patel, were fiercely opposed to the idea of division and actively championed Hindu-Muslim unity. Even if the British wanted to partition India on religious lines, the final decision ultimately rested with the people.
So, who actually fueled the chain of events that led to that bloody separation?The Ideological Culprits: Jinnah and Savarkar
My conclusion is that the fault lies in the rise of religious fanaticism, equally and simultaneously, from both sides. This toxic ideology found its most powerful architects in Jinnah’s Muslim League and Savarkar’s Hindu Mahasabha. While their personal intentions may have been grounded in what they perceived as practical political realities for their respective communities, their ideological theories were the primary drivers of the bloodshed and the sharp increase in intolerance. The high efforts of uniting India during the freedom struggle failed miserably because the average Hindu and Muslim communities, even today, struggle with fundamental trust and often harbor mutual contempt. Extremist groups flourish on both sides, and inter-community mixing remains low. The partition was largely executed on religious lines, overshadowing other crucial disagreements about governance and land reform.
We often focus solely on Jinnah’s role, but the Hindu Mahasabha was equally active in promoting division and disregard for the freedom struggle. Savarkar’s infamous slogan, “Hinduise all Politics and Militarise Hindudom,” promoted military training for Hindus by aligning with the British war effort during the Second World War. The Mahasabha even organized “Hindu Militarisation Boards” to recruit for the British armed forces. When Congress launched the Quit India Movement in 1942, Savarkar openly opposed it, instructing members in the military and local bodies not to join. While Congress leaders were imprisoned, the Mahasabha formed coalition governments with the Muslim League in key provinces like Sindh, Bengal, and the North-West Frontier Province. In Bengal, Mahasabha leader Syama Prasad Mookerjee went so far as to assure the British government of his party’s support in crushing the Quit India Movement. These actions from both the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha shattered the vision of a unified, secular, and pluralistic India.
The National Congress’s vision was undoubtedly visionary and far ahead of its time. Their secular, humanist approach was ethically sound, moral, and promised long-term benefit. However, the general public was perhaps not prepared or compatible with such a radical social and political change. In contrast, the approaches of the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha were more grounded, rooted in the practical, harsh realities of ethnic identity politics of the time, and geared toward the short-term welfare of their perceived communities. While morally superior, the idealism of the Congress ultimately faltered against the hard reality of entrenched religious and social divides. In the final analysis, I attribute the greatest suffering to the British domination. However, the sheer scale of the 1947 tragedy was compounded by the abysmal execution of the division. Louis Mountbatten’s decision to keep the border map confidential until the day of independence resulted in immediate, widespread violence and fear among citizens on both sides.
The partition did happen, and it was primarily religious. The consequence was immediate: within six months, Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu nationalist, Nathuram Godse, who accused him of appeasing Muslims and favoring Pakistan. Although Gandhi’s ideals were rooted in his deep spiritual practice, I too believe that his approach wasn’t practically applicable to the socio-political reality of a country like India. I look at India today and see a nation that is still deeply held back. I don’t say this in a negative sense, but as an observer. Much of the population still lives in harsh conditions, and national progress often feels agonizingly slow or stagnant. Opportunities are scarce due to significant social barriers. This stagnation, in my opinion, is not just the influence of imperialism. It is also rooted in the ancient Indian social structure. Consider the deeply ingrained prejudices: the merging of different races remains taboo, and even within the Hindu and Muslim communities, marrying outside of one’s respective castes and sects is often forbidden, especially in sub-urban and rural areas. These exclusionary philosophies, which subtly echo ideas of racial purity and superiority, were tragically aligned with the philosophies of the Mahasabha and the League. The ancient society is bound in its own chains, and the failure of partition only tightened them. I am mostly hopeless of India gaining any significant, rapid change in the near future, whether in the economic, political, or social sphere. It will take many centuries from now for India to truly break free from her own chains. That is my candid opinion.
Notice – This article is a chapter from Glimpses of My Worldview (2025). It is being republished here on my blog as part of a complete serialization of the work.