The Anti-State Clause: A Case for the Reunification of the Indian Subcontinent

Abstract

This paper examines several historical instances of intellectual arousal: why was the Indian subcontinent putatively partitioned pre-August 1947 before the exit of the British Crown from the land; is there a case for the potential reunification of the historical land of India; and the ongoing fight of the Province of Kashmir between multiple sovereign states, notably the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In a similar fashion to the partition of the island of Ireland (into Northern Ireland, which is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland, which is a sovereign country and a member state of the European Union), the Indian subcontinent’s lines of division were drawn up by Sir Cyril Radcliffe, commissioned to demarcate the eventual Dominions of India and Pakistan. Further, the identification of a separate territory to cater to Muslim-majority western Punjab (including Lahore), Sindh (including Karachi), Balochistan (including Quetta), &c., was summoned by a Cambridge-educated reader named Choudhary Rahmat Ali, who coined the term ‘Pakstan’, ‘P’ for the Punjab, ‘A’ for Afghania, ‘K’ for Kashmir, and the add-on ‘stan’ for Balochistan. The claim for Kashmir by the State of Pakistan (the ‘I’ for the Indus Valley) is concurrent to the claim by the State of India, arguing that on the basis of religiosity, one or the other is entitled to the inheritance of the geopolitical prowess of the bridge between China and the subcontinent, and if not that, then self-determination through an enforceable plebiscite. Indeed, the partition of the colossal subcontinent in 1947 meant that what ensued was one of the largest migration stories in human history, with Muslims flocking to the newly-created West Pakistan (now Pakistan) and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), and Hindus shifting to the more central regions. Further, not only was the subcontinent in itself divided; certain provinces found itself split into sections too: for instance, the Punjab was halved, with Pakistan inheriting the western half with Lahore, and India the eastern half with Amritsar, &c. Inherently, this paper argues that the historical partition of the Indian subcontinent was superfluous, unnecessary, and erroneously constructed in order to ensure the lasting division of Muslims and Hindus, fortifying boundaries amongst each other in order to prevent their friendship. In the express vision and opinion of Mahatma Gandhi, one of the most forefront proponents of the anti-colonialism and nationalistic civility of the eventual independence of contemporary India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, &c., “Hindus and Muslims were sons of the same soil of India; they were brothers who therefore must strive to keep India free and united”.

Keywords: reunification, India, subcontinent, partition, Pakistan, Bangladesh.

Introduction

Direct British Rule in India lasted between the years 1858 and 1947, beginning with British victory after the Indian uprising of 1857, and culminating with post-war independence in 1947, with the independence of two distinct territories: India and Pakistan. (See s. 1(1) of the Indian Independence Act 1947 “the Act”: As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan”.) The entitlement of the Muslim-majority state of ‘Pakstan’, later ‘Pakistan’, was founded by Choudhary Rahmat Ali, a Cambridge academic who envisioned the division and partition of multiple territories comprising of the then-Indian subcontinent, in his pamphlet ‘Now or Never: Are we to Live or Perish For Ever?’. The pamphlet envisioned the proposed creation of multiple Muslim-majority states, demarcating them from their Hindu and Sikh brothers, such as ‘Bangistan’, and ‘Osmanistan’. Eventually, the entitlement of ‘Pakistan’ was carried forward by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the proponent of the proposed state, whereby he engaged in the Gandhi-Jinnah Talks of 1944 with Mahatma Gandhi, and the Round Table Conferences (“RTCs”) of 1930 - 1932, further progressing the concept of the ‘Two Nation Theory’, which outlined that Muslims and Hindus are comprehensively distinct religious groups, and as a causative consequence, require separate geographical states to exist in harmony. The flaw of this argument is that Muslims and Hindus have previously resided peacefully for hundreds of years, and the introduction of a newly-created state, with the entitlement of Pakistan, inherently defeats the purpose of brotherhood between separate religious groups. Indeed, hundreds of millions of Muslims currently reside in contemporary India, and for the most part, live with good terms in relation to their Hindu and Sikh brothers. The purpose of this paper is to partially debunk the concept that Muslims are inherently distinctive creatures, whereby it is a paramount necessity for them to maintain their own independent state, and further propagate the idea that the Indian subcontinent, subsequent to its artificial partition, should be reunified as soon as possible. To achieve this objective, this paper is partitioned into four ‘Parts’. Part 1 will identify and outline the background to the partition of India, and why it eventually did go ahead as per the instructions of Lord Mountbatten, contrary to an earlier stipulation that it would not be partitioned into separate territories. Part 2 will look at the current affairs of the three major constituent countries of the Indian subcontinent, including India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Part 3 will look at in great detail the ‘fight for Kashmir’, whereby both India and Pakistan maintain a legitimate claim over the territory, which would not have been a geopolitical issue should the two independent territories have previously determined to ‘stick together’. Finally, Part 4 will conclude the essay by summarising what has been discussed. Ultimately, it may be said that though the artificially envisioned State of Pakistan putatively protects the rights and privileges of Muslim subjects, the partition of the subcontinent, including its occurrence and that which ensued, moderately translates into gross harm and misconduct as per the rights which should have been afforded to all states of the potential Indian subcontinent, which should hypothetically be named simply the land of which is maintains: India.

1. A Background to the Partition of India

The conceptualisation of a separate and distinctive state was founded with Choudhary Rahmat Ali’s pamphlet, but this was furthered with the Pakistan Movement and what was entitled the ‘Two Nation Theory’, which indicated that Muslims and Hindus are irreconcilably distinctive and different, therefore require separate states to live peacefully and in harmony. The negation of this perspective is seen with contemporary India: all creeds of life reside in the country, therefore this in itself is incorrect. The putative introduction of the artificial State of Pakistan is such that Jinnah took the words of Ali, along with the works of famous Urdu poets and philosophers, including Muhammad Iqbal, and Mir Taqi Mir, conflating independence with nationality and citizenship. Unfortunately, with the advent of the Lahore Resolution (1940) and the Direct Action Day (1946), the demand of partition was too great to ignore, especially within Congress, as per the directives of the All India Muslim League (AIML). The creation of states on the primary basis of religion conflates the conceptualisation that certain religious groups are so distinctive that they require their own land to live peacefully; this is inherently incorrect, as to do such is to act in contrary to the right of practising one’s own faith and belief. Creating a state on the basis of religion in itself contradicts several international human rights laws, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees the freedom of observance of religion as per article 18 thereof.

2. Current Affairs in the Subcontinent

After independence, multiple territories were annexed by each state, such as portions of Kashmir by India (present-day ‘Jammu and Kashmir’), and portions of Kashmir by Pakistan (present-day ‘Azad Kashmir’); the eventual independence of East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh) in 1972 was on the basis of the massive geographical division between both West and East Pakistan, and it was unlikely that East Pakistan was going to be a successful wing of the initial dominion from its introduction. Indeed, multiple wars have been fought between India and Pakistan over the identification, demarcation, and ownership and control of the province of Kashmir, including the ‘First Kashmir War’ of 1948, and the ‘Second Kashmir War’ of 1965. Subsequent spillages of unfortunate and contentious relations have been either in relation to Kashmir, or generally due to the ‘blame game’ of the ownership of the horrors of partition, including mass migration, death, and violence. This paper argues that this was, essentially, unnecessary; irreconcilable differences between Muslims and Hindus is inherently socially constructed. The justification for this perspective is that hundreds of millions of Muslims peacefully reside in contemporary India, yet present-day Pakistan has become further focussed on the specific rights and privileges of Muslims (particularly the Sunni sect(s), abrogating the rights of other sects of followers of the state religion, such as the Shia sects and Ahmadi sects), with the politicisation of the state religion, translating into a more extreme country which prevents the open and practical observance of any religion. This lies in contradiction to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which guarantees persons to observe and follow their religion and faith, along with freedom of speech and expression, which also, further, protects this right. Despite signing the declaration in 1948, Pakistan has done away and repealed several freedoms and protected rights, notably of speech and expression: a good example is the fortification of the State’s laws on blasphemy, which prosecutes minority individuals (such as Christians and Ahmadis) through false or unbecoming allegations, which are not grounded in the factual matrix. A good example is the case of Aasiya Noreen (“Asia Bibi”), who eventually fled the country to Canada, after being sentenced to death (but later acquitted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan). Unfortunately, the disparity of rights of the majority Sunni populace of the country, compared to religious and ethnic minorities in the country, showcases the dichotomy of privileges as that seen in Pakistan’s counterpart: India. India has proven to be far more liberal and secular in attitudes, rights, and privileges, allowing people to openly observe their faith without interference, and further protects personages with the enactment of certain amendments of the State’s constitution. Though certain sectarian riots occur in the country, in addition to Muslims being a minority religious group in India, this would have been better managed and catered for without the introduction of the Muslim-majority state of Pakistan. Consequently, it is arguable that it is inherently and precisely because of partition and the introduction of an independent Muslim state founded in the Indian subcontinent that persons are criticised for their decision to remain in contemporary India, rather than relocating to contemporary Pakistan. Persons go to Pakistan to be religious, but persons who go to India, go to be free.

3. A Case Study: The Land of Kashmir 

Upon the lawful independence of contemporary India and Pakistan in 1947, the question of Kashmir was paramount: which country was to inherit it? Indeed, the territory occupies a distinctive and peculiar geopolitical prowess over the region, sharing a border with territories, including China, and also has a number of useful resources, both natural and intellectual. It was said that a plebiscite would be held to determine its faith - whether to accede to India or Pakistan - yet, this has not been formally held for many years, due to the gross complexity of the problem. Indeed, what is agreed in this paper is that the succession of Kashmir to either contemporary state of the subcontinent would never have been an issue, along with skirmishes of the demarcated borders of the two countries, if it wasn’t for partition in itself; partition highlighted many confounding issues, including that of the artificiality of the division, and the unfortunate reality of the partition of its constituent provinces, including the Punjab.

4. Conclusion

Furthermore, we have identified in this paper three crucial, and distinctive, points: the background to the partition of India meant that partition in itself was not necessary, or indeed expected, but arose out of a ‘snap’ decision by the British Crown; the current affairs of the subcontinent means that it is unlikely for the foreseeable future that the two sovereign states of India and Pakistan are unlikely to reach friendly terms, mirroring the brotherhood both geographical locations previously maintained pre-independence; and finally, that the fight for the political, legal, and social ownership of Kashmir, largely due to its geopolitical relevance, means that a further thaw though ongoing, is unlikely to last, due to the unfortunate successive wars both sovereign states previously have fought, in spite of their shared history and culture. In essence, the division of the subcontinent was essentially superfluous, unnecessary, and designed to ensure the consistent antagonism between Muslim-majority Pakistan, and Hindu-majority India. This is an unfortunate resultant of what should have been a moderately pleasant occasion of the independence of the subcontinent, yet culminated in bloodshed and war.

Table of Statutes

Indian Independence Act 1947: “An Act to make provision for the setting up in India of two independent Dominions, to substitute other provisions for certain provisions of the Government of India Act, 1947”.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1976.
The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh 1972; &c., including subsequent amendments.
The Constitution of the Republic of India 1949; 1950; &c., including subsequent amendments.
The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1972; 1973; &c., including subsequent amendments.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948.

Bibliography

Ali C. R., ‘Now or Never: Are We to Live or Perish For Ever?’ (Via letter, 1933) <https://franpritchett.com/00islamlinks/txt_rahmatali_1933.html> accessed 28 March 2025.
Majmudar U, Gandhi’s Pilgrimage of Faith: From Darkness to Light (1st edn, State University of New York Press 2005).