What do you think?
Rate this book
Pakistan or Partition of India
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface.
We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface.
We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
581 pages
First published January 1, 1940
399 people are currently reading
3781 people want to read
About the author
B.R. Ambedkar
297 books1,103 followersBhimrao Ramji Ambedkar was born in 1891 into an “Untouchable” family of modest means. One of India’s most radical thinkers, he transformed the social and political landscape in the struggle against British colonialism. He was a prolific writer who oversaw the drafting of the Indian Constitution and served as India’s first Law Minister. In 1935, he publicly declared that though he was born a Hindu, he would not die as one. Ambedkar eventually embraced Buddhism, a few months before his death in 1956.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 94 reviews
December 9, 2019
Pakistan or the Partition of India or thoughts on Pakistan are same book. Everyone should read this book. Ambedkar wrote this book in quite a pragmatic style. Those who come up with the narrative "British divided us". Read this book to know the real reason. Ambedkar talks about Muslim and Hindu mind quite in detail. Roles of congress and Muslim league is very explained. Book goes in detail about roles of Mohd Iqbal who wrote Saare jahan se achcha and Syed Ahmad Khan founder of Aligarh muslim university. Muslim league were already planning to have separate Muslim nation. Both congress and Muslim league failed served their own people.
Quite a gut punching book and unbiased book.
Now this book gave me some clarity.
Quite a gut punching book and unbiased book.
Now this book gave me some clarity.
April 28, 2020
Dr. B R Ambedkar was the chairman of the drafting committee of the Indian Constitution. In spite of hard toil as a member of a Dalit community, he rose to prominence as a lawyer and constitutional expert. Ambedkar’s opinion carried great weight in the last decade of India's bondage under Britain because the Muslim League was pulling out all stops in their frantic quest to drive a wedge between the Depressed Classes and the other Hindus so as to bring down the numerical superiority of the latter. In this book, Ambedkar presents the cases of Hindus and Muslims as their counsel for and against the idea of creating a Muslim state called Pakistan which had gained prominence after the League’s Lahore Declaration raised the demand in 1940. This is in fact a report prepared by a committee of the Indian Labour Party in 1940 immediately after League’s declaration. Ambedkar was the chairman of the committee and authored the report. This is a fine specimen of the wide knowledge and erudition of Ambedkar.
The author lucidly explains the definition of nationalism, nationhood and community, as understood by eminent statesmen. A community has only the right of insurrection. They can only ask for a change in the mode and form of government without secession. A nation has the right of disruption that is capable of breaking the bond and become a separate state. He concludes that what stands between the Hindus and Muslims is not merely a matter of difference and this antagonism is not to be attributed to material causes alone. It is formed by causes which take their origin in historical, religious, cultural and social antipathy. Political antipathy was also added to this heady mix after the First World War when the idea of the freedom of India began to crystallize into the realm of possibility than a wild dream. These factors form one river of deep discontent, which is regularly fed by acts of hatred.
Having established the basics, Ambedkar ventures to examine whether the two communities can be designated as nations. The Hindus had not yet become a nation and are in the process of becoming one. To bring the contrast to focus, Ambedkar examines the historical precedents and comes to the conclusion that there are no historical antecedents which the Hindus and Muslims can be said to share together as matter of pride or as matter of sorrow. They have been just two armed battalions warring against each other. One community’s heroes are the other’s villains. Moreover, the Muslim heroes have a track record of wreaking devastation and death across India. Their past is a past of mutual destruction. The perceived uniformity in some matters of custom and manners is partly due to incomplete conversion, caused by some who retain their old ways. This forms the basis of the separate nationhood of the Muslims. From this point, it requires only a short walk to concede a separate state for them. Furthermore, the right of nationalism to freedom from an aggressive foreign imperialism and the right of a minority to freedom from an aggressive majority nationalism are not two different things. Another point to note is that the demand by a nationality for a national state does not require to be supported by any list of grievances. The will of the people is enough to justify it.
The author quite literally scoffs at the attempt of the Hindus to stall the idea of Pakistan by its appeals to preserve the territorial integrity of the motherland. The raw deal they had had at the hands of the Muslim Invaders stands incomparable in its brutality, barbarity and ruthlessness. Ambedkar lists out the unbearable harshness of Muslim conquests during the 762 years from the advent of Muhammad of Ghazni to the return of Ahmed Shah Abdali in a long series of quotes from the historians of the period (p.54-63). The invasions were accompanied with destruction of temples and forced conversion, with spoliation of property, slaughter, enslavement and gross abasement of men, women and children. Hence, the memory of these invasions remained green as a source of pride to Muslims and as a source of shame to Hindus (p.64). The author concludes that if the Muslims are to be against the Hindus, it is better that they should be without and against, rather than within and against. The arguments on inviolability of the land also does not hold water as he compares North India to Alsace-Lorraine in Europe which had changed hands many times in the past. This book also lists out the gruesome episodes of communal violence occurred at various parts of the country in the period 1920-40 (p.163-184). What is disturbing is the casual nature of the events that sparked the outbreak of riots. No part of India, whether in the north, south, west or the east was free from this malice that took on the proportions of a civil war. Besides, the author warns that the Congress may concede League’s extravagant demands for getting an undivided India to rule over. This might well include 50 per cent reservation for Muslims in the legislature and executive and even declaring Urdu as the national language of India.
Ambedkar notes the increasing rapport between the British and Indian Muslims after 1919 with a tinge of concern. After that year, it was fairly evident to the British government that the Congress, which largely represented the Hindus under Gandhi, was going to be charting a collision course with the administration of the country. As a manifestation of the principle of Divide et Impera, they extended an olive branch to the Muslims. After 1919, the numerical strength of Muslims in the Indian army was boosted. Indian army used to divulge its community-wise constitution in those days and Muslims are reported to be filling up 36 per cent of the army in the 1930s while they comprised only a quarter of the population. The author doubts the loyalty of these soldiers in case free India was attacked by a Muslim invader such as Afghanistan. This was especially apposite for the period as the Muslim League and Khilafat Committee had taken the stand that Muslim soldiers in the army shall not be used against Muslim powers (p.98).
Ambedkar’s shining intellect illuminates the argument landscape of the book so that the readers never go astray. He had such a fine grasp of constitutional matters that he has included the draft of a bill he proposes for preliminary provisions for the Indian constitution and the duties of a transition government. Ambedkar presciently points out that mutual exchange of populations is necessary for Partition to take effect fully. The draft includes sufficient enabling clauses to handle such issues. Shifting and exchange of populations may be required to preserve homogeneity of newly formed states. Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria exchanged twenty million people after the First World War because they felt that considerations of communal peace must outweigh every other consideration. If Nehru’s clueless administration had adopted Ambedkar’s visionary suggestions, the bloodbath that accompanied partition in the form of forced migration across newly formed borders could have been averted entirely. Unfortunately, Nehru never rose to such lofty heights of intellectual preparedness. He shunned any form of transitional authority and was straining at the leash to handle the reins of power the moment clock struck midnight on August 15. However, Ambedkar could not foresee the relations between the two countries souring so soon after the Partition. He argues that settling the finer points related to defence is not a very urgent issue ‘as there is no reason to suppose that Pakistan will be at war with India immediately after it is brought into being’ (p.67).
The book is a rare example of fine scholarship and deep research from a social leader. Ambedkar was the spokesman of the Dalits, but he maintains an impartial and well-balanced perspective in his arguments involving Hindus and Muslims. This is a trait many contemporary Dalit leaders sorely lack. The book contains a lot of appendices and tables showing population figures and community-wise allotment of seats in the various provincial legislatures. It is not only a narrative of Pakistan but also an analysis of Indian history, politics and future constitutional provisions as evaluated in their communal aspects.
The book is highly recommended.
The author lucidly explains the definition of nationalism, nationhood and community, as understood by eminent statesmen. A community has only the right of insurrection. They can only ask for a change in the mode and form of government without secession. A nation has the right of disruption that is capable of breaking the bond and become a separate state. He concludes that what stands between the Hindus and Muslims is not merely a matter of difference and this antagonism is not to be attributed to material causes alone. It is formed by causes which take their origin in historical, religious, cultural and social antipathy. Political antipathy was also added to this heady mix after the First World War when the idea of the freedom of India began to crystallize into the realm of possibility than a wild dream. These factors form one river of deep discontent, which is regularly fed by acts of hatred.
Having established the basics, Ambedkar ventures to examine whether the two communities can be designated as nations. The Hindus had not yet become a nation and are in the process of becoming one. To bring the contrast to focus, Ambedkar examines the historical precedents and comes to the conclusion that there are no historical antecedents which the Hindus and Muslims can be said to share together as matter of pride or as matter of sorrow. They have been just two armed battalions warring against each other. One community’s heroes are the other’s villains. Moreover, the Muslim heroes have a track record of wreaking devastation and death across India. Their past is a past of mutual destruction. The perceived uniformity in some matters of custom and manners is partly due to incomplete conversion, caused by some who retain their old ways. This forms the basis of the separate nationhood of the Muslims. From this point, it requires only a short walk to concede a separate state for them. Furthermore, the right of nationalism to freedom from an aggressive foreign imperialism and the right of a minority to freedom from an aggressive majority nationalism are not two different things. Another point to note is that the demand by a nationality for a national state does not require to be supported by any list of grievances. The will of the people is enough to justify it.
The author quite literally scoffs at the attempt of the Hindus to stall the idea of Pakistan by its appeals to preserve the territorial integrity of the motherland. The raw deal they had had at the hands of the Muslim Invaders stands incomparable in its brutality, barbarity and ruthlessness. Ambedkar lists out the unbearable harshness of Muslim conquests during the 762 years from the advent of Muhammad of Ghazni to the return of Ahmed Shah Abdali in a long series of quotes from the historians of the period (p.54-63). The invasions were accompanied with destruction of temples and forced conversion, with spoliation of property, slaughter, enslavement and gross abasement of men, women and children. Hence, the memory of these invasions remained green as a source of pride to Muslims and as a source of shame to Hindus (p.64). The author concludes that if the Muslims are to be against the Hindus, it is better that they should be without and against, rather than within and against. The arguments on inviolability of the land also does not hold water as he compares North India to Alsace-Lorraine in Europe which had changed hands many times in the past. This book also lists out the gruesome episodes of communal violence occurred at various parts of the country in the period 1920-40 (p.163-184). What is disturbing is the casual nature of the events that sparked the outbreak of riots. No part of India, whether in the north, south, west or the east was free from this malice that took on the proportions of a civil war. Besides, the author warns that the Congress may concede League’s extravagant demands for getting an undivided India to rule over. This might well include 50 per cent reservation for Muslims in the legislature and executive and even declaring Urdu as the national language of India.
Ambedkar notes the increasing rapport between the British and Indian Muslims after 1919 with a tinge of concern. After that year, it was fairly evident to the British government that the Congress, which largely represented the Hindus under Gandhi, was going to be charting a collision course with the administration of the country. As a manifestation of the principle of Divide et Impera, they extended an olive branch to the Muslims. After 1919, the numerical strength of Muslims in the Indian army was boosted. Indian army used to divulge its community-wise constitution in those days and Muslims are reported to be filling up 36 per cent of the army in the 1930s while they comprised only a quarter of the population. The author doubts the loyalty of these soldiers in case free India was attacked by a Muslim invader such as Afghanistan. This was especially apposite for the period as the Muslim League and Khilafat Committee had taken the stand that Muslim soldiers in the army shall not be used against Muslim powers (p.98).
Ambedkar’s shining intellect illuminates the argument landscape of the book so that the readers never go astray. He had such a fine grasp of constitutional matters that he has included the draft of a bill he proposes for preliminary provisions for the Indian constitution and the duties of a transition government. Ambedkar presciently points out that mutual exchange of populations is necessary for Partition to take effect fully. The draft includes sufficient enabling clauses to handle such issues. Shifting and exchange of populations may be required to preserve homogeneity of newly formed states. Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria exchanged twenty million people after the First World War because they felt that considerations of communal peace must outweigh every other consideration. If Nehru’s clueless administration had adopted Ambedkar’s visionary suggestions, the bloodbath that accompanied partition in the form of forced migration across newly formed borders could have been averted entirely. Unfortunately, Nehru never rose to such lofty heights of intellectual preparedness. He shunned any form of transitional authority and was straining at the leash to handle the reins of power the moment clock struck midnight on August 15. However, Ambedkar could not foresee the relations between the two countries souring so soon after the Partition. He argues that settling the finer points related to defence is not a very urgent issue ‘as there is no reason to suppose that Pakistan will be at war with India immediately after it is brought into being’ (p.67).
The book is a rare example of fine scholarship and deep research from a social leader. Ambedkar was the spokesman of the Dalits, but he maintains an impartial and well-balanced perspective in his arguments involving Hindus and Muslims. This is a trait many contemporary Dalit leaders sorely lack. The book contains a lot of appendices and tables showing population figures and community-wise allotment of seats in the various provincial legislatures. It is not only a narrative of Pakistan but also an analysis of Indian history, politics and future constitutional provisions as evaluated in their communal aspects.
The book is highly recommended.
February 12, 2015
Dr.Ambedkar is probably the greatest Indian social-political thinker of the 20th century. His reasoning, his exhaustiveness, his knowledge are a joy to the reader. And for what could have been a dry subject, is made extremely readable by Dr.Ambedkar. This book examines all the facets of the Pakistan-question and the 2-nation theory. Written in 1945, it is pertinent even today.
When i read books from those era (including this one), say Ramdhari Dinkar's classic 'Sanskriti ke Char adhyay' or say the recent John Keay's 'India Discovered', i find many statements which so-called seculars of India today will call communal. He has not spared the Muslims in pointing out to their unneeded aggression and intolerance or the Hindus in their muddled-reciprocation or appeasement. But the truth is the truth. Truth is not controversial, we human beings are immature.
When i read books from those era (including this one), say Ramdhari Dinkar's classic 'Sanskriti ke Char adhyay' or say the recent John Keay's 'India Discovered', i find many statements which so-called seculars of India today will call communal. He has not spared the Muslims in pointing out to their unneeded aggression and intolerance or the Hindus in their muddled-reciprocation or appeasement. But the truth is the truth. Truth is not controversial, we human beings are immature.
June 9, 2013
if he were alive today, he would have been called communal and not recognised as minority leader, presents many facts which hurt the so called western idea of "secularism" which is alien to our society
July 6, 2018
Winsome
Pakistan or Partition of India is a voluminous take on the idea of the creation of Pakistan, its pros, and cons. Babasaheb, the author of this book has written in-depth, considering the sides of the Hindus, the Muslims, and of course, putting first the idea of 'Nation-First'.
His writing, his narration, and his words are not biased to neither Hindus nor Muslims. However, none of these people own this book, rather disown it, even after it telling the splendid truth.
Many comments are bold making this book an eye-opener. However, when one looks at the amount of research the author has done, the book becomes no lesser than a must-read one.
The book leaves no doubt in your mind about the event. It has that level of exactness and clarity.
It's the best history books I've read so far.
It's a must-read for all, however, to the political aspirants, it's more than just a must-read.
It's essential.
Pakistan or Partition of India is a voluminous take on the idea of the creation of Pakistan, its pros, and cons. Babasaheb, the author of this book has written in-depth, considering the sides of the Hindus, the Muslims, and of course, putting first the idea of 'Nation-First'.
His writing, his narration, and his words are not biased to neither Hindus nor Muslims. However, none of these people own this book, rather disown it, even after it telling the splendid truth.
Many comments are bold making this book an eye-opener. However, when one looks at the amount of research the author has done, the book becomes no lesser than a must-read one.
The book leaves no doubt in your mind about the event. It has that level of exactness and clarity.
It's the best history books I've read so far.
It's a must-read for all, however, to the political aspirants, it's more than just a must-read.
It's essential.
August 21, 2017
This is one of the epics from Dr. Ambedkar. Written in 1945 the book really explains the dynamics of Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League and how Congress and British Government played a role in partition. Although I see this book takes you to the unheard side of partition, it is interesting on how linguistic approach was chosen for a division of something that is unsure if it existed.
Dr. Ambedkar takes a fine approach of giving a clarity of situation instead of been judgmental on the partition. No wonder the man was chosen to write our constitution. Of course if the war of majority and minority is kept away, the partition and its tragedy can be ready more fluently.
This book has just made me add Dr. Ambedkar as one of the author who should be read.
Dr. Ambedkar takes a fine approach of giving a clarity of situation instead of been judgmental on the partition. No wonder the man was chosen to write our constitution. Of course if the war of majority and minority is kept away, the partition and its tragedy can be ready more fluently.
This book has just made me add Dr. Ambedkar as one of the author who should be read.
March 11, 2019
It's not often that I'm completely bowled over by the precision in which someone puts forth an issue and presents arguments which are compelling, educational, rational and with the right historical context. The scholarship of Ambedkar is world renowned and, I am glad I got to experience it first hand by reading this "hurriedly written" book by the great man.
Dr.Ambedkar presents the case for and against Pakistan by exploring the options present to the two political parties of the time which were at loggerheads - The Congress headed by Gandhi and the Muslim League led by Jinnah. He explores the various facets of the problem at hand which are quite a handful - the motivations, ideologies of the different parties, the case of the Hindus for a united India, that of the Muslims for a separate nation, the alternatives to having and not having Pakistan, the geographical aspects of dividing a country etc. He explores the defense and army of the states, their allegiance in terms of conflict, the cultural elements which bind the two units together, the long history of religious conflicts between the two and so on. He also ensures he answers his critics by adding his thoughts on why the argument for Pakistan is a weak one from the Muslims.
One is astonished to see the clarity and objectivity with which he presents his arguments, leaving no room for sentiments nor partiality to either cause. Ambedkar's sole intent is to find a solution to the problem of Pakistan, and his verdict is clear - If the Muslim League does demand a separate country, then it must be granted to them. He enunciates the reasons and the way to achieve this partition from the viewpoint of the various factors listed above, most important of which is the fact that it will be most beneficial to both communities to have a nation which is entirely under their control and not subject to the whims of the minorities. Only such a country will be stable when it achieves freedom.
We also get ample examples from instances of countries which have gone through similar struggles, and how the choices of their leaders resulted in peace and war.
That we had such great visionaries as Ambedkar but still didn't allow his and other voices of reason take precedence and ultimately let the British divide our country, leading to an extremely messy carnage during Partition leaves one with a bitter taste in the mouth. A must-read book to understand the political climate before and during partition.
Dr.Ambedkar presents the case for and against Pakistan by exploring the options present to the two political parties of the time which were at loggerheads - The Congress headed by Gandhi and the Muslim League led by Jinnah. He explores the various facets of the problem at hand which are quite a handful - the motivations, ideologies of the different parties, the case of the Hindus for a united India, that of the Muslims for a separate nation, the alternatives to having and not having Pakistan, the geographical aspects of dividing a country etc. He explores the defense and army of the states, their allegiance in terms of conflict, the cultural elements which bind the two units together, the long history of religious conflicts between the two and so on. He also ensures he answers his critics by adding his thoughts on why the argument for Pakistan is a weak one from the Muslims.
One is astonished to see the clarity and objectivity with which he presents his arguments, leaving no room for sentiments nor partiality to either cause. Ambedkar's sole intent is to find a solution to the problem of Pakistan, and his verdict is clear - If the Muslim League does demand a separate country, then it must be granted to them. He enunciates the reasons and the way to achieve this partition from the viewpoint of the various factors listed above, most important of which is the fact that it will be most beneficial to both communities to have a nation which is entirely under their control and not subject to the whims of the minorities. Only such a country will be stable when it achieves freedom.
We also get ample examples from instances of countries which have gone through similar struggles, and how the choices of their leaders resulted in peace and war.
That we had such great visionaries as Ambedkar but still didn't allow his and other voices of reason take precedence and ultimately let the British divide our country, leading to an extremely messy carnage during Partition leaves one with a bitter taste in the mouth. A must-read book to understand the political climate before and during partition.
February 8, 2023
Phenomenal treatise. It really shines an educated light on the runway leading up to the tragic event of partition. Ambedkar's erudition is compelling and has compelled me to change my views on the need for partition ( earlier ,thanks to the common sentiment I was opposed to it). After reading this book, one gets a grasp of the need for partition, the strength arguments in favor and the lameness of the arguments opposed to partition. I think any Indian ( and Pakistani), who is deluded by the ignorance of the vain of Partition ( like me) should read this book.
This book is written in a true research paper style, with all sources mentioned, ton of data and graphs to support Ambedkar's inferences.
Al lot of things that Ambedkar forecasted and warned n this 1935 treatise actually unfortunately materialized in 1947. What foresight!! Truly a visionary book to be have been written in 1935.
Be advised that Ambedkar doesn't just play the devil's advocate, but also has taken painstaking efforts to propose pragmatic plans and approaches to achieve it. Sadly, due to ego issues and personality clashes, these were ignored to the peril of both nations.
Truly a must read...
This book is written in a true research paper style, with all sources mentioned, ton of data and graphs to support Ambedkar's inferences.
Al lot of things that Ambedkar forecasted and warned n this 1935 treatise actually unfortunately materialized in 1947. What foresight!! Truly a visionary book to be have been written in 1935.
Be advised that Ambedkar doesn't just play the devil's advocate, but also has taken painstaking efforts to propose pragmatic plans and approaches to achieve it. Sadly, due to ego issues and personality clashes, these were ignored to the peril of both nations.
Truly a must read...
September 7, 2016
Dr. Ambedkar was so clear about Islam and Muslim.Chapter Four he has traced the history of Muslim invasions and the butchering , He refused to embrace Islam or Christianity and instead chose another Buddhism. When will his followers understand Ambedkar's logic behind this decision?
June 9, 2018
Written just months after the Muslim League's "Pakistan Resolution" of March 1940, this is an erudite, methodical and - at times - discomfiting argument in favour of the creation of a separate nation-state.
October 21, 2023
A must-read for anyone interested in the circumstances which brought on the partition of India. Definitely a myth-buster for those who simplistically argue that it was the British or the Congress that 'just gave up' on a united India. Dr Ambedkar is an erudite and convincing writer, and makes his points with detailed references to speeches, statistics and on-ground realities that are either forgotten or underrated in the build-up to the call for partition by the Muslim League. He has no sympathies or partiality for either the Congress or the Muslim League, or the two religious communities that lay at the heart of this issue. A lot of what he cites and discusses would startle any notion of political correctness today, as he does not have pleasant things to say about either religion. Nevertheless, a masterclass in building an argument and a unique insight into India during the 1940s.
January 30, 2022
Let's not Shove THE QUESTION under the carpet, eh!
Dr. Ambedkar's works are as layered, nuanced, and detailed as his projected persona remains simplistic, mono-coloured, and ill-understood. Today, in popular parlance, he has been reduced to just two dimensions: he contributed to the constitution AND he did good work for certain sections of the society.
When you actually start reading his work, you realize that defining Dr. Ambedkar with just the aforementioned two tasks is like saying reducing Issac Newton to s=ut + 1/2 at^2.
"Thoughts on Pakistan", also titled "Pakistan Or the Partition of India", is a painstakingly detailed, multi-pronged and multi-dimensional account of what happened on 14 August 1947. Dr. Ambedkar ponders over the following aspects:
1. Who were the stakeholders?
2. For how long was the phenomenon brewing? The causes behind it.
3. How were the main political actors of that time reacting to it?
4. What alternatives were present?
5. What was the expected cost of accepting/rejecting the idea of Pakistan?
As the author himself admits, he has used prolix style favored by Victorian lawyers to put across his points. Hence, the book is not easy to read .
However, if you do managed to finish it, you gain the following:
A. You understand the communal aspects of the developments that took place in that era, by studying the history, the mindset, and the outlook of the Hindus and the Muslins.
B. You come to know that "the British divided India" theory is just that, a theory. In fact, "Thoughts on Pakistan" confrms that it is codswallop. (In other words, one of the biggest lies ever).
C. You also come to know of the Hindu Mahasabha's and Savarkar's views of the whole equation. And you realize that they are not what you have understood them to be.
In fact, there are places, where Dr. Ambedkar makes a much stronger case for partition (with population exchange), as opposed to Savarkar's "Hindustan" with zero special treatment to anyone (minority or otherwise). Dr. Ambedkar argues, relying on examples from India and abroad, that such a "Hindustan" is unsustainable and it is more practical perhaps to consider partition (with population exchange).
D.. By reading an eighty-year old book, you also gain a lot of perspective in the communal scenario of the current times. When the author describes the Hindu-Muslin scenarios from the past, there are time when you sigh,"This exact same thing is happening now!".
Overall, the book is an eye-opener on many accounts.
It also established beyond doubt that Dr. Ambedkar was arguably one of the most rational minds of the 20th century.
And, he saw the Hindu-Muslin communal equation for what it was (and still is)! Now, what is that WHAT, I will let you find out from the book, but trust me when I write this, IT IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN SHOVE UNDER THE CARPET .
Dr. Ambedkar's works are as layered, nuanced, and detailed as his projected persona remains simplistic, mono-coloured, and ill-understood. Today, in popular parlance, he has been reduced to just two dimensions: he contributed to the constitution AND he did good work for certain sections of the society.
When you actually start reading his work, you realize that defining Dr. Ambedkar with just the aforementioned two tasks is like saying reducing Issac Newton to s=ut + 1/2 at^2.
"Thoughts on Pakistan", also titled "Pakistan Or the Partition of India", is a painstakingly detailed, multi-pronged and multi-dimensional account of what happened on 14 August 1947. Dr. Ambedkar ponders over the following aspects:
1. Who were the stakeholders?
2. For how long was the phenomenon brewing? The causes behind it.
3. How were the main political actors of that time reacting to it?
4. What alternatives were present?
5. What was the expected cost of accepting/rejecting the idea of Pakistan?
As the author himself admits, he has used prolix style favored by Victorian lawyers to put across his points. Hence, the book is not easy to read .
However, if you do managed to finish it, you gain the following:
A. You understand the communal aspects of the developments that took place in that era, by studying the history, the mindset, and the outlook of the Hindus and the Muslins.
B. You come to know that "the British divided India" theory is just that, a theory. In fact, "Thoughts on Pakistan" confrms that it is codswallop. (In other words, one of the biggest lies ever).
C. You also come to know of the Hindu Mahasabha's and Savarkar's views of the whole equation. And you realize that they are not what you have understood them to be.
In fact, there are places, where Dr. Ambedkar makes a much stronger case for partition (with population exchange), as opposed to Savarkar's "Hindustan" with zero special treatment to anyone (minority or otherwise). Dr. Ambedkar argues, relying on examples from India and abroad, that such a "Hindustan" is unsustainable and it is more practical perhaps to consider partition (with population exchange).
D.. By reading an eighty-year old book, you also gain a lot of perspective in the communal scenario of the current times. When the author describes the Hindu-Muslin scenarios from the past, there are time when you sigh,"This exact same thing is happening now!".
Overall, the book is an eye-opener on many accounts.
It also established beyond doubt that Dr. Ambedkar was arguably one of the most rational minds of the 20th century.
And, he saw the Hindu-Muslin communal equation for what it was (and still is)! Now, what is that WHAT, I will let you find out from the book, but trust me when I write this, IT IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN SHOVE UNDER THE CARPET .
April 10, 2017
the book is a solid account of the Hindu Muslim narrative that ultimately led to the partition of the British colony of India. ambedkar makes a strong case for a distinct and incompatible Muslim identity and questions severely the fallacious congress idea of a Hindu Muslim unity. a must read for people who are interested to take a closer look at the partition theme and how the congress and the Muslim league both did not serve the needs of the people whom they were representing.
February 3, 2020
This book is for those who on keep saying that Britishers divided us. It is more than that. Read it.
Stop following your celebs, actors, standup comedian. Always read the original source like this book. And educate yourself.
Stop following your celebs, actors, standup comedian. Always read the original source like this book. And educate yourself.
May 13, 2010
Wonderful insights about the partition of India and why it was the logical and best thing.
September 29, 2020
This book is not an opinionated take but rather a report explaining the reasons, consequences, alternatives of the partition issue.
It paints the picture of political atmosphere at the time revolving around partition and independence and is quite different from what we have always read.
It can be a drag at times because of legal terms,clauses and resolutions cited here, but it is a must read nonetheless.
It paints the picture of political atmosphere at the time revolving around partition and independence and is quite different from what we have always read.
It can be a drag at times because of legal terms,clauses and resolutions cited here, but it is a must read nonetheless.
September 7, 2020
If you stroll around any Indian city, you will find that political posters are a common sight. You don’t have to look hard to notice that almost all political parties claim Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as their own. The latest political party to claim him as their political mascot is the incumbent BJP. Dr. B.R Ambedkar, a polymath, is fondly remembered as the Chief Architect of the Indian constitution and a social reformer. A poll conducted on 2012 on ‘The Greatest Indian’ concluded Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the winner followed by the late president Dr. Abdul Kalam. Yet, he didn’t enjoy such popularity during his own lifetime. In fact, he lost the general election to former assistant in 1952. If his posthumous popularity is a strange phenomenon, the political battle over his legacy is even stranger. Considering the fact that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, like his compatriot Nehru, has left a lot of writing.
So, what does ‘The Greatest Indian’ has to say about ‘The question of Pakistan’- the most contentious topic in subcontinent. He clearly states in the prologue that the aim of writing this book (written in 1945) is to expound the scheme of Pakistan and not to advocate it. Using his economist and law background, he makes both for and against the case for Pakistan. The book was broadly divided in to five parts; Muslim case for Pakistan, Hindu case against Pakistan, what if not Pakistan, Pakistan & its malaise and Must there be a Pakistan. In the final section, he presents his own views in unequivocal terms.
In ‘Muslim case for Pakistan’, he makes the argument from the Muslim League perspective. He basically argues if Gandhi’s idea of states based on language and the league’s idea of states based on religion are the same, and expounds the various failed attempts to share power and representation between Congress and the league.
In ‘Hindu case against Pakistan’, he makes three clear arguments – Breaking up of unity, Weakening of Indian defense and Pakistan fails to solve the communal problem. In Breaking up of unity, he expounds the historical baggage between the two communities. (Recently, many mischievous provocateurs are circulating selective quotes or misquotes from this chapter). In weakening of defense, he explains the historical recruiting pattern of the British army and disproportionate amount of the armed forces were recruited from the Punjab region (Both Punjabi Muslims and Sikhs) and provides his remedies. He rightly argues Pakistan doesn’t solve the communal problem and the problem of majority vs minority will remain in India.
In ‘what if not Pakistan’, he shares the possible alternatives to the Pakistan and draws comparison from abroad (Turkey-Greece and Czechoslovakia).
In Pakistan & its malaise, he calls out all the social and cultural problems which overwhelms the areas - which is to become Pakistan. Condition of women, caste system and communal aggression to name a few.
He very prescient in the section ‘Must there be a Pakistan’. Even if the idea of Pakistan is half-baked, He says the creation of new nation state has to be conceded because it is a matter of sentiment and unity of the nation cannot be maintained by force. He foretells that the allocation of financial assets, delimitation of areas and transfer of population will be the problem of Pakistan. He is critical of C.R Formula proposed by C. Rajagopalachari since the six points cannot be executed concurrently. He also provides his possible solution for the problems (based on the lessons from Partition of Ireland and Turkish-Greek population exchange). Alas, if only people heeded to his advice the great tragedy could have been avoided.
After reading this book, one cannot fail to appreciate his adroit analysis, foresight and courage in writing this work. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar is a maverick and radical figure who cannot be claimed by any single party.
So, what does ‘The Greatest Indian’ has to say about ‘The question of Pakistan’- the most contentious topic in subcontinent. He clearly states in the prologue that the aim of writing this book (written in 1945) is to expound the scheme of Pakistan and not to advocate it. Using his economist and law background, he makes both for and against the case for Pakistan. The book was broadly divided in to five parts; Muslim case for Pakistan, Hindu case against Pakistan, what if not Pakistan, Pakistan & its malaise and Must there be a Pakistan. In the final section, he presents his own views in unequivocal terms.
In ‘Muslim case for Pakistan’, he makes the argument from the Muslim League perspective. He basically argues if Gandhi’s idea of states based on language and the league’s idea of states based on religion are the same, and expounds the various failed attempts to share power and representation between Congress and the league.
In ‘Hindu case against Pakistan’, he makes three clear arguments – Breaking up of unity, Weakening of Indian defense and Pakistan fails to solve the communal problem. In Breaking up of unity, he expounds the historical baggage between the two communities. (Recently, many mischievous provocateurs are circulating selective quotes or misquotes from this chapter). In weakening of defense, he explains the historical recruiting pattern of the British army and disproportionate amount of the armed forces were recruited from the Punjab region (Both Punjabi Muslims and Sikhs) and provides his remedies. He rightly argues Pakistan doesn’t solve the communal problem and the problem of majority vs minority will remain in India.
In ‘what if not Pakistan’, he shares the possible alternatives to the Pakistan and draws comparison from abroad (Turkey-Greece and Czechoslovakia).
In Pakistan & its malaise, he calls out all the social and cultural problems which overwhelms the areas - which is to become Pakistan. Condition of women, caste system and communal aggression to name a few.
He very prescient in the section ‘Must there be a Pakistan’. Even if the idea of Pakistan is half-baked, He says the creation of new nation state has to be conceded because it is a matter of sentiment and unity of the nation cannot be maintained by force. He foretells that the allocation of financial assets, delimitation of areas and transfer of population will be the problem of Pakistan. He is critical of C.R Formula proposed by C. Rajagopalachari since the six points cannot be executed concurrently. He also provides his possible solution for the problems (based on the lessons from Partition of Ireland and Turkish-Greek population exchange). Alas, if only people heeded to his advice the great tragedy could have been avoided.
After reading this book, one cannot fail to appreciate his adroit analysis, foresight and courage in writing this work. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar is a maverick and radical figure who cannot be claimed by any single party.
August 18, 2020
Imagine it is year 1945.
Partition of United India seems to be inevitable and looming large. But Indians, Hindus and Muslims alike, are unable to bring their emotions to terms with reality of this uncertain future.
Sifting through the existing sentiment and pain, a logical voice debates on the pros and cons on creating a state of Pakistan on a communal basis. This voice is that of B.R Ambedkar. Chairing a Committee constituted by Independent Labour Party (ILP) to study the question of birth of Pakistan and partition of United India, Ambedkar published the findings of his report into this treatise.
Presenting the views of Muslim demand for Pakistan and Hindu resistance for it, Ambedkar takes you through the whirlwind of opinions, theories, narratives (communal, historical and religious) to drive home the point that Partition even though not palatable for the consciousness of Indians, is a bitter medicine required to be taken for a free India. By sheer logic and historical backing, he presents a rational argument as to why in fact creation of Pakistan and division of Hindus and Muslims into separate homelands is good for the future of India. By drawing examples from Europe and Partition of Britain and Ireland, Ambedkar appeals to the rationality of Indians to see Partition not as an exception but a well-accepted and common feature in determination of self-governance and a direct consequence of rise of nationalism. Looking beyond the romantic notions of historic sentiments as to the unity of India, he proposes a line of thought that there is a chasm of cultural and ideological differences between northern provinces which are proposed to be within the West Pakistan and rest of the country.
In no uncertain terms does he support the creation of Pakistan, but he does not mince his words while criticising the manner in which Hindu minority of the Muslim majority provinces have been sidelined for political gains. In unequivocal terms, his belief that is better to have a territorially divided state at the time of independence rather than inherent an united but weak state marred with communal tensions, comes across as the key theme of the book.
Partition of United India seems to be inevitable and looming large. But Indians, Hindus and Muslims alike, are unable to bring their emotions to terms with reality of this uncertain future.
Sifting through the existing sentiment and pain, a logical voice debates on the pros and cons on creating a state of Pakistan on a communal basis. This voice is that of B.R Ambedkar. Chairing a Committee constituted by Independent Labour Party (ILP) to study the question of birth of Pakistan and partition of United India, Ambedkar published the findings of his report into this treatise.
Presenting the views of Muslim demand for Pakistan and Hindu resistance for it, Ambedkar takes you through the whirlwind of opinions, theories, narratives (communal, historical and religious) to drive home the point that Partition even though not palatable for the consciousness of Indians, is a bitter medicine required to be taken for a free India. By sheer logic and historical backing, he presents a rational argument as to why in fact creation of Pakistan and division of Hindus and Muslims into separate homelands is good for the future of India. By drawing examples from Europe and Partition of Britain and Ireland, Ambedkar appeals to the rationality of Indians to see Partition not as an exception but a well-accepted and common feature in determination of self-governance and a direct consequence of rise of nationalism. Looking beyond the romantic notions of historic sentiments as to the unity of India, he proposes a line of thought that there is a chasm of cultural and ideological differences between northern provinces which are proposed to be within the West Pakistan and rest of the country.
In no uncertain terms does he support the creation of Pakistan, but he does not mince his words while criticising the manner in which Hindu minority of the Muslim majority provinces have been sidelined for political gains. In unequivocal terms, his belief that is better to have a territorially divided state at the time of independence rather than inherent an united but weak state marred with communal tensions, comes across as the key theme of the book.
June 27, 2020
Dr. Ambedkar is similar to Batman in Dark Knight. He is not the hero we deserved. Anyone who wants to read a scholarly account of Indian history should read only him instead of the white wash experts of the ilk of Mr. Guha, Ms. Thappar etc. It is a travesty that he was sidelined from national politics since he didnt agree with the politics of congress party.
On this book, its masterfully written. Anyone who is still perplexed as to why partition happened wouldn't need to read any other book. There are ominous warnings for the future from this book. If we fail to learn from the lessons that he shared, history would repeat itself.
Its incredible that a book written in 1945 still stands tall as one of the most articulate and accurate work on the reasons of those historic days.
On this book, its masterfully written. Anyone who is still perplexed as to why partition happened wouldn't need to read any other book. There are ominous warnings for the future from this book. If we fail to learn from the lessons that he shared, history would repeat itself.
Its incredible that a book written in 1945 still stands tall as one of the most articulate and accurate work on the reasons of those historic days.
September 19, 2011
Excellent book by Dr. Ambedkar
January 10, 2019
The best take till date on Pakistan creation in the most volatile period of 1940s and reasoning behind it.
April 30, 2019
One of the best books on Partition. Dr Ambedkar presents his arguments considering Muslim case for Pakistan and hindu case against Pakistan.
Remarks: Recommended
Remarks: Recommended
August 26, 2021
Great book to understand the real-time events that led to the Partition of British India. The book is intriguing, sheds light on the political, social and communal aspects of the Hindu and Muslim communities and the political parties represented them. Dr. Ambedkar’s futuristic views on the constitution, internal security, defence and foreign policy of India post-partition were significant and way ahead of his time. He explicitly has given insights to the readers to understand and contemplate the rational, sentimental and communal aspects before and during the time of Partition. He has shown both the Hindu and Muslim side of the history and leave it up to them to decide upon. Also he has added his views in ‘Thoughts on Pakistan’. When the past and current Indian history works were/are secularised for obvious political correctness and scores, this book will be a benchmark.
One of the few books in Indian history I found much interesting to read. I quite like Ambedkar’s writing and storytelling.
This book and the events dealt with are not a thing of the past but it is very very relatable and finds its place in contemporary politics and academic studies.
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”
One of the few books in Indian history I found much interesting to read. I quite like Ambedkar’s writing and storytelling.
This book and the events dealt with are not a thing of the past but it is very very relatable and finds its place in contemporary politics and academic studies.
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”
January 4, 2022
Available freely : https://mea.gov.in/Images/attach/amb/... or http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pr...
Dr Ambedkar writes objectively on a very contentious topic, presenting pros and cons of the case for Pakistan, from the perspectives of Hindus and Muslims, while going over what defines a state, nation and a people. He does not pull any punches against the predominant political forces of the time - INC, Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha. He also presents possible alternatives to Pakistan and (spoiler alert) argues that a separate Pakistan is the least bad option for Hindus and Muslims.
We often view India as a fait accompli, but this book is eye-opening in presenting so many options which could have happened around the time. It presents a different perspective of our Independence movement from what I learned in school.
Dr Ambedkar writes objectively on a very contentious topic, presenting pros and cons of the case for Pakistan, from the perspectives of Hindus and Muslims, while going over what defines a state, nation and a people. He does not pull any punches against the predominant political forces of the time - INC, Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha. He also presents possible alternatives to Pakistan and (spoiler alert) argues that a separate Pakistan is the least bad option for Hindus and Muslims.
We often view India as a fait accompli, but this book is eye-opening in presenting so many options which could have happened around the time. It presents a different perspective of our Independence movement from what I learned in school.
July 10, 2020
I didn't feel like this was written before partition. Most things are still relevant in our society. Dr B R Ambedkar's book was much ahead of its time. This book would definitely change some of our knowledge about Indian history and society. Best thing about the book is he has criticized the system with facts and later provided his own opinion with facts and logic to support it. Hardly we will find anything so unbiased and fact-based in these days. Must read for someone who wants to know the issues of Indian society not only during partition but also in the current time.
February 26, 2021
The title of the book itself is so intriguing: is Pakistan a result of partition of India or is partition result of a Pakistan. The book throws light on a lot of rough questions on our understanding of religion, community, nationality, majority, minority, politics, and all the other things in between.
The author has drawn hints from precedents and has done a thorough analysis of situation of the country. The position of political parties and national leaders has also been discussed deeply in the context of the idea of Pakistan. The author has not hesitated from saying things that are harsh but true.
Are the Britishers to be blamed for partition of India? Read this book to find a realistic answer.
The author has drawn hints from precedents and has done a thorough analysis of situation of the country. The position of political parties and national leaders has also been discussed deeply in the context of the idea of Pakistan. The author has not hesitated from saying things that are harsh but true.
Are the Britishers to be blamed for partition of India? Read this book to find a realistic answer.
September 11, 2023
After reading this book, it is very clear that the thought process and argument skills of Dr B R Ambedkar was unparallel. He was a realist and has articulated the problem and it's possible solution in great length and clarity. He has dealt with the issue at question without being emotional and has provided rational solutions considering ground reality. Lots of lessons can be learnt by the current generation from this book as even today we still struggle with broadly the same issues.
December 3, 2022
One of the most revealing and impactful works I've come across. Only makes me realize the importance of reading such a work at an early stage of life. Also, on a slightly different note, I think India benefitted from one of its most erudite sons - BR Ambedkar - not being under the influence of or rather staunchly opposed to MK Gandhi.
January 11, 2021
Ambedkar has analyzed and written about the Partition of India as clearly and bluntly as one could write. He goes below the surface to talk about actual issues and draws on history and similar global examples from Europe and Africa to put things into perspective. He delves deep into the psyche of the religious communities and the respective leaders of each community to further clarify the positions that were taken on the subject. He makes no apologies for his scathing criticism of the politicians and saves his position until the end.
February 13, 2022
Extremely balanced and comprehensive view of the partition question.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 94 reviews