1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Softa [21]
4 years ago
14

Identify two reasons for the Indian partition.

History
1 answer:
iren [92.7K]4 years ago
4 0
1. Congress leadership: Nehru and Gandhi underestimated Jinnah, Muslim League, its ambitions and outreach. In the 1920s, Gandhi neglected Jinnah and appealed to Muslims for a common cause, which seemed harmless at that time.In the 1930s, Nehru, assured of the backing of his socialist ideology and the support among the Muslim bases for the same, arrogantly believed that Muslims won't be moved by a party based on faith. It later turned out he was false.In the 1930s, Jinnah was willing to negotiate an agreement with the leadership, but was constantly ignored. This is going over my head. Arrogance and underestimation of someone doesn't go unpunished. However blame is to be equally shared by all the top leaders. In the 1940s, ML with almost a million members had no compulsion to bow out. He had no reason to cut a deal now. He was demanding recklessly. He refused to allow first independence , then partition. I may not comment on the course of history had this been allowed.While Gandhi tried his best possible to stop the painful separation, Nehru wasn't ready to the idea of Jinnah being the first Prime Minister of the independent India till the very end. Patel hoped partition would show Jinnah the fault in his ideas and would seal his fate. Thus the failure of Congress leadership and the rise of Jinnah is interlinked.
2. Jinnah and the Muslim League: He instigated religious passions and fears among the masses since the 30s.He was more concerned with the fact that Muslims and Hindus didn't intermarry or interdine and that Congress didn't have Muslim representatives in the 1946 Provincial Elections. He claimed in his 1940 Muslim League Presidential Address that cultures, literature and way of living and views on life were different of the two communities. The theory of one nation had been carried along too far and that it was nothing but a far fetched dream. I don't think partition gave too much peace either.The provinvcial elections were held on the lines of religion and demand for a new country, rather than on the promises of growth and "independence".Direct Action Day was a call by this great leader. What else do you expect from such a gathering at such a crucial point of time on such a critical issue. If countries could be made by gatherings and processions, I'm going out on the streets to demand the Shubham Kingdom! The violence, retaliation and counter violence led to the inevitable- Partition of two brothers, fighting for petty issues, not ready to listen and even the parents acting as stubborn kids.
You might be interested in
Did Juan Seguin send a delegate to Washington?
grin007 [14]
Ima say the answer is no
6 0
3 years ago
Which of the following most accurately describes the difference between a stock exchange and an over-the-counter market?
Masteriza [31]
A stock exchange occurs in a centralized location, think Wall Street and the Stock Market. An over-the-counter market does not. Over-the-counter markets are considered less formal compared to exchanges. OTCs are less transparent and operate on fewer rules than exchanges. This can be both good and bad for those involved. 
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What are some some of the problems that native americans are facing today?
Debora [2.8K]
Identity, assimilation, tribal sovereignty, revitalizing native culture. There are more but I hope these help
4 0
3 years ago
Match the following examples of sources with the correct type of primary resource.
Nana76 [90]

Answer:B

Explanation: Government sources are a direct source originally from them and noone else

3 0
4 years ago
Were the American colonists justified in waging war and breaking away from Britain?
juin [17]
The American colonists were justified in doing this simply because their colonies had become too big and too important to be treated as a colony by the British. The British should have given the colonies some autonomy, but they did not. The analogy I like to use is that of teens and their parents. Parents have to give teens more independence as they grow up. If they do not, the teens may justifiably rebel.

The British were not, on the whole, brutal or oppressive towards the colonists. However, they would not let the colonists have much in the way of self-rule. This had been fine when the colonies were still small and economically weak. By the 1760s and 1770s, however, the colonies were "teenagers." They were big and strong enough to expect some autonomy. When Britain reacted to requests for autonomy by being more strict, the colonists were justified in rebelling.
3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Why did the native Americans demand negotiations with the United States over the northwest territory
    13·2 answers
  • A result of the Battle of Concord was that
    10·1 answer
  • Meeting clients in person instead of talking with them on the phone can help to reduce _______ when you own your own business.
    5·1 answer
  • What does the authority means?
    7·2 answers
  • What issue most clearly divided our nation’s first two political parties?
    12·2 answers
  • How did African Americans serve in WWI?
    9·2 answers
  • What order does the Declaration of Independence go in
    12·1 answer
  • Which is an example of a consumer good?
    6·2 answers
  • What was Sparta's government?​
    15·1 answer
  • Describe what life would be like for a teenager during the Industrial Revolution.
    9·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!