India & Pakistan: Background

India and Pakistan have a long and complicated history with each other. In fact, these two countries simultaneously became independent from Britain. When British India became independent, it was supposed to be divided into two parts. Areas consisting of 75% or more Muslims were to become Pakistan and the rest of the territory India. See Ismail Sloan

The arrangement did not include the Princely States, one of which is Kashmir. The Princely were at liberty to determine their own future -- they could join Pakistan, join India, or remain as a separate state. The Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh Dogra, decided to preserve the state of Kashmir so he decided to join neither India nor Pakistan. However, Pakistan sent tribal lashkars to talk to Kashmir about their decision of autonomy. The Indian government saw Pakistan's action as a sign of invasion and sent their troops to help defend the state of Kashmir. The result of the first war between India and Pakistan involving Kashmir was Pakistan controlling 37% while India controlled 63%.

Ever since the partition of the sub-continent in 1947, when Britain dismantled its Indian empire, India and Pakistan have been arch rivals.

The animosity has its roots in religion and history, and is epitomised by the long-running conflict over the state of Jammu and Kashmir. This has recently escalated into a dangerous nuclear arms race. It could now escalate because of the recent terrorism in Mumbai.

Background:
The name Pakistan was derived from an idea first suggested in 1933 when a student, Chaudhuri Rahmat Ali, proposed that there should be a separate homeland which would be comprised of the Muslim-majority provinces in the north-west as well as the geographically contiguous princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.

The name was formulated from: P for Punjab, A for the Afghanis of the north-west frontier, K for Kashmir, S for Sind and Tan denoting Baluchistan. The word also means land of the pure in Urdu.

The partition of the Subcontinent, however, led to severe rioting and population movement as Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus found themselves on the wrong side of the partitioned provinces of Punjab and Bengal. The latter of these became East Pakistan. An estimated half a million people died in communal violence, millions more became homeless.

Jammu and Kashmir, a collection of culturally distinct regions, were nominally brought under the rule of Sikhs in the early 19th Century. After the British fought the Sikhs in 1846, instead of assuming direct control over the area, Britain installed a Hindu ruler as Maharaja.

The Maharaja's territorial possessions included the Buddhist area of Ladakh, the predominantly Hindu region of Jammu, the majority Muslim valley of Kashmir, as well as smaller Muslim kingdoms in the west.

In the days of the British Empire, the state of Jammu and Kashmir was one of more than 560 autonomous princely states owing allegiance to Britain. At independence, the rulers were advised to join, by means of an instrument of accession, either of the two new dominions, India or Pakistan, bearing in mind their state's geographical position and the religion of their inhabitants.

By August 1947, the date of partition, the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir had not decided which dominion to join.

Over 50 years later, Pakistanis still believe that Jammu and Kashmir should have become part of Pakistan because the majority of the state's population, concentrated in the valley of Kashmir, is Muslim.

India, says the state of Jammu and Kashmir belongs to India because by the October 1947 instrument of accession, the Maharaja finally agreed to join India.

Mohandas Ghandi's Concept of partition
As a rule, Gandhi was opposed to the concept of partition as it contradicted his vision of religious unity. Of the partition of India to create Pakistan, he wrote in Harijan on 6 October 1946:

[The demand for Pakistan] as put forth by the Moslem League is un-Islamic and I have not hesitated to call it sinful. Islam stands for unity and the brotherhood of mankind, not for disrupting the oneness of the human family. Therefore, those who want to divide India into possibly warring groups are enemies alike of India and Islam. They may cut me into pieces but they cannot make me subscribe to something which I consider to be wrong [...] we must not cease to aspire, in spite of [the] wild talk, to befriend all Moslems and hold them fast as prisoners of our love.

However, as Homer Jack notes of Gandhi's long correspondence with Jinnah on the topic of Pakistan: "Although Gandhi was personally opposed to the partition of India, he proposed an agreement...which provided that the Congress and the Moslem League would cooperate to attain independence under a provisional government, after which the question of partition would be decided by a plebiscite in the districts having a Moslem majority."

These dual positions on the topic of the partition of India opened Gandhi up to criticism from both Hindus and Muslims. Muhammad Ali Jinnah and contemporary Pakistanis condemned Gandhi for undermining Muslim political rights. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and his allies condemned Gandhi, accusing him of politically appeasing Muslims while turning a blind eye to their atrocities against Hindus, and for allowing the creation of Pakistan (despite having publicly declared that "before partitioning India, my body will have to be cut into two pieces"). This continues to be politically contentious: some, like Pakistani-American historian Ayesha Jalal argue that Gandhi and the Congress' unwillingness to share power with the Muslim League hastened partition; others, like Hindu nationalist politician Pravin Togadia have also criticized Gandhi's leadership and actions on this topic, but indicating that excessive weakeness on his part led to the division of India.

For more on The Partition of India & Pakistan see Wikipedia's article.