India and the subcontinent were both in a state of flux in the 1940s. Partition loomed large, and it did eventually occur and directed the trajectory of India’s neighbourhood dynamics.
But was there an alternative to partition? Could there have been a different kind of partition? Put differently, was there an alternative to the kind of South Asia that emerged at decolonisation?
The answer at the level of ideas is a yes. There was plenty of out-of-the-box thinking on the form and shape of independent India and South Asia that remains unknown or neglected.
Had these ideas found favour, we could have had a very different neighbourhood geography and dynamics—whether it would have turned out better or worse is anyone’s guess.
Why did partition occur?
There are two explanations about why partition took place. One argues that Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations, and their coexistence within a single country and political system was impossible, making partition inevitable. This is the ‘two-nation’ thesis. The other explanation is that partition was an attempt to address the Muslim fear of Hindu majoritarian rule – which was real and widespread in those areas of the subcontinent where Muslims were in a minority. It is obvious that partition has not turned out to be a solution to the problems indexed by either of the two explanations. But what about the other out-of-box ideas that were being proposed as alternatives to partition?
