The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

Partition of India and Pakistan was inevitable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,330 times Debate No: 65287
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)




I have recently joined so I might not have all those points and statistics but I assure you I have read history very well.

This debate will be on the topic whether or not Partition of India and Pakistan was inevitable or not. I highly support this topic and will present some strong evidences to why I support the opinion.

I hope that the one accepting the debate is also a good debater and will present his facts in a great manner.


I accept the debate, and welcome my opponent to his first DDO debate!

I would be arguing against the resolution. I believe that the partition of India and Pakistan was *not* inevitable, and could have been avoided if some historical stakeholders had played their cards differently.

For the purpose of the debate, just for clarification, inevitable means an event that is incapable of being avoided or prevented. []

Best of luck!
Debate Round No. 1


Cermank, thanks for welcoming me to DDO .

I, against your opinion, think that the partition of India and Pakistan was inevitable.



Unfortunately, my opponent's entire argument except the first line was wiped out as he submitted his response. He has asked me to continue with my arguments, and he'd respond in the next round. I'm gonna start.

Alright, so the resolution deals with weather or not the partition of India Pakistan was 'inevitable'. i.e unavoidable. For me to uphold my BOP, I need to prove that it was indeed avoidable. My opponent needs to prove that the partition would have definitely happened, no matter what historical decisions were made.

My arguments would touch two basic points:
1. Non uniqueness of Hindu Muslim communal conflicts
2. Mountbatten plan easily couldn't have happened.

1. Non uniqueness of Hindu-Muslim conflict: One of the most common defences of the formation of Pakistan is that the communal tension between Hindus and Muslims was too high for there to ever be a peaceful integrated India. This is just not true. There have been many communal conflicts, both before and after independence. The most prominant one that comes to mind is the anti- Sikh riots in 1984, the one that lead to the demand of Khalistan by Sikhs. After the death of Indira Gandhi by a Sikh bodyguard, there were riots all over the country. People specifically targetted Sikhs in the riots, making it extremely unsafe for the religious minority in the nation. They, (rightfully) demanded a separate nation for their own safety. In 2014, however, we still live together, relatively peacefully. Just because
there are religious clashes at one point of time in history doesn't mean that integration of that community in the mainstream is *impossible*. A demand for a separate state doesn't make the formation of one an inevitable reality.

2. Mountbatten Plan: Just for a quick recap of history, India Pakistan were divided according to the provisions of the Indian Independence Act 1947, whihc was formulated by Lord Mountbatten and Attlee. This was because of the high pressure for the partition by primarily Jinnah. Everyone, even Liaqat Ali Khan, the second in command of Muslim league was willing to negotiate. It should also be noted that the British, even though they did support and antagonized the Muslim league while still governing India (to ensure that Congress did not becoe the sole united freedom fighting front), did NOT want to be the one's responsible for breaking up of the Indian subcontinent.

Quoting the Freedom of Midnight, "Privately Mountbatton started searching the corners of his mind for possible alternatives for Indian independence. He was personally of the view that the greatest single legacy Britain could leave behind was a single and undivided India and did not want history to remember him as the man who divided the land which constituted ‘16 million of the 52 million square mile land on the surface of the globe.’ Even his chief of staff Lord Ismay wanted India to look back upon its association with Britain with pride. "

In the book, he says that that had he known that Jinnah was a critical stage tuberculosis patient, he would have postponed the Independence and thus would have avoided the partition and also the mass violence, death and unrest.

Thus the partition was definitely not inevitable. It was definitely possible for us to work through our differences, given that most of the differences were antagonization by British to ensure non unity and a fragmanted opposition. The final piece of bill that legitimized the partition while most of the stakeholders were willing to negotiate. The only person who was ironwilled in the negotiation was going to die because of tuberculosis in the near future. Had the passing of the document been postponded, the partition could have easily been avoided.

The partition of India, thus, was not inevitible.

The resolution has been negated.

Debate Round No. 2


Cermank, thanks for welcoming me to DDO . I would like to repeat that there had been some sort of technical problem during the last round and so I would like to post my Second Round reply and the reply to Cermank's 2nd Round post in one .

I, against your opinion, think that the partition of India and Pakistan was inevitable.

After a long rule of Mughals who were Muslims, when in 1857 Indians rebelled against the British, it were the muslims who were blamed the most. Many were thrown out of advisory postitions and many sent to jail. ( some even without trial )

This made a golden oppurtunity for the Hindus. They hadn't been too of a governmental authority in the rule of Mughals. Now indeed most of the governmental positions and higher military positions had been gained by Hindus with a very minority of muslims left.

Now they had almost become independent and didn't need to ally with the Muslims.

Congress Ministries were formed in 8 out of 11 provinces of India in 1937 and they worked under the instructions of the Congress High Command, which was controlled by Mr. Gandhi and some other leaders. The Congress Rule was hated because it adopted policies which harmed and hurt the Muslims in many ways. Some of the steps taken by Congress Ministries were:

1. Song of Bande Matram which clearly hurt Muslim feelings, adopted as National Anthem.
2. Wardha Scheme was educational schemes which encouraged Hindu religion and culture. Teaching was to be in Hindi with no religious education which meant that Muslim students were at a disadvantage.
3. Muslim children were required to show reverence for Gandhi’s portrait which was hung up in schools.
4. Ban on cow slaughter was enforced.
5. Frequent occurrences of Hindu-Muslim riots in which always the Muslims were made victims.

The Congress Rule was hated on account of these anti-Muslim policies and the Muslims heaved a sigh of relief, when the Congress Ministries resigned in November 1939.

Hence, it was not just a "Temporary" clash between Hindus and Muslims, rater the beginning of a long-lasting one.

Thus it was realised by some of the leading Muslims, that to preserve their identity and name they really needed a separate country where they could practise their religion without any limitations, otherwise Muslims's identity would inevitably been disorted .

As for your second point, No One likes a piece of land to be divided, yet it does. Google "History of the World from 1300 Coursera", that's a course from Princeton and the University says "This course will examine the ways in which the world has grown more integrated yet more divided over the past 700 years"

Do you think anyone really wanted pieces of Earth to be divided ? The true fact is No. Nobody wanted that, but still it happened ... Why ? Because it was a necessity, a dire one. Otherwise, Pakistan didn't really wanted Bangladesh to be separated from itself in 1971.

That's the reason British didn't wanted to leave India separated just as they were about to leave, but I think they could never understand the true situation of India from the eyes of a Muslim.

I think you should at least adress Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah by any part of his name, he at least deserves that much respect. (A man who would be dying of tuberclosis ? Sounds very rude ...)


I thank my opponent for his argument in the previous round.

First, I apologize for unintentionally hurting any sentiments (if I did), I can assure you I didn't mean to be rude. I was merely pointing out that Muhammad Ali Jinnah was about to die of tuberculosis, and had Mountbatten known that, he would have postponed the Indian Independence Act 1947, successfully avoiding the partition.

My opponent makes one basic point, that the difference between Hindus and Muslims was too 'strong' for them to ever live peacefully. The idea, however, is fundamentally flawed.

India definitely wasn't a communal paradise before the British invasion. But that really doesn't matter. BOTH, Hindus and Muslims were willing to work together, *despite* their differences. They did cooperate together in the Khilafat movement, as I stated in the previous round. They reached an agreement at the Lucknow Pact [1] to work together and pressurize the British government, to have more say in the working of their government. Whether or not it was a 'golden opportunity' for Hindus when Britishers came and colonized their country, whatever the historical dynamics, they agreed to work together against their common enemy.

Living together wasn't completely a far fetched belief. EVEN the second in command in Muhammad Jinnah's cabinet, Liaquat Ali Khan was willing to negotiate, according to the revelations of the governor general at the time. The only person who essentially fathered the formation of Pakistan was Jinnah, who was suffering tuberculosis at the time. My opponent doesn't really address this. EVEN the person who overlooked the passing of the partition bill stated that HAD he known that Jinnah was suffering from tuberculosis, he would have postponed the bill and deferred the partition of India.

The partition, thus, could have easily been avoided. It wasn't inevitable.

Reiterating, yes, there were conflicts between Hindus and muslims. But both of them were willing to work through them. Existence of conflicts doesn't mean that the onlyinevitable response is a partition. There could have been more proportional representation at the center, better laws in the parliament, more negotiations, a myriad of steps that could have been taken to pacify the Muslims. Partition was a sad reality, not a unavoidable one. India does have other minorities living here, without trampling on their rights.

Debate Round No. 3


First I would thank the opponent for providing a well-built opinion.

But, the facts he proposed as the basis of his opinion were rotten from the roots and perhaps actually gave evidence instead for my opinion.

To my opponent's point that there were actually communal violence between the Hindus and Muslims for a long time, it wasn't a new thing, right ? Well, that was just one of the main reason for the separation, that is to end these frequent clashes between the two religions. For example, citing your example of the late Sikh uprising in India, what if another rebellion started in 2000 and another in 2014 ? Well, most of the wise minds will definitely think of giving them Khalistan .

Secondly, to the opponent's point that they were willing to work together . Yes, they did work together during the Khilafat Movement, but isn't this a bitter truth that to drive away and fight enemies, even the bitterest of enemies can combine together ? And just after the leaving of British looked like a strong possibly, Hindus really didn't care enough now about working with the Muslims.

After all, Jinnah's first demand wasn't to create a separate country. It was just to raise the status of the Muslims in the governmental level on the basis that they had been the ruling power over a long time. But when Hindus didn't took him ( esp. the 14 points ) seriously, and Muslims had to face worst tyrannies in the period of Congress rule ( 1937 - 39 ), it was just the only possible option left for him to demand, "Partition".

And finally, another reason I would propose for the Partition's inevitability is that during the Mughal rule, Muslims did allow Hindus to carry on with their religious duties and commandments, to an extent that Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb even tried to combine Hinduism and Islam. But when Congress came in power during '37 - '39 , they did not did the same. They put ban on Azaan and all other things I have aforementioned, Congress ( which represented majority of Hindu Politicians) didn't looked even a little bit concerned about the well-being of Muslims and allowing them religious freedom.

I hope that I proved my opponent's argument unjustified by back-firing his reasons upon him, and that really "Partition of India and Pakistan was inevitable" because of the increasing persecutions by Hindus which Muslims rarely did when they were in power, and as to avoid any further communal violence.


I thank Pro for the debate, it was definitely one of the interesting one's I've had.

Before summarizing and underlinining my arguments, I'd like to make one thing clear- the debate is not about whether or not India and Pakistan *should* have partitioned. Its about whether the partition was unavoidable. So his first point, for example, stating that if Sikh riots happen again, maybe carving out a new Sikh state Khalistan should be something 'wise minds would agree on' is a completely normative opinion. It has nothing to do with the resolution. Its not our place to discuss what *should* have happened. This debate pertains to whether or not anything *else* could have been done to avoid the partition. And there is no debate there, it is a historically documented fact. Everyone except Muhammad Ali Jinnah was willing to cooperate, and had Mountbatten known that Jinnah was suffering from tuberculosis, he would have postponded the Indian Independence Act 1947, successfully avoiding the partition.

I mean, drawing the same parallel, 1984 was terrible for Hindu- Sikh relations. There was a huge demand for partition then, but since we didn't part ways, we are living together peacefully today.

My opponents second point deals with the same line of reasoning, that Muslims weren't happy during Congress rule. Even if they cooperated during Khilafat and Lucknow pact, the underlying 'tyranny' of Hindus remained. That is just not true. Congress was willing to negotiate, (and so was the muslim league, except Jinnah being adamant on his demands). He rejected the Nehru report which reserved a quarter of the seats in the central legislature to Muslims, apart from introducing propotional representation at state level and a lot of other reconcillatory measures. The 'amendments' being asked for were regressive and would have been a slippery slope to a more disintegrated country on religious lines, a fact that many of the people in Muslim league understood. Again, had the 1947 act been postponded, te partition would never have happened.

And lastly, again, even though I understand this has no significance in the debate, the fact is just wrong. A lot of mughals, especially Auranzeb, was known for demolishing Hindu temples and being extremely intolerant in that regard. In fact, Aurangzeb was the most intolerant of all the mughal emporers [1] [2] , he just could not have tried to combine Islam and Hinduism. This is just misinformation, I couldn't find anything on this online.

Regardless, as I said, this was history. The all- India Muslim league and Congress, had they come to an agreement, (something that was definitely foreseeable given that almost all the stakeholders except Jinnah were willing to compromise) the partition wouldn't have happened. History doesn't matter. The Hindu Muslim riots in the 17th century definitely don't matter. What matters is that close to the actual partition treaty, Hindus and Muslims were willing to let go of their past and work together. No one, not the Congress, not the majority of Muslim league, and definitely not the Britishers wanted the partition. Partition happened because Jinnah, who had a huge following was unwilling to negotiate. It could have been avoided had Mountbatten known that Jinnah was suffering from tuberculosis and was going to die soon, something he confessed in the 'Freedom of Midnight'.

The partition wasn't inevitable.

The resolution is negated.

Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 11 months ago
>The saffron colour for Hindus, Green for Muslims, and white for peace.

If the green/saffron did mean that, then it excludes all religions outside of Hinduism and Islam; isn't that nonsecular? [Note: the official symbolism for the flag isn't that; it's actually saffron for "sacrifice and courage," green for "faith and chivalry," and white for "peace and truth."]
Posted by Cermank 1 year ago
Imad, true. Wardha scheme was basically Gandhi being all against the British system of education. He believed in learning through practise, so that the 'theoretical' subjects could be weighted down in importance. People thinking of themselves as a unit rather than their respective religions was more of a response to the religious opposition. Learning through practice isn't an exclusively Hindu idea anyway, so the opposition imo was kind of pointless. And misplaced, his personal idea of education (which later he announced as wardha scheme) proved to be horrible for his own sons, something he accepted himself. The opposition, traditionally should have been based on the demerits of the plan, rather than anything else, but i digress.

Bande Matram wasn't an anti-muslim song in the slightest, lol. why do you think its anti muslim? muslims were and are allowed to construct mosques, that was and is one of their fundamental rights. About the drums thing, maybe. It was kinda communalist environment at the time, this I can believe could be true. But nothing from the government was anti muslim. The flag, as I said, I mean you can see it. Three colours, two religions. I thought that was a pretty good move, tbh.

and lol, sorry, i was kinda bored last night.
Posted by Cermank 1 year ago
fazz, definitely. Every author has an objective, the more you look into history, the better perspectives you get. I definitely do not support all the decisions India made during independence, and a lot of Indian nationalists who's faults are glossed over while teaching us Indian history.

But misinformation is the worst kind of propoganda imo.
Posted by fazz 1 year ago
Can you post your bio again? The doc file was corrupted.
Posted by Imad_Sawal 1 year ago
Haha, thanks , O'levels are going pretty tough , though !

And, the booklet I provided with ain't a Pakistani. It is written by CIE (Cambridge International Examinations) examiners and I don't think so they can be biased ( or maybe ... )

Secondly, the Googling you often refer to Cermank, is pretty inaccurate. Much more than any of the sources I have, or can site. Google just shows up the results you "want" to see. This is known as a Filter Bubble.
For more on this : and .

When I searched for "Wardha Scheme against muslims" , here's the first link that popped up :

Its a Pakistani site and should be biased , but nevertheless it says that Wardha Scheme taught muslim students to think of themselves as "Indians" and thus negating the Two Nation theory. Also "Congress declared Hindi as the national language and Deva Nagri as the official script. The Congress flag was given the status of national flag, slaughtering of cows was prohibited and it was made compulsory for the children to worship the picture of Gandhi at school. Band-i-Mataram, an anti-Muslim song taken from Bankim Chandra Chatterji"s novel Ananda Math, was made the national anthem of the country. Religious intolerance was the order of the day. Muslims were not allowed to construct new mosques. Hindus would play drums in front of mosques when Muslims were praying."

And one last thing, History, as Fazz ( what's your real name ? ) says, has always been ambiguous. There are sources still today regarding the 20th Century that are complete opposite but equally trustworthy.
And really I am trying to learn both sides of the picture these days by studying online courses with some global students ( incld.Indians ).

Here's my short autobiography :

P.S I had to edit my reply three times 'cause you both continued to post replies while I was typing :-)
Posted by fazz 1 year ago
I wrote: "As students (like our friend Imad :) we are taught to only objectively value a source. Since we are not taught how to be subjective we immediatelly "shutdown" our brain."

*Correction: Since we are not taught how to be subjective we immediatelly "shutdown" our brain.. when presented with opposing information. This is how fundamentalism grows because of political correctness and the need to teach students to learn "good" things instead of how the world actually works.
Posted by fazz 1 year ago

"Imad, i'm really impressed by the fact that you're so interested in history, but a lot of your knowledge is exclusive propaganda."

I don't think it is Propaganda. But the fact is rear-view vision of old events are never 20/20. We tend to remember the good.. leave out the bad! It's just human nature.

I think the subject of History is interesting. But it has many faults. Its like a film-maker pointing his camera at a single object in a room. You don't see the whole room but you just see the story you are told to see. The idea is to find the best sources we can. I hate to say this... but finding a source which agrees with your bias is the best source in my opinion. With controversial topics like history it is best to judge your gut-feeling, and flow with that feeling.

The idea is the more you read the better you get at realizing that someone is stupidly biased say against India for no good reason. But if its a good source even if they are biased they will give constructive reasons for following that bias.

"All history is propaganda"

You just have to find the right story that best fits your subjective view and your objective standards. Balancing bias with education is very important.

As students (like our friend Imad :) we are taught to only objectively value a source. Since we are not taught how to be subjective we immediatelly "shutdown" our brain. I think its important to teach students both sides- objective standards of history, and subjective standards of propaganda. That way you leave it up to the student to learn how to sift good (from bad). I think perhaps this is what debators on DDO call playing D'Advocate?
Posted by fazz 1 year ago
Imad, thanks for the feedback :)

I have to admit I agree with Cermanck here. See Cermancks post about Bande mataram below. I think Rabindranath Thakur brought up the possibility of Muslims opposing Bande Mataram. Then Congress decided to include only the first two stanzas and delete the rest of the poem as the official song of India. According to Sunni-muslim Ulema Board in India on 6 Sep 2006, issued a fatwa that the Muslims can sing the first two verses of the song.

Btw, Gandhi very much asked for human rights for Muslims. So why would he ask anybody to bow down for him. This sounds like a joke.

Also, your source is your O'level Pakistani booklet. You have to read some history books. Remember, that Pakistan is biased against India (but also India is biased towards Pakistan, haha) so my advice is to read both - Pakistani, plus non-Pakistani books, before you want to debate.

Good luck with your O'levels ;)
Posted by Cermank 1 year ago
Also, the three coloured flag is secular. The saffron colour for Hindus, Green for Muslims, and white for peace.
Posted by Cermank 1 year ago
lol there are no derogatory remarks made in vande mataram against the muslims. The only opposition by muslims against the song is that the song asks people to 'bow before the motherland' and muslims bow before no one except Allah.

And regarding Wardha scheme, I personally am not a big fan, but there is literally nothing in it that is against muslims. It points out that education should be imparted through practical labour. Bowing before Gandhi's portrait was definitely not a part of Wardha scheme. I haven't heard of it, and googling shows the exact phrase repeated again and again in exclusively pakistani papers, so i'm reluctant.

I mean, imad, i'm really impressed by the fact that you're so interested in history, but a lot of your knowledge is exclusive propaganda.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't really think Pro managed to pull off the "inevitable" part. Con had some pretty good counter-plans that might have worked.
Vote Placed by fazz 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a short debate. The topic is a complicated issue worth a long debate. However, as defined in the initial round Pro did not prove "inevitability". Yes, there were communal tensions but on the other hand the leaders on different sides did agree on a lot of things. So Pro has failed to defend his initial resolution. I vote Con.