BACK

Partition and Transformation of Punjab in 1947

Dr Kirpal Singh

The partition of Punjab in 1947 is one of the unique events, as it “enforced the movement of the people on the scale absolutely unparalleled in the history of the world.”1 “There must be many examples in the bloody history of mankind where the extent of violence has been as great or even greater but it is probably true that there has never been such a huge exchange of population”, says Horace Alexander.2 In the case of East Punjab and West Punjab, more than eight million people crossed the border within three months. According to Andrus, “The massive exchange of population that attended the partition of the sub-continent and conditions under which it took place are most unprecedent in the history.”3

After more than half a century, the students of history often raise very significant questions as to whether partition of Punjab could be avoided? Or atleast the bloodshed attending this bloody event could be minimized. It may be noted here that partition of Punjab resulted in huge loss of life. There is a difference of opinion with regard to causalities but it is generally believed that there occurred half a million deaths and about fifty thousand women were abducted accompanied by untold misery - both in East and West Punjab. Could it be avoided or minimized! It is a very big question and several writers have tried to answer this in their own way.

According to Malcolm Darling, “The tragedy of the Punjab could have been foreseen and we should not have handed over millions of helpless peasants, for their welfare we were responsible, to anarchy and ruin.”4 Penderal Moon has rightly lamented as to “why the ending of British Raj, which we have so long foreseen and so long proclaimed as our goal involved a last minute division of the country, the precipitate and forced migration of well over ten million people and casualties of the order of...........Lac”. He has described this as “singular want of prevision and failure of statesmanship.”5 Malcolm Darling has observed, “Had the Hindus and Muslims alone been concerned, the division of Punjab might have been effected without bloodshed. Sikhs were as determined to prevent the domination by the Muslims as Muslims domination by the Hindus.”6

According to Cabinet Mission Plan, Sikhs had been recognized as 3rd important community in India besides Hindus and Muslims for the purpose of transfer of power.7 It so happened that Sikhs’ point of view and the Sikh demand for exchange of Sikh population was ignored. On the 11th May, 1947, Mountbatten convened a special meeting at Simla to resolve the Punjab Problem. He invited Pt. Nehru, Mr. Jinnah and Sir Evan Jenkins, Governor of Punjab who was considered expert on Punjab affairs. In the meeting, Lord Mountbatten put the question that the Sikhs demanded exchange of their population and posed the question whether it was possible. Jenkins who was opposed to partition of Punjab, replied that it was not possible.8 Pandit Nehru and Mr. Jinnah kept silent. So the fate of Punjab was decided by a committee in which no Punjabi was represented. They could not gauge the situation and take some remedial measures.

Partition of Punjab could be avoided if there had been some adjustments or some communal understanding at the Centre. Maulana Azad was of the view that independence should be delayed for some time so that Indians could arrive at some communal understanding. Pt. Nehru and Patel insisted on immediate transfer of power to Indian hands. Equally forceful was Muslim League demand for Pakistan so it was considered advisable to transfer the power immediately. The target date for the transfer of power was June 1948 which was brought earlier to 15 August 1947. Decisions were taken in such a haste that they could not make proper assessment of the situation in Punjab. Had the Viceroy made an effort to explore every angle to the complex situation in Punjab, he would have surely scored some political arrangements in this regard. It was an open secret that Jinnah would have agreed to the proposal of transfer of population for Sikhs. But decisions were taken in such a haste that nothing could be done to pacify the Sikhs who were forced to migrate from Pakistan to East Punjab.

Lord Patric Spens, former Chief Justice of India discussing with me the causes of bloodshed which followed the transfer of power, observed, “the main cause was the haste with which we parted with India. The connection of centuries was severed within days without any proper thought. This has never happened anywhere in the British Empire.”9 Lord Ismay, Chief of Staff to Lord Mountbatten told me in response to my query that the Partition Plan which was framed by him (Lord Ismay) was incomprehensive. He said, “the plan had been prepared within two months; for comprehensive plan I needed more time.”10

Lord Attlee, the then Prime Minister, told me in response to my query: why there was so much of bloodshed and why the Sikhs had not been satisfied. He told me, “Mr. Jinnah was really a very little man. He did not agree to anything. It would have been much better had Liaquat Ali Khan been there in his place.” To my question so as to why the date of Transfer of Power which was originally June 1948 was brought down to August 1947, he replied, “The Indian Parties did not agree and the things were moving from bad to worse”.11

The very valid question why the British were in hurry to transfer power to Indian hands in 1947 had been asked by Lt. Col. V.F. Evaskine to Lord Ismay. Ismay stated in reply, “On the question whether power was transferred in too great hurry, I think there were three reasons which made any other course highly dangerous if not impossible:

1. “Communal tension throughout the country was at its extreme”.
2. “The power to deal with disturbances had almost ceased (an exhausted Civil Service, on one hand, and only a handful of British Troops on the other).”
3. “Most important of all, Nehru specifically said unless Muslim members were dismissed from the Interim Government, he would resign. The position would have been impossible having special regard to (2) above.”12

As a matter of fact Wavell Plan for Transfer of power has not been given adequate attention. I have published its full text and discussed it in my recently published book “Sikhs and Transfer of Power” (Published by Punjabi University, Patiala). Lord Wavell proposed to devote more than six months on the proposal for the northern states which were to be affected by creation of Pakistan. Mountbatten looked towards Nehru and Jinah for every proposal for Punjab. For instance, Sikhs demanded the transfer of their population to East Punjab. Mountbatten referred this proposal to Nehru and Jinnah. Nehru gave evasive reply and Jinnah did not reply13. No action was taken. In Wavell’s proposals, there was ample time and scope for negotiations and decision making.

The Punjab Boundary Award brought a lot of criticism from Pakistan. Mr Jinnah, the Governor General of Pakistan stated, “It is an unjust, incomprehensible and even perverse award”.14 The case of the Ferozepur District rendered the entire award of Lord Redcliffe suspicious in the eyes of Pakistan. Justice Mohammad Munir stated, “when I was replying to the Sikh case, I was told by Mr. Redcliffe in the most unequivocal terms that the tehsils of Ferozepur, probably, Ferozepur, Zira and Fazilka, were coming to Pakistan and that it was unnecessary for me to discuss that part of the case with them. I still remember the description of the terrain he gave me of their transfer to Pakistan and I communicated my congratulations to the Nawab of Mamdot (Lord Redcliffe told the writer that his private talk was always leaked out to the Muslim Press). He was jubilant but was disappointed a few days later, when according to the Award which came three days after the scheduled time, these tehsils went to India.”15

The important communication which caused a lot of misunderstanding was the letter of Sir George Abell, Private Secretary to Lord Mountbatten. It was addressed to Abbott, Private Secretary to Sir Evan Jenkins, the Governor of Punjab. It was dated 8 August 1947 and it read as follows:

I enclose a map showing roughly the boundary which Sir Cyril Redcliffe proposes to demarcate in his award and a note by Christopher Beaumont describing it. There will not be any great changes from this boundary but it will have to be accurately defined with reference to village and Zila boundaries in Lahore District. The Award itself is expected within the next 48 hours and I will let you know about the probable time of announcement. Perhaps you would ring me up if H.E. the Governor has any views on this point16.

According to this communication, tehsils Zira and Ferozepur had been allocated to Pakistan. This letter was written in response to Sir Evan Jenkins’ letter demanding advance information regarding the Boundary Award. His Private Secretary had contacted George Abell for this advance information. He had pleaded that it had been previous practice of the British administrators, to give advance information to the government concerned regarding administrative decisions likely to effect them so that they might make necessary arrangements. Sir Evan Jenkins while asking for advance information forgot that the information required was relating to an international boundary and it was no longer an internal problem of the province of which he was the Governor. Secondly, Sir Evan Jenkins left the letter and the map with Sir Francis Mudie, his successor, the Governor of West Punjab. By showing these documents to Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Liaquat AIi Khan the Governor General and Prime Minister of Pakistan, Sir Francis wanted to prove that the original award had been changed by Lord Mountbattan and that was the cause of the delayed announcement.

Lord Mountbatten wrote to Lord Ismay regarding Abell’s letter on 2 April 1948:
“So far as my memory serves me, the first indication I had that the Award was almost ready when George Abell informed me (it must have been on the 9th August), that he had sent up a note to Jenkins the night before giving him a preliminary forecast of where the boundary was likely to be drawn. He did not consult me before sending the forecast nor did he show it to me because he said that it was done on a staff level and that he had obtained it from Beaumont (Radcliffe’s Secretary) to give Jenkins an early warning of what was likely to be coming)17.

Lord Mountbatten concluded, “But the assumption that can be drawn is that the line indicated in the document attached to Abell’s letter was only a tentative one and it was amended subsequently to balance the Bengal boundary line18.”

Sir Cycril Redcliffe (later on Lord Redcliffe) told the writer in 1964 that he had several lines to determine the boundary between East and West Punjab. One such line was sent to Lahore but that was not the final line. The final line was in the Punjab Boundary Award.

Lord Mountbatten in a personal letter dated 2 April 1948 which has been discovered from the Military Archives, King’s College, London, wrote to Lord Ismay:

I shall always be grateful to you for having cautioned me not to try and bring any direct influence to bear on Redcliffe concerning the actual award beyond expressing the following general view. So far as I remember I said to him that Sikh attitude had become rather worse than we had anticipated and when he was balancing the boundaries of East and West Pakistan, I sincerely hoped that he would bear the Sikh problem in mind. I think I went so far as to say that if he was really satisfied that overall decision on both East and West was absolutely fair to both the communities, then I trusted that any generosity to Pakistan should be more in Bengal than in Punjab since there was no Sikh Problem in Bengal19.”

My personal findings also confirmed that these two tehsils were first allocated to West Punjab, then finally they were allocated to India. I had not known about the Sketch Map incident when I presented my paper on the Punjab Boundary Commission to Mr Justice Mehar Chand Mahajan and Mr Justice Teja Singh. Mr. Justice Mahajan advised me during 1959 that I should contact S. Harnam Singh who had pleaded the Sikh case and he would throw some light on the Punjab Boundary Award.

In January 1960, Justice Harnam Singh told me that these two tehsils have been allocated to India after he and Giani Kartar Singh pleaded with Major Short who contacted Lord Mountbatten and persuaded him to satisfy the Sikhs. In a written statement, Major Short stated to me, “My Impressions on getting to Delhi on 22 July 1947 were that the Sikhs did not likeed the plan (Partition Plan) ... I reported accordingly to our authority in Delhi. They felt as I did too that they would not now alter the course but so far as they could trim a trifle to meet the Sikhs they would.”20

This is confirmed by Christopher Beaumont’s recent disclosure. Beaumont was the Secretary of Sir Cyril Redcliffe, the Chairman of the Punjab Boundary Commission. In an article in recent issue of the Time, New York, dated August 11, 1997, his deposition that the Punjab Boundary Award was altered without his knowledge21 was significant as he was associated with the preparation of the Award at various stages. It was he who had sent the advance information about the Award to Sir Evan Jenkins, the Punjab Governor.

Transformation of Punjab
The partition of Punjab into East and West Punjab with massive cross migration of about one third of its entire population transformed not only the physical boundaries but economy, social structure, political trends as well and vitality affected the ways of life and culture of people. It is a very vast subject and it may not be possible to dilate upon on each and every aspect in detail in a single lecture.

The very name Punjab, land of five rivers, Panchnada of Sanskrit writers and Pentapotamia of Greek geographers was rendered misnomer in the case of East Punjab as well as that of West Punjab. After partition, neither of them signified land of five rivers. Instead there rose Indo Pakistan Water dispute. The canal irrigation system in Punjab - irrigated about 26 million acres - the largest irrigated area - the USA had only 23 million irrigated acres. More than 26 million people - equal to the entire population of Italy - depended on the waters of the Indus and its tributaries, flow of which has been described as the “life blood” of the inhabitants. Some of the canals in the Indus basin carried more water than the river Thames in flood.22

A long drawn dispute occurred relating to the. river water. The dispute ended with the help of World Bank experts and as a treaty was signed between India and Pakistan in 1960 which is known as Indus Water Treaty. The Text of treaty is available in my book “Select Documents on Partition” of Punjab.23

As a result of partition of Punjab, Lahore the ancient capital of Punjab was left in Pakistan and a new seat of administration had to be established in the East Punjab. It was therefore, decided that a new capital should be raised at the present site of Chandigarh. First a committee was formed including late M.S. Randhawa who recommended the present site. It was said that the plan for new capital would result in a new town symbolic of the freedom of India “unfettered by the tradition of past.24 It would provide great opportunities for planning and rebuilding life on a new pattern. Its foundation was laid by Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru in 1953. Its golden jublee was celebrated recently. Now it is capital city for both Punjab and Haryana.

The partition of Punjab proved a great leveler, especially in the East Punjab. Millionaires were sometimes rendered paupers. The landed aristocracy and upper middle classes received a rude shock and most of them were condemned to destitution. After losing their hoards, the erstwhile rich had to make a fresh start in the struggle for existence. Only hardworking, able intelligent persons could find their feet, while the indolent and parasitic elements suffered a good deal. Apart from the colonists and refugees, farmers from the districts of Lahore, Sheikhupura, Gujranwala, a large number of the Hindus and Sikhs from Rawalpindi and Multan Division were shopkeepers ­ cum-moneylenders who despised manual work. Deprived of their easy way of making money, many of them were compelled to change their profession and drift towards the rank of workers. Those who managed to stick to their traditional craft did well and prospered.

The Sikh and the Hindu land holders suffered a heavy loss by migrating to the East Punjab. It was estimated that out of 18.8 million cultivable acres in the West Punjab, about 6.7 million acres belonged to the non-Muslims who paid 34 percent of the total land revenue. The Muslims in the East Punjab owned 4.7 million cultivable acres out of a total of 14.2 million acres and paid only 27 percent of the land revenue.25 In this way, the non-Muslims had left behind about 20 lacs acres in excess of what Muslims had left in the East Punjab. The east Punjab shared forty-four percent of the population of the united Punjab with only thirty eight percent of its land.26 Besides, the East Punjab received only three million canal irrigated acres out of a total of over fourteen million acres that is about twenty one percent.27 In order to promote an equitable distribution, the Government adopted the following scheme of graded cuts in such a way that the small landlords were to have a minimum cut:
Area abandoned Net Allotment
10 acres 7½ acres
30 acres 21 acres
40 ” 27 ”
50 ” 32½ ”
60 ” 37’h ”
100 ” 51½ ”
150 ” 66½ ”
200 ” 79 ”
250 ” 89 ”
500 ” 126 ”
1000 ” 176½ ”
3000 ” 281 ½ ”
4000 ” 326½ ”
5000 ” 376½ ”28
This graded cut on land holdings had a very great effect on the East Punjab economy. The disparity in area available as compared with the area abandoned and the quality of soil and irrigation. facilities sharpened a conflict between the landlords and landless tenants. The graded cuts had pruned large holdings and even middle class farmers who were quite contented to get battai in the West Punjab found that with their reduced holdings they could no longer afford the luxury of tenant-farming and had to adopt farming on their own, very often to their ultimate benefit. The Hindus and Sikhs who migrated to the East Punjab, had a greater urban element and a higher standard of living than the Muslims of the East Punjab who had a predominantly rural character.29 The Sikhs and the Hindus had left in West Punjab extensive areas of agricultural land which they had owned or tilled as tenants. All of that agricultural land was not available for the rehabilitation of refugees as many of the evacuee landlords had rented their land to Muslim tenants. The West Punjab Govt. adopted two expedients to settle the Muslim displaced persons - the 75 percent of whom were agriculturists.30

i) On the lands which were abandoned, agricultural refugees were settled. Each refugee family (estimated at five members) was allotted 5 to 8 Acres of irrigated land or 12½ acres of un-irrigated land.31 A formula was worked out by which the refugee owners or occupancy tenants from the East Punjab were to obtain ‘land of equal producer value’ and not necessarily of equal area. maximum limit was 250 standard acres.32

ii) The Muslim tenants on evacuee land were required to give up some part of the land cultivated by them in exchange for remission in land revenue.33

The land was allotted on a yearly basis to those persons who were prepared to cultivate it personally. A pair of bullocks and a plough were provided to five families settled on land up to 60 acres in area.34

In the East Punjab, the agriculturists belonging to a particular district of the West Punjab were directed to proceed to the specific districts in the East Punjab under the following arrangements:

Reffugee Landholders of Resettlement in the West Punjab East Punjab
Lahore and non colonists
from Montgomlery District Ferozepur Districts
Rawalpindi, Sheikhupura and
Gujranwala Districts Karnal Districts
Shahpur and Gujrat Districts Ambala District
Multan District Hissar District
Jhang and Muzafargarh Districts Rohtak District
Dera Ghazikhan and
Mianwali Districts Gurgaon District
Sialkot District Hoshiarpur, Amritsar, and
Gudaspur Districts.35
Disparity in Occupation

According to Winifred Holmes, “A simple exchange of peasant population on an equal basis would have been moderately a straightforward matter. But here everything was uneven as there existed a wide disparity in the occupations pursued by the outgoing and inflowing people.36 The following table gives the various occupations followed by the Muslims of the East Punjab and the Hindus and the Sikhs of the West Punjab:

Hereditary Hindus and Muslims in
Occupation Sikhs in W. Punjab East Punjab
Agriculture 8.2 lakhs
Traders 14.01 1akhs
Weavers 00.08 ” 3.70 ”
Shoemakers 1.25 ” 1.64 ”
Carpenters 0.56 ” 0.79 ”
Blacksmiths 0.57 ” ..... ”
Potters 0.45 ” 1.64 ”
Dyers 0.04 0.41 ”
Bakers 0.57 ” 1.84 ”
Water Carriers Barbers 0.17 ” 0.86 ”
Sweepers 2.10 ” 0.07 ”
Washer-men 0.05 ” 0.52 ”
Tailors 0.02 ” 0.08 ”

Total 28.07 lakhs 43.94 lakhs37

The exodus of Muslim skilled labour from the East Punjab substantially crippled the industries like hosiery, metal works and railways in which the Muslims formed about ninety percent of skilled or semi skilled labour. The East Punjab which was already backward in industrial development, suffered much on this account. Most of the factories and workshops were closed.38 The Textile industry, carpet and blanket-weaving, foundry and engineering industries, which were mostly in the hands of the Muslims, suffered a serious setback. In the same way, conditions were no better in the West Punjab as has been graphically described in the first Year of Pakistan. “The disturbances forced the Muslim workers of the East Punjab industries like hosiery, handloom, weaving, carpet and blanket weaving, foundry and engineering to the West Punjab and stores and other essential materials were not available. There was a great demand for goods but there were neither stores nor trained personnel of the higher grade to produce them, the greatest shortage was in cloth and there was most acute unemployment among the weavers.39

Social Changes
As a result of the partition, there was a sharp decline in the morals of the people. The serious economic crisis created by the forced migration provided a climate for immorality. The prevailing lawlessness common in the East and West Punjabs removed all social restraints and scruples. About fifty thousand women were abducted in both the Punjabs.40 The violent communal riots, murders and heinous crimes brought the people’s morals to the lowest ebb.
The partition of the Punjab caused an upheaval in the social structure. The refugees found themselves aliens in their new surroundings. The very places, the physical and geographical environment and people among whom they were required to spend their lives and develop new relationships were unfamiliar. This created a feeling of frustration and discontentment among the refugees. In the West Punjab, this led to the evil practices of beggary, prostitution, delinquency and crime.41

The partition of Punjab gave a severe blow to the common village traditions: Persons belonging to the same biradari were scattered over different villages and towns in the same and even different districts, with the result that social restraint exercised by the biradari was relaxed people were invariably. strangers to their neighbours, because belonging as they did to different places, they had settled at one place. There was so much antipathy among the refugees settlers in the same village that it sometimes resulted in thefts and abduction of women in the East Punjab.42

The partition of the Punjab and the subsequent mass migration introduced the new element of refugees in the social set up of the East and West Punjab. Refugees from the West Punjab mingled with the inhabitants of the East Punjab and those from the East Punjab and the East Punjab States with the people of West Punjab. This mingling of the population led to so many new social developments. A large number of the Sikhs and Hindus from Rawalpindi and Multan Division who were engaged in trade resettled in the backward towns and villages of East Punjab. This quickened the pulse of social life. The drab bazaars with ill-kept shops were completely changed, yielding place to well stocked and orderly shops. The refugee shopkeepers greatly increased the circulation of goods even in the villages inhabited by the parsimonious jats of the Rohtak side. The free and easy culture of the West Punjab had a liberalizing influence on the women of the East Punjab,” who emulating the example of their sisters from West Punjab, began to discard the purdah.43

As a result of the migration, the West Punjab lost its former cultural variety. “In the towns, most of the life and colour had been provided by the Hindus and in the countryside and Sikhs had contributed invaluable pioneering drive and enterprise. After partition this special and cultural variety was no longer present.”44

The constant invasion from the northwest had formed the Punjabi character in such way as to enable them to face adversity with patience and courage. These characteristics enabled them to overcome the trauma of partition and they got settled in life within a few decades. They inherited deficit areas in agricultural production. With their labour and enterprising nature they made it not only self sufficient but began to contribute more than fifty percent to central pool of the Government of India by bringing Green Revolution.

Change in Political Trends
After partition, the West Punjab had an area of 61,980 squares miles and informed the biggest provincial unit of Pakistan. Its population was 15.80 million, the second largest in Pakistan. Therefore, the inhabitants in West Punjab dominated in Pakistan. After partition East Punjab formed one of the smallest provinces in India. It had an area of 37428 sq. miles and a population of 12.6 million.45

The partition of Punjab solved the communal and minority problems in the West Punjab, as all the Sikhs and the Hindus had migrated to the East Punjab. Similarly, it solved the Muslim and Non-Muslim problem in the East Punjab, as almost all Muslim had migrated to the West Punjab. But the exodus of the Muslim population from the East Punjab did not solve the minority problem in the new State. The cross-migration of population improved the position of the Sikhs as a powerful minority. In the united Punjab, the Sikhs were only thirteen percent, whereas in the East Punjab after migration, they formed about thirty three percent of the population. In the united Punjab, the Sikh population was so scattered that they did not form a majority in any of the districts. After partition, however, the Sikhs formed a majority in the districts of Amritsar, Gurdaspur, Ferozepur, Jalandhar, Hoshiarpur and Ludhiana in the East Punjab.

“This great concentration of very nationally minded and very martial people in a comparatively very small area must be a cause of anxiety to the Govt of India.46 Prof. Tinker has written that “Among the military castes in India today, the most obvious political problem is posed by the Sikhs. The Sikhs lost some of their richest agricultural land by partition and have nourished a sense of grievance ever since. Their tough bellicosity has been channeled into the army service. Their sense of grievance and isolation has led to the demand of a Punjabi speaking Sikh state.47”

In the post partition, one of the important political problems in the East Punjab was the language problem. In the United Punjab according to Grierson, the dominant language of Punjab was Punjabi but neither Muslims nor Hindus owned it. Since Indian National Congress was committed to carve out states on linguistic basis, the inhabitants of Punjab particularly Sikhs put forward the demand of a Punjabi speaking state. The Punjabi Hindus opposed it. In order to counteract this demand, they organized Hindi Raksha Samiti and pressed for Maha Punjab. The Shiromani Akali Dal, the most influential organization of Sikhs, launched agitation for creation of Punjabi speaking state popularly known as Punjabi Suba. Thus Hindu Sikh tension mounted.

Historically speaking Hindu-Sikh tension had its origin in shabby language used for Guru Nanak and his followers by Swami Dayananda, the founder of Arya Smaj in his book Satyalth Parkash published in 1875, the year in which first Arya Smaj was established in Bombay. “The word used for Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism therein is “dhurta”, which according to Bate’s Dictionary of the Hindi language, means ‘rogue, cheat, fraudulent, crafty, cunning, knavish, sly, dishonest, and mischievous’. The hymn of the Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh scripture, he called mithya (falsehood) and Sikhism a jal (a snare) to rob and cheat simple folk of their wealth and property (dhan adik, harne ke Wasty).

“Two years later, Swami Dayananda came to Punjab and established the Arya Smaj at Lahore. In his discourse in Punjab, he always praised the work of the Sikh Gurus. This attracted a number of Sikhs to the Arya Samaj. One of them Bhai Jawahar Singh, later became the Secretary of the Lahore, Arya Samaj and also of the DAV College Managing Committee.

“While Swami Dayananda was at Kanpur on ‘his return from the Punjab, Sardar Bhagat Singh, Sub Engineer of the Ajmer Division wrote to him in protest against his objectionable remarks in the “Satyarth Prakash” against the Sikhs and Sikhism. Swarni ji, wrote back saying that his opinion had undergone a change during his visit to Punjab and that the remarks in question would be deleted from the next edition ,of the book. But nothing came to be done. It was, perhaps, due to the untimely death of Swami ji on October 10, 1883. The second edition of the Satyarth Prakash was perhaps then still in the press. With the edition of the Satyarth Prakash and the admission of some over zealous young men into the Arya Samaj, the attitude of some of the leading Arya Sarnajists became increasingly hostile towards Sikhs and Sikhism. The columns of the Arya Samachar, Meerut and the Arya Patrika Lahore of those days bear witness to this. The Second edition of Satyarth Prakash turned out to be more disappointing and hostile. In it the attack on the Sikh Gurus, the Sikh scriptures and the Sikh people in general was more direct, more biting and more painful. Guru Nanak was given out as illiterate, self conceited and hypocrite. The Sikh scripture was insulted and the tenets and symbols of Sikhism were ridiculed’.

“This naturally disillusioned those Sikhs who were members of the Arya Samaj or were its active supporters. They felt very much hurt and dejected. What added to the tension was the fanatical attitude of some members of the Arya Samaj who went out of their way to flash the wrongful remarks of the Satyarth Prakash and unnecessarily wounded the susceptibilities of the Sikhs.”47

The Shiromani Akali Dal had launched an agitation for Punjabi Suba since 1955. Consequently the Hindus in Punjab gave Hindi as their mother tongue in the Census Report of 1960 which was evidently wrong because they spoke Punjabi in their homes.

Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru was against the creation of Punjabi speaking state. His argument was that Punjabi had been recognized as one of the regional languages in the constitution. Partap Singh Kairon who was the Chief Minister of Punjab during that tenure of Nehru was also against the creation of Punjabi Suba. But soon after the death of both, the entire region was reorganized into Punjab, Haryana and Himachal conceding the Punjabi Suba demand in 1966. The Hindi speaking areas were separated and Punjab was declared to be a Punjabi speaking state like other states in the rest of India. Chandigarh which was originally built as capital of Punjab was made capital of both - Haryana and Punjab.

The Punjab states were first organized in 1948 to form Punjab and East Punjab States Union. It had also large Punjabi speaking areas. Therefore, it was merged with (East) Punjab in 1966 when Punjabi speaking state was formed in 1966 the Hindi speaking areas were separated from PEPSU and Punjab both, reducing the Punjab to a smaller size.

The Punjabi language and culture suffered a lot due to partition of Punjab in 1947 as most of the Punjabi speaking areas were left in Pakistan.

The Pakistani Punjabi began to develop on different lines with large number of Persian words and Punjabi in India began to absorb Hindi words.

~~~

References

1. O.H. Spate, India and Pakistan, London, 1954, p. 110.
2. Horace Alexander, New Citizens of India, Oxford Univ, Press, Page 7.
3. J Russel Andrew & Aziz F Mohammed, Pakistan, London, 1958, p. 463.
4. Punjab Disorders, The Hindu, Madras, 1947.
5. Penderal Moon, Divide and Quit, London, 1961, p. 283.
6. Punjab Disorders, The Hindu, Madras, Oct 11, 1947.
7. Cabinet Mission Plan Clause 18.
8. Select Documents on Partition of Punjab, Kirpal Singh, Delhi 2nd ed., page 80-81.
9. Select Documents on Partition of Punjab, Kirpal Singh, p. 770.
10. Ibid., p. 766.
11. Ibid., p. 768.
12. Ismay Papers III/7/1140, Military Archives King’s College, London, Kirpal Singh, Select Documents on Partition of Punjab, also p. 716.
13. Partition of Punjab, Kirpal Singh, Patiala, 1989, p. 50.
14. Sikh Plan in Action (typed copy) Sikh History Research Deptt. Khalsa College, Amritsar, p. 5.
15. The Tribune, Ambala Cantt., 26 April 1960.
16. Transfer of Power, Vol. XII, Document No. 377 & 139.
17. Ismay III/17/136 Centre for Military Archives, King’s College, London. Select Documents on Partition of Punjab, p. 704.
18. I.O. R/ L/ PIJ/10/119 Indian Office Record, London.
19. Mountbatten Letters to Jenkins dated 19 March, 1948, Ismay II/7/246 Centre for Military Archives, Kings College, London.
20. Kirpal Singh, Partition of Punjab, Patiala, 1989, pp. 50-5l.
21. Sikhs and Transfer of Power, Kirpal Singh, Patiala, 2006, p. 18.
22. The Indus Water Dispute, Govt. of India, p. 206.
23. Select Documents on Partition of Punjab, Kirpal Singh, New Delhi 2006, p. 743-757
Also for details of India Water Dispute see my book Partition of Punjab, Punjabi University, Patiala, pp. 191-198.
24. Statistical Abstract Punjab, Punjab Govt., p. 190.
25. Rehabilitations - Punjab on the March, 1951, p. 6.
26. Ibid.,
27. Grow More Food - Punjab on the March, 1951, p. 1.
28. Rural Rehabilitation in the Punjab, p. 3.
29. Economy of Pakistan (Govt. Publication), p. 392.
30. 1947-1957, Ten Years of Pakistan, Pakistan Govt. p. 240.
31. West Pakistan Year Book, 1958, p. 159.
32. J Russel & Andrus and Aziz F Mohammed, The Economy of Pakistan, p.470.
33. Ibid., p. 470.
34. Ten Year of Pakistan, p. 239.
35. Rural Rehabilitation in Punjab (Punjab Govt.) India, p. 1.
36. Winifred Holmes, Life in Punjab, Pakistan Quarterly, Vol. III, No.4, p.11.
37. Economy of Pakistan, Pakistan Govt., p. 397.
38. Industries and Civil Supplies, Pubic Relations Deptt., Punjab Govt., Simla, p. 1.
39. First Year of Pakistan, Pakistan Govt., p. 131-134.
40. Recovery and Restoration of Abducted persons in India, Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India, p. 6.
41. Social Welfare Work in Pakistan, Pakistan Quarterly, Karachi, Vol. VI, No.1, p. 13.
42. M S Randhawa, Out of Ashes, New Delhi, 1954, p. 193.
43. Ibid. p. 219.
44. Hugh Tinker, India and Pakistan, London, 1962, p. 70.
45. Statistical Punjab, Punjab Govt., (India), p.11.
46. Sir P Griffith, India Revisited, Asiatic Review, April 1948.
47. Hugh Tinker, India and Pakistan, p. 115.
48. Ganda Singh, Hindu-Sikh Tension, Abstracts of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh, Jan-March 2003, p. 18-19.

 

¤

BACK

©Copyright Institute of Sikh Studies, 2007, All rights reserved.