Supporters of the Indian partition explained that the practice was necessary for modernization. In other words, the proponents believed that it was only through the partitioning of India that the country speeded economic progress, as it became self-governed (Gilmartin 24). The process is explained to have eliminated the administrative errors by “traditional” politicians.
Roy discussed peace and stability, which speeded economic progress, only came after partition (77). However, this might be the only benefit because the Indian citizens have yet to recover from social, religious, political, and economic harm from establishing new states. This review thus argues that India should not be partitioned because the past traumatic events might be re-lived, and the whole situation could worsen.
The following are the potential outcomes of the partitioning of India:
- Massive loss of lives and displacement of people
With the sectionalisation of the country, individuals will be forced into two or more groups based on factors such as ethnicity or even religion, as was the case in 1947 (Glmartin 24). Individuals who find such categorization offensive might start riots and other forms of violence, which may result in several deaths.
Narrating the events of 1947, Kaur, Singh, and Kaur explained that about two million people died and over ten million were displaced following the partition (2). The killer groups started a fire that killed the aged, men, and children, while women were abducted to serve as slaves for a while before being killed. Kaur et al. argued that witnesses of deaths at Nazi camps, such as journalists and British soldiers, reported that the incidents were filled with brutality.
- Political and religious clashes
Separating Indian citizens along political or religious boundaries can breed animosity. Each group will treat the other as enemies, and constant violence may be witnessed. For instance, when India and Pakistan were separated, religion was a significant factor.
Observers reported that the partition marked the highest level of the old clash between Islam and Hinduism (Gilmartins 24). In fact, Hinduism and Islam have transformed themselves into political participants over time. The rivalry between the groups thus advanced from religious differences to political disagreements and violence.
- Interruption of economic progress
The large-scale involuntary migrations that result from the partitioning of a country interfere with the literacy, educational attainment, and occupational level of a state. A study by Bharadwaj, Khwaja, and Mian indicated that the 1947 partitioning of India caused a redistribution in literacy. A 20% decline in literacy resulted from outflows, while inflows of literate people improved the literacy level of the new state by 16% (11).
Also, agricultural activities decreased by 70% because individuals who moved out of Punjab, for instance, did not vacate substantial land, and further inflows caused overcrowding (13). The riots and brutalities which led to the killing of men also caused a massive fall in the male composition of the population (15). All these changes led to economic growth and development of the two states, and the results might be similar if India is again partitioned.
Conclusion
The partitioning of a country is not entirely effective in resolving conflicts. Tension continues to exist between the groups that were separated for peace’s sake, and the possibility of future attacks reduces the chances of attaining economic or political stability. Also, states that lack security are less attractive to investors.
The trauma and losses following partitioning can also have a profound and far-reaching negative impact on the affected people. For instance, victims of the brutalities of 1947 cannot forget the incident and live normally. Such has affected the ability of India and Pakistani to co-exist. The situation might worsen if another partition were to happen.
