• Home
• /
• Opinion

What if we hadn’t split?

But you don’t have to be a historian to play: what would the Indian subcontinent be like today had it not been partitioned 60 years ago? Had both Congress and the Muslim League accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan – and they came desperately close to an agreement – India would have remained intact, with three confederating units. Would we have been better or worse off in such an arrangement? In terms of infrastructure, there is little doubt that Pakistan has benefited from Partition. In terms of its physical assets, as well as in social, political and terms, the areas that constituted Pakistan on 14 August, 1947, were some of the most underdeveloped in the subcontinent.

Since then, the country has seen considerable progress. Roads, hospitals, universities and schools have been built. Muslim entrepreneurs who migrated to the new state brought capital and business skills, and have created banks, mills and factories. And in a semi-arid country, new farming techniques have created a green revolution. For me, the transplantation of mango varieties is the most welcome aspect of this development. However, Pakistan has been deprived of the land reforms India instituted soon after Independence. Nevertheless, had it not been for Pakistan’s relentless population growth, we would all be much better off today. It can be argued that most of these changes would have occurred in an undivided India. But given our neighbour’s slow economic progress in the first three decades of Independence, I doubt that enough resources would have gone to the periphery. Also, no Partition would have meant that no mass migration would have taken place. This in turn means that most of the skills and capital that crossed the new border in 1947 would not have been available to what is now Pakistan.

Factors that led to the new nation’s relatively rapid progress in the Fifties and Sixties include liberal economic policies, as well as our pro-Western stance. This gave us access to capital and modern technology. Meanwhile, India was being governed under the Congress Party’s socialist vision that included a tightly regulated economy that yielded what is now known as the ‘Hindu rate of growth’.

My guess is that in purely economic terms, Pakistan has gained from Partition. It is in the non-physical areas that our growth has remained stunted. Had the subcontinent not been divided into two (and later three) components, we would not all have squandered such vast resources on defence. With the trillions that have gone into the black hole of military budgets, the government could have doubled and tripled the expenditure on health, education, culture and sports.

As a part of India, the area today known as Pakistan would not have suffered from the identity crisis that has made it pretend it is somehow a part of the Middle East. This, and the exclusion of the army from political life, would have reduced the religious fervour that has given rise to the extremist threat.

One of the factors that has caused the rise of extremism in Pakistan has been the perception of the existential threat that (Hindu) India poses to us.

This has been mirrored by the rise of the Hindutva religious nationalism in India reflected by the Shiv Sena and the BJP. These organisations use the (Muslim) Pakistan threat to drum up support, in the same way governments and religious and right-wing parties play the India card here. Of course the threat of extremism in India is minor compared to the danger it poses for Pakistan.

Living under a secular constitution would have made life a lot easier for our minorities. They would not have to live in fear under our iniquitous Blasphemy Laws, and would be equal citizens. Women, too, would not be subject to random prosecution under Zia ul Haq’s infamous Hudood Ordinance for trumped-up morality charges.

In the international arena, an undivided India would have long been a powerhouse. With around 1.5 billion people, it would have provided an even larger market for imported and locally produced goods.

Culturally, Pakistan would have benefited from much greater diversity than we have now. Ours is a society where women have not been allowed to play their true role. By contrast, they are highly visible in all Indian cities. And with more exposure to literature and the arts, our cultural life would have been that much richer.

In sports, too, a combined population of 1.5 billion would have produced world-beating teams: imagine a cricket team representing the entire subcontinent!

Many Pakistanis are of the view that had Partition not taken place, Muslims would have been oppressed by the Hindu majority. But half a billion Muslims are not a small minority that can be kicked around. As it is, about 160 million Muslims still live in India. Similar numbers in the areas that constitute Bangladesh and Pakistan today would have ensured that Muslims carried substantial political clout. And had Indian Muslims not faced the kind of isolation caused by Partition, they would not be the marginalised community they are now.

Politically, Pakistan would not have been dominated by the army as it is today. As a result, parliament and the judiciary would have been functioning with far greater freedom than they have done here over the last six decades.

Inevitably, there are winners and losers. Due to Partition, many people gained, while others lost out. Many fortunes were made as a direct result of the scams arising out of the purchase of property claims submitted by desperate refugees. Thousands of well-off people, caught up in the stampede created by the riots of 1947, were made destitute. Other migrants prospered due to the lack of competition in the new state.

These are highly speculative projections, and if I have offended readers on either side of the Great Divide, let me remind them that it’s only a game, and everybody can play.

rfan Husain is an eminent Pakistani writer based in London. He can be reached at irfan.husain@gmail.com