Was Pakistan Built on Punjab’s Corpses A Historical Rebuttal.

Was Pakistan Built on Punjab’s Corpses A Historical Rebuttal

In recent years, a troubling narrative has been circulating that claims “Pakistan was created on the corpses of Punjab”. Such inflammatory statements are not only historically inaccurate but also dangerous, as they seek to distort history, dishonor the sacrifices of millions, and provoke unnecessary divisions among communities. It is therefore essential to respond with facts, context, and clarity.

1. Who Demanded the Partition of Punjab?

Contrary to the propaganda that the Muslim League engineered the partition of Punjab, historical evidence proves otherwise. After the Lahore Resolution of March 1940, it was not the Muslim League but Sikh and Hindu leadership in Punjab who demanded that Punjab should also be divided on religious grounds if India was to be partitioned.

• Sunder Singh Majithia, leader of the Akali Dal and Chief Khalsa Diwan, first put forward the demand to partition Punjab.

• This demand was strongly supported by the Punjab Hindu Mahasabha and the Central Khalsa Young Men’s Union.

• Later, Master Tara Singh amplified this call, leading Sikh agitation for a separate East Punjab.

On 20 February 1947, when British Prime Minister Clement Attlee announced India’s independence, the Indian National Congress also endorsed the demand to partition Punjab on communal lines.

In contrast, the Muslim League opposed the division of both Punjab and Bengal. Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah accepted the division reluctantly on 3 June 1947, after the British made it clear that refusal would result in a united India where Pakistan could not be created, except by negotiating with the future Dominion of India—a far more dangerous and uncertain prospect.

Therefore, blaming the Muslim League or Jinnah for Punjab’s partition is historically false.

2. Was the Two-Nation Theory Just an Elite Project?

Another common misconception is that the Two-Nation Theory was merely a construct of feudal elites, bureaucrats, and the military. This argument ignores both the historical context and the lived experiences of millions of Muslims.

• Until the 1940s, India was a British colony with limited franchise. The right to vote was restricted to a small percentage of the population based on property, income, and education. Hence, all political parties—Congress, Muslim League, Akali Dal—were led by members of the respective elites.

• Congress leadership itself came from privileged classes: M.K. Gandhi was a barrister; Motilal Nehru and Jawaharlal Nehru were wealthy lawyers; Vallabhbhai Patel was a prosperous barrister; Maulana Abul Kalam Azad also belonged to the elite.

To single out the Muslim League for having landlords and aristocrats is intellectually dishonest. That was the spirit of the age: politics was an elite-led process in colonial India.

Most importantly, the Two-Nation Theory was not created in the drawing rooms of elites alone. It resonated with ordinary Muslims who had first-hand experiences of living as a vulnerable minority amid Hindu majoritarian politics. Their fears and aspirations cannot simply be dismissed as elite manipulation.

3. The “Military Pasture” Myth

Some critics accuse the Muslim League and the Two-Nation Theory of laying the foundations for Pakistan’s army dominance. This too is historically inaccurate.

The reality is that after the 1857 uprising, the British set up the Peel Commission to identify “loyal races” for recruitment into the colonial army. As a result, Bengalis and Madrasis were excluded, and the so-called “Martial Races”—Punjabi Muslims, Sikhs, Pathans, and Gurkhas—became the backbone of the British Indian Army.

Thus, by the time Pakistan was created in 1947, Punjab and NWFP were already militarized regions due to British colonial policies, not because of the Muslim League. To blame Pakistan’s founding ideology for this is both ahistorical and unfair.

4. The Tragedy of Punjab’s Partition

No honest historian can deny that Punjab’s partition in 1947 was a human tragedy. Both sides of Punjab—East and West—witnessed horrific massacres, forced migrations, and unspeakable suffering. Millions of Punjabis—Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs—became victims of violence.

However, to say that “Pakistan was built on Punjab’s corpses” is a grossly misleading statement. Pakistan was not the architect of Punjab’s partition—it was a reluctant acceptor of it. The real responsibility lies with the interplay of British haste, Congress intransigence, and Sikh-Hindu demands for division.

What Pakistan inherited was the aftermath of violence, not its initiation.

5. Moving Beyond Hatred

It is unfortunate that in today’s intellectual circles, “progressive” credentials are often judged by how strongly one can insult Pakistan, its founders, and the ideology of its creation. But genuine progress cannot be built on the foundations of hatred and distortion.

To love one’s nation does not require hating another, nor does it demand mocking one’s own historical struggles. We must acknowledge the sacrifices of all communities while rejecting divisive and inflammatory narratives.

Conclusion

Pakistan was not built on the “corpse of Punjab.” It was born out of the legitimate fears and aspirations of millions of Muslims who sought security, dignity, and self-determination. The partition of Punjab was not a Muslim League project but a demand raised and pushed by Sikh and Hindu leadership, later endorsed by Congress, and finally accepted under duress by Jinnah and the Muslim League.

To malign Pakistan’s creation with distorted slogans dishonors the memory of those who sacrificed for independence. The truth, supported by historical evidence, is the strongest answer to propaganda.

Syed Ali Raza Naqvi Bukhari

Unity of Peace, Economic Reform, and Global Unity

Founder Chairman of Tehreek Istehkam Pakistan, Author of “Law of God” and “Social Democratic System. advocates for truth, social justice, and reform in all sectors of society.