Partition as Political Choice: Rajendra Prasad’s Intellectual Critique of the Two Nations Theory and the Viability of Secular Multinational India

Pranav Priy

doi:doi:10.11648/j.hss.20251306.24

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Partition as Political Choice: Rajendra Prasad’s Intellectual Critique of the Two Nations Theory and the Viability of Secular Multinational India

Pranav Priy^*

Published in Humanities and Social Sciences (Volume 13, Issue 6)

Received: 17 November 2025 Accepted: 5 December 2025 Published: 31 December 2025

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This study examines Dr. Rajendra Prasad's India Divided (1946) as a comprehensive intellectual critique of India's partition and the Two-Nation Theory that justified it. Through close textual analysis of Prasad's primary text combined with historiographical examination of partition scholarship, secondary academic sources, and political theory frameworks, this article employs critical discourse analysis and comparative historical methods to situate Prasad's arguments within postcolonial and contemporary political theory contexts. The analysis, grounded primarily in India Divided as the core source text, supplemented by examination of contemporary political documents (including the Lahore Resolution and statements by key figures like Jinnah, Ambedkar, and Congress leaders), demonstrates three primary dimensions of Prasad's critique. First, through historical textual evidence, Prasad systematically refutes the Two-Nation Theory by documenting centuries of Hindu–Muslim coexistence and cultural synthesis, arguing that communal antagonism was not primordial but rather artificially hardened through British colonial administrative strategies, particularly separate electoral systems that institutionalised religious identity as the fundamental category of politics. Second, meticulous textual analysis of the Lahore Resolution reveals deliberate ambiguities that enabled escalating territorial demands and necessitated the eventual partition of provinces like Punjab and Bengal, demonstrating how these boundary questions would inevitably multiply rather than resolve minority-protection dilemmas in both successor states. Third, drawing on economic data and statistical analysis from the 1940s, Prasad's prescient economic assessment documents how partition would disrupt integrated agrarian and industrial systems, severing complementary economic relationships-including the jute industry, cotton production, and railway networks-creating structural deficits that would handicap Pakistan's development. The findings, corroborated by scholarly consensus in peer-reviewed historical studies and political science analyses (such as works by Ayesha Jalal, Benedict Anderson, Will Kymlicka, and Arend Lijphart), demonstrate that Prasad articulates a compelling alternative governance framework: a secular, multinational constitutional design guaranteeing cultural autonomy and power-sharing mechanisms while preserving political unity. This article concludes that Prasad's analysis not only predicted partition's costs with remarkable accuracy-as validated by subsequent historical developments documented in post-1947 scholarship-but also advances a theoretically robust and practically durable governance model applicable to plural societies beyond the South Asian context.

Published in	Humanities and Social Sciences (Volume 13, Issue 6)
DOI	10.11648/j.hss.20251306.24
Page(s)	641-649
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Partition, Two Nations Theory, Communal Relations, Colonial Administration, Multinational State Governance, Minority Protectio

References

[1]	Abid, R. (2023). The Economic Viability of Pakistan: Assessing Post-Partition Economic Structures. Journal of South Asian History, 18(2), 45–67.
[2]	Ambedkar, B. R. (1946). Pakistan or the Partition of India. Bombay: Thacker & Co.
[3]	Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
[4]	Azad, A. K. (1959). India Wins Freedom: An Autobiographical Narrative. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
[5]	Bharadwaj, P., & Fenske, J. (2012). Partition, Migration, and Jute Cultivation in India. Journal of Development Studies, 48(8), 1057–1073.
[6]	Butalia, U. (1998). The other side of silence: Voices from the partition of India. Durham: Duke University Press.
[7]	Chatterjee, P. (1993). The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[8]	Husain, I. (2004, January 27). Economy of Pakistan – Past, Present, and Future. Keynote address at the Conference on Islamization and the Pakistani Economy, Washington, DC. [Retrieved from BIS Review 9/2004].
[9]	Jalal, A. (1985). The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League, and the Demand for Pakistan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[10]	Khan, T. O. (2021). The Partition of India and the Muslim League’s Political Strategy. South Asian Political Studies Quarterly, 22(4), 189–212.
[11]	Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[12]	Lijphart, A. (1977). Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
[13]	Mahajan, S. (2022). Historical Debates on the Independence and Partition of India. Marxist, XXXVIII (1–2), 7–32.
[14]	McGarry, J., & O’Leary, B. (2007). Partition as a Solution to Ethnic Conflict: An Empirical Critique of the Theoretical Literature. In C. Kaufmann (Ed.), Could Partition Work? (pp. 178–210). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[15]	Nguyen, V., & Wolcott, S. (2022). Anticipating Independence, No Premonition of Partition: The Lessons of Bank Branch Expansion on the Indian Subcontinent, 1939–1946. Yale Economics Department Working Paper.
[16]	Pandey, G. (2001). Remembering Partition: Violence, Nationalism and History in India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[17]	Prasad, R. (1946). India Divided. Bombay: Hind Kitabs Ltd.
[18]	Prasad, R. (1957). The Autobiography of Rajendra Prasad: The Early Phase. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
[19]	Zamindar, V. F.-Y. (2007). The Long Partition and the Making of Modern South Asia. New York: Columbia University Press.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Priy, P. (2025). Partition as Political Choice: Rajendra Prasad’s Intellectual Critique of the Two Nations Theory and the Viability of Secular Multinational India. Humanities and Social Sciences, 13(6), 641-649. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20251306.24

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Priy, P. Partition as Political Choice: Rajendra Prasad’s Intellectual Critique of the Two Nations Theory and the Viability of Secular Multinational India. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2025, 13(6), 641-649. doi: 10.11648/j.hss.20251306.24

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Priy P. Partition as Political Choice: Rajendra Prasad’s Intellectual Critique of the Two Nations Theory and the Viability of Secular Multinational India. Humanit Soc Sci. 2025;13(6):641-649. doi: 10.11648/j.hss.20251306.24

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.hss.20251306.24,
  author = {Pranav Priy},
  title = {Partition as Political Choice: Rajendra Prasad’s Intellectual Critique of the Two Nations Theory and the Viability of Secular Multinational India},
  journal = {Humanities and Social Sciences},
  volume = {13},
  number = {6},
  pages = {641-649},
  doi = {10.11648/j.hss.20251306.24},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20251306.24},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.hss.20251306.24},
  abstract = {This study examines Dr. Rajendra Prasad's India Divided (1946) as a comprehensive intellectual critique of India's partition and the Two-Nation Theory that justified it. Through close textual analysis of Prasad's primary text combined with historiographical examination of partition scholarship, secondary academic sources, and political theory frameworks, this article employs critical discourse analysis and comparative historical methods to situate Prasad's arguments within postcolonial and contemporary political theory contexts. The analysis, grounded primarily in India Divided as the core source text, supplemented by examination of contemporary political documents (including the Lahore Resolution and statements by key figures like Jinnah, Ambedkar, and Congress leaders), demonstrates three primary dimensions of Prasad's critique. First, through historical textual evidence, Prasad systematically refutes the Two-Nation Theory by documenting centuries of Hindu–Muslim coexistence and cultural synthesis, arguing that communal antagonism was not primordial but rather artificially hardened through British colonial administrative strategies, particularly separate electoral systems that institutionalised religious identity as the fundamental category of politics. Second, meticulous textual analysis of the Lahore Resolution reveals deliberate ambiguities that enabled escalating territorial demands and necessitated the eventual partition of provinces like Punjab and Bengal, demonstrating how these boundary questions would inevitably multiply rather than resolve minority-protection dilemmas in both successor states. Third, drawing on economic data and statistical analysis from the 1940s, Prasad's prescient economic assessment documents how partition would disrupt integrated agrarian and industrial systems, severing complementary economic relationships-including the jute industry, cotton production, and railway networks-creating structural deficits that would handicap Pakistan's development. The findings, corroborated by scholarly consensus in peer-reviewed historical studies and political science analyses (such as works by Ayesha Jalal, Benedict Anderson, Will Kymlicka, and Arend Lijphart), demonstrate that Prasad articulates a compelling alternative governance framework: a secular, multinational constitutional design guaranteeing cultural autonomy and power-sharing mechanisms while preserving political unity. This article concludes that Prasad's analysis not only predicted partition's costs with remarkable accuracy-as validated by subsequent historical developments documented in post-1947 scholarship-but also advances a theoretically robust and practically durable governance model applicable to plural societies beyond the South Asian context.},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Partition as Political Choice: Rajendra Prasad’s Intellectual Critique of the Two Nations Theory and the Viability of Secular Multinational India
AU  - Pranav Priy
Y1  - 2025/12/31
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20251306.24
DO  - 10.11648/j.hss.20251306.24
T2  - Humanities and Social Sciences
JF  - Humanities and Social Sciences
JO  - Humanities and Social Sciences
SP  - 641
EP  - 649
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-8184
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20251306.24
AB  - This study examines Dr. Rajendra Prasad's India Divided (1946) as a comprehensive intellectual critique of India's partition and the Two-Nation Theory that justified it. Through close textual analysis of Prasad's primary text combined with historiographical examination of partition scholarship, secondary academic sources, and political theory frameworks, this article employs critical discourse analysis and comparative historical methods to situate Prasad's arguments within postcolonial and contemporary political theory contexts. The analysis, grounded primarily in India Divided as the core source text, supplemented by examination of contemporary political documents (including the Lahore Resolution and statements by key figures like Jinnah, Ambedkar, and Congress leaders), demonstrates three primary dimensions of Prasad's critique. First, through historical textual evidence, Prasad systematically refutes the Two-Nation Theory by documenting centuries of Hindu–Muslim coexistence and cultural synthesis, arguing that communal antagonism was not primordial but rather artificially hardened through British colonial administrative strategies, particularly separate electoral systems that institutionalised religious identity as the fundamental category of politics. Second, meticulous textual analysis of the Lahore Resolution reveals deliberate ambiguities that enabled escalating territorial demands and necessitated the eventual partition of provinces like Punjab and Bengal, demonstrating how these boundary questions would inevitably multiply rather than resolve minority-protection dilemmas in both successor states. Third, drawing on economic data and statistical analysis from the 1940s, Prasad's prescient economic assessment documents how partition would disrupt integrated agrarian and industrial systems, severing complementary economic relationships-including the jute industry, cotton production, and railway networks-creating structural deficits that would handicap Pakistan's development. The findings, corroborated by scholarly consensus in peer-reviewed historical studies and political science analyses (such as works by Ayesha Jalal, Benedict Anderson, Will Kymlicka, and Arend Lijphart), demonstrate that Prasad articulates a compelling alternative governance framework: a secular, multinational constitutional design guaranteeing cultural autonomy and power-sharing mechanisms while preserving political unity. This article concludes that Prasad's analysis not only predicted partition's costs with remarkable accuracy-as validated by subsequent historical developments documented in post-1947 scholarship-but also advances a theoretically robust and practically durable governance model applicable to plural societies beyond the South Asian context.
VL  - 13
IS  - 6
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Pranav Priy

University Department of English, Munger University, Munger, India

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0005-4040-3618

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Priy, P. (2025). Partition as Political Choice: Rajendra Prasad’s Intellectual Critique of the Two Nations Theory and the Viability of Secular Multinational India. Humanities and Social Sciences, 13(6), 641-649. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20251306.24

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Priy, P. Partition as Political Choice: Rajendra Prasad’s Intellectual Critique of the Two Nations Theory and the Viability of Secular Multinational India. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2025, 13(6), 641-649. doi: 10.11648/j.hss.20251306.24

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Priy P. Partition as Political Choice: Rajendra Prasad’s Intellectual Critique of the Two Nations Theory and the Viability of Secular Multinational India. Humanit Soc Sci. 2025;13(6):641-649. doi: 10.11648/j.hss.20251306.24

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.hss.20251306.24,
  author = {Pranav Priy},
  title = {Partition as Political Choice: Rajendra Prasad’s Intellectual Critique of the Two Nations Theory and the Viability of Secular Multinational India},
  journal = {Humanities and Social Sciences},
  volume = {13},
  number = {6},
  pages = {641-649},
  doi = {10.11648/j.hss.20251306.24},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20251306.24},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.hss.20251306.24},
  abstract = {This study examines Dr. Rajendra Prasad's India Divided (1946) as a comprehensive intellectual critique of India's partition and the Two-Nation Theory that justified it. Through close textual analysis of Prasad's primary text combined with historiographical examination of partition scholarship, secondary academic sources, and political theory frameworks, this article employs critical discourse analysis and comparative historical methods to situate Prasad's arguments within postcolonial and contemporary political theory contexts. The analysis, grounded primarily in India Divided as the core source text, supplemented by examination of contemporary political documents (including the Lahore Resolution and statements by key figures like Jinnah, Ambedkar, and Congress leaders), demonstrates three primary dimensions of Prasad's critique. First, through historical textual evidence, Prasad systematically refutes the Two-Nation Theory by documenting centuries of Hindu–Muslim coexistence and cultural synthesis, arguing that communal antagonism was not primordial but rather artificially hardened through British colonial administrative strategies, particularly separate electoral systems that institutionalised religious identity as the fundamental category of politics. Second, meticulous textual analysis of the Lahore Resolution reveals deliberate ambiguities that enabled escalating territorial demands and necessitated the eventual partition of provinces like Punjab and Bengal, demonstrating how these boundary questions would inevitably multiply rather than resolve minority-protection dilemmas in both successor states. Third, drawing on economic data and statistical analysis from the 1940s, Prasad's prescient economic assessment documents how partition would disrupt integrated agrarian and industrial systems, severing complementary economic relationships-including the jute industry, cotton production, and railway networks-creating structural deficits that would handicap Pakistan's development. The findings, corroborated by scholarly consensus in peer-reviewed historical studies and political science analyses (such as works by Ayesha Jalal, Benedict Anderson, Will Kymlicka, and Arend Lijphart), demonstrate that Prasad articulates a compelling alternative governance framework: a secular, multinational constitutional design guaranteeing cultural autonomy and power-sharing mechanisms while preserving political unity. This article concludes that Prasad's analysis not only predicted partition's costs with remarkable accuracy-as validated by subsequent historical developments documented in post-1947 scholarship-but also advances a theoretically robust and practically durable governance model applicable to plural societies beyond the South Asian context.},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Partition as Political Choice: Rajendra Prasad’s Intellectual Critique of the Two Nations Theory and the Viability of Secular Multinational India
AU  - Pranav Priy
Y1  - 2025/12/31
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20251306.24
DO  - 10.11648/j.hss.20251306.24
T2  - Humanities and Social Sciences
JF  - Humanities and Social Sciences
JO  - Humanities and Social Sciences
SP  - 641
EP  - 649
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-8184
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20251306.24
AB  - This study examines Dr. Rajendra Prasad's India Divided (1946) as a comprehensive intellectual critique of India's partition and the Two-Nation Theory that justified it. Through close textual analysis of Prasad's primary text combined with historiographical examination of partition scholarship, secondary academic sources, and political theory frameworks, this article employs critical discourse analysis and comparative historical methods to situate Prasad's arguments within postcolonial and contemporary political theory contexts. The analysis, grounded primarily in India Divided as the core source text, supplemented by examination of contemporary political documents (including the Lahore Resolution and statements by key figures like Jinnah, Ambedkar, and Congress leaders), demonstrates three primary dimensions of Prasad's critique. First, through historical textual evidence, Prasad systematically refutes the Two-Nation Theory by documenting centuries of Hindu–Muslim coexistence and cultural synthesis, arguing that communal antagonism was not primordial but rather artificially hardened through British colonial administrative strategies, particularly separate electoral systems that institutionalised religious identity as the fundamental category of politics. Second, meticulous textual analysis of the Lahore Resolution reveals deliberate ambiguities that enabled escalating territorial demands and necessitated the eventual partition of provinces like Punjab and Bengal, demonstrating how these boundary questions would inevitably multiply rather than resolve minority-protection dilemmas in both successor states. Third, drawing on economic data and statistical analysis from the 1940s, Prasad's prescient economic assessment documents how partition would disrupt integrated agrarian and industrial systems, severing complementary economic relationships-including the jute industry, cotton production, and railway networks-creating structural deficits that would handicap Pakistan's development. The findings, corroborated by scholarly consensus in peer-reviewed historical studies and political science analyses (such as works by Ayesha Jalal, Benedict Anderson, Will Kymlicka, and Arend Lijphart), demonstrate that Prasad articulates a compelling alternative governance framework: a secular, multinational constitutional design guaranteeing cultural autonomy and power-sharing mechanisms while preserving political unity. This article concludes that Prasad's analysis not only predicted partition's costs with remarkable accuracy-as validated by subsequent historical developments documented in post-1947 scholarship-but also advances a theoretically robust and practically durable governance model applicable to plural societies beyond the South Asian context.
VL  - 13
IS  - 6
ER  -

Copy | Download