Lies like ‘Muslims stayed in India out of choice’ make a comeback during debate on Waqf Amendment Bill : Here is the actual truth behind the claim

A scene during the Partition of India in 1947

The overall objective of this calculated falsehood is to convey that Muslims are ‘overwhelmingly patriotic’ and that Hindus must somehow be grateful to them for choosing India over Pakistan.

The lie that ‘Muslims stayed in India by choice’ after Partition made a comeback during the debate on the Waqf Amendment Bill 2025. Although it had no bearing on the enactment of the legislation, the lie is repeated time and again to gaslight the Hindu community.

The overall objective of this calculated falsehood is to convey that Muslims are ‘overwhelmingly patriotic’ and that Hindus must somehow be grateful to them for choosing India over Pakistan.

Although history and facts show that Muslims did not stay back in India out of choice. Nonetheless, this did not stop the grandson of the controversial Shafiqur Rahman Barq to claim Muslims chose India over Pakistan.

Zia Ur Rahman Barq, who was booked for instigating violence in Sambhal during the court-ordered survey of the Jama Masjid in November last year, attempted to guilt-trip Hindus.

“The Muslims who loved Pakistan went away. The Muslims who loved India did not leave and are still living in the country,” he brazened out.

The Samajwadi Party MP then claimed that Muslims are owners of the land that constitutes India. “We are not the enemies of the Nation. We are not the servants either but owners of this land,” he further stated.

Muslims oversaw creation of Pakistan, many stayed back despite voting for the Muslim League

During the provincial elections in 1946, it is an undisputed fact that Muslims voted overwhelmingly for Muslim League which had stirred up religious passions with its demand for a separate Islamic State at the time.

The Muslim League asserted that Hindus and Muslims cannot co-exist in the same country and thus, Muslims should have a country of their own carved out of India itself, post-Independence.

In total, 87% of seats were won by the Muslim League in India in 1946. A closer look at the numbers shows how the demand for a separate Islamic State bolstered the political demand for a separate state.

From a comparison between the seats won by the Muslim League in 1937 and 1946, one can see the number of states that were won by the Muslim League of Jinnah went up manyfold in 1946. (For detailed Table, please visit website mentioned at the end of this Article.)

In every state, the rise in the popularity of the Muslim League was substantial. In states like Bihar, for example, from zero seats in 1937, the Muslim League won a whopping 34 seats out of 40 seats.

In Madras, the increase was from 9 to all 29 seats. The pattern holds across all states, or provinces, as they were called during that period. It is to be remembered that though the two-Nation theory itself existed for much longer, a formal political demand was made for a separate state for Muslims in 1940.

It was in 1940 that Jinnah formally announced the demand in Lahore that the Muslim League formally recommitted itself to creating an independent Muslim state, including Sindh, Punjab, Baluchistan, the North-West Frontier Province and Bengal, that would be ‘wholly autonomous and sovereign

The resolution guaranteed protection for non-Muslim religions. The Lahore Resolution moved by the sitting Chief Minister of Bengal A. K. Fazlul Huq was adopted on 23 March 1940, and its principles formed the foundation for Pakistan’s first Constitution.

The formalisation of the demand in 1940 led to a huge surge in the Muslim population supporting the Muslim League and by extension, supporting the demand for a separate Islamic State called Pakistan, which would be carved out of India.

It is thus intriguing when several apologists claim that most Muslims stayed back in India out of choice and that most Muslims at the time did not want a separate Islamic state. There can be no denying that there was opposition even from the Muslims at the time to the idea of a separate state, however, political statements and what counts during voting are two rather separate concepts.

If Muslims wanted a separate Islamic State and voted overwhelmingly in its favour, why did so many Muslims stay back ?

The obvious argument that is presented, sans facts, to counter the overwhelming support for the creation of Pakistan is that if most Muslims at the time supported the two-Nation theory, then why did so many Muslims stay back ?

And if they indeed did stay back, it only means that they rejected the two-Nation theory. After Partition, several leaders were in support of the full exchange of population, including leaders like BR Ambedkar.

In his book on Partition, Ambedkar clearly outlines how and why he was in favour of a full population exchange between India and Pakistan, which would essentially mean that all Hindus and other religious factions other than Muslims would come back to India and all Muslims from India would go to Pakistan.

In fact, he had even written a basic framework on how the issues arising out of full population exchange could be dealt with.

Sardar Patel had, even after the Partition spoken extensively about how Muslims had helped create Pakistan. His famous quote from his speech in Kolkata, 1948, bears testament to the fact. He had said, “Most of the Muslims who have stayed back in Hindustan, helped in creating Pakistan. Now, I don’t understand what has changed in one night that they are asking us not to doubt their loyalty”.

Further, one has to remember that the demand for full population exchange was supported by several stalwarts at the time.

A report in the Sunday Guardian says, “Dr Mookerjee, accompanied by Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, went to plead with Gandhi for agreeing to Jinnah’s proposal for an exchange of population. The old man’s flat reply was that Partition was on a territorial basis and not on religious grounds.

Hence, no question of exchanging Hindus from Pakistan with Muslims from India. This was when the division was exclusively on the criterion of religion, Hindu and Muslim”.

(Courtesy : opindia.com; 4.4.2025)

Of Nehru, Liaquat Ali Khan and the 1950 Accord

Further, after the Partition, which was squarely based on religious lines owing to the demands of Jinnah, widespread riots had broken out in India and the newly formed Pakistan.

The non-Muslim citizenry who were in Pakistan started making their way to India and the Muslim citizens in India started making their way to Pakistan. The migration is well documented and proven.

In 1950, an Accord was signed between Nehru and Liaquat Ali Khan where each side pledged to secure its minorities and give equality of citizenship regardless of religion. Both sides promised to help recover looted property, assist in the recovery of abducted women and not recognise conversions made during communal disturbances.

Essentially, Jawaharlal Nehru scuttled the de facto population exchange with the 1950 Accord.

After the Accord was signed, Muslims, who had left West Bengal, returned and Nehru ensured that their property was restored to them.

However, the travesties heaped on the Hindus continue to this day, unabated in Islamic Nations like Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Quoting a report from the Daily Pioneer:

Syama Prasad Mukherjee resigned from the Cabinet on April 1, 1950, in protest against Nehru’s failure to take Pakistan to task for the continued suffering of his people.

At a Cabinet meeting the same day, Mukherjee said, “What do you care for us Bengali Hindus ? What do you care for the criminal assaults on our women ?” (Soundings in Modern South Asian History, ed. DA Low) Enraged at the renewed exodus of Hindus, which he viewed as deliberate, he suggested an exchange of populations, which Nehru rejected vehemently.

(Courtesy : opindia.com; 6.8.2020)

Dr BR Ambedkar clearly outlines how and why he was in favour of a full population exchange between India and Pakistan !