Text 1: Historian Park argues that the partition of India in 1947 was an inevitable consequence of decades of communal mobilization that hardened Hindu and Muslim political identities into rival nationalisms. Once each side defined itself in opposition to the other, separation was the only stable outcome.
Text 2: Historian Singh acknowledges the communal mobilization Park describes but rejects "inevitable." Late as 1946, federal proposals that preserved a single Indian state retained meaningful support; partition came through the specific failures of negotiation, the pressures of British departure, and individual decisions that could have gone otherwise. To call partition inevitable, Singh argues, flatters the actors who chose it.
The authors most clearly disagree about
- A
whether the British withdrew from India.
- Bcheck_circle
whether partition should be characterized as inevitable.
- C
whether partition occurred in 1947.
- D
whether communal mobilization preceded partition.
Explanation
Both accept the mobilization, the date, and British withdrawal. They differ on inevitability. C captures the dispute.