I have read about Pakistan Movement (PM), about the Partition of India between the two and I want to know why Delhi didn't became part of Pakistan (in contrast to Edirne of the Ottoman Empire which the Turks managed to take back) because:

For centuries Delhi had been the capital of the Mughal Empire from Babur to successors of Aurangzeb and of previous Turkic Muslim rulers of North India. The series of Islamic rulers keeping Delhi as a stronghold of their empires left a vast array of Islamic architecture in Delhi and a strong Islamic culture permeated the city.

The Wikipedia article doesn't provide enough information on part of PM. If I am not mistaken, this was due to low Muslim population in Delhi. But I think it does not clarify the issue enough because British imperialists were not fair in partitioning India, for example:

While the Muslim majority districts of Murshidabad and Malda were given to India, the Hindu majority district of Khulna and the Buddhist majority, but sparsely populated, Chittagong Hill Tracts were given to Pakistan by the Radcliffe award.

I have some questions:

What did the PM undertake to incorporate Delhi into Pakistan? (Lobbying? Rallying for Delhi?)

Did PM members feel something special regarding Delhi? (Like Ottomans in ragard to Edirne.)

Why did PM not succeed on the issue of Delhi? (Besides the low-population-of-Muslims reason.)

  • 2
    What is unclear about the Wikipedia article you quoted, but didn't actually cite? Jul 26, 2019 at 14:11
  • 6
    Wasn't the partition along religious lines? So "The 1941 Census listed Delhi's population as being 33.22% Muslim." (Cited Wiki article) answers the question, does it not? Please clarify why the basic article does not answer?
    – MCW
    Jul 26, 2019 at 14:22
  • 7
    (Besides the low-population-of-Muslims reason.) But that's the whole reason.
    – Semaphore
    Jul 26, 2019 at 15:02
  • 2
    Honesty, I highly suspect the downvoters were suspicious the question's motives, due to the racial content of the user name it was posted under. One nice thing about the name being reset is it should fix that problem.
    – T.E.D.
    Jul 26, 2019 at 15:52

1 Answer 1


Because Delhi was deep within majority Hindu territory.

As @MarkC.Wallace pointed out, the partition of India was made along religious lines. Here is a map of pre-partition India by religious majority:

enter image description here Source: Wikipedia

And here is a map of the final border:

enter image description here Source: Wikipedia

While as argued the process was not entirely fair, one plainly sees that the partition plan did in fact broadly follow the religious border. Of the counterexamples you gave, both the Murshidabad and Malda districts are right on the border, while the Chittagong Hill Tracts was actually majority Bhuddist and therefore irrelevant.

Meanwhile, Delhi is 400km into Hindu-majority region.

Even if the partition commision was inclined to favour the Muslim state, there was simply no way to justify such an immense departure from the religious border.

  • Bhuddist -> Buddhist. Oct 21, 2019 at 18:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.