[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
ARTICLE : The Unwritten Story of Partition
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: ARTICLE : The Unwritten Story of Partition
-
From: Prasad Gokhale <f0g1@unb.ca>
-
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 14:59:54 -0300
-
In-Reply-To: <ghenDvp39v.5Hw@netcom.com>
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: University of New Brunswick
-
References: <ghenDvp39v.5Hw@netcom.com>
Title : The unwritten story of Partition
Author : Saradindu Mukherji
Publication : Hindustan Times
Date : July 7, 1996
TRAGEDIES and follies of the past are best grasped only
when the historian realises the inherent limitations of
the conventional source materials used. Rectification of
such mistakes may help us in identifying discordant
strands and perhaps contribute to the emergence of a
better world.
The Partition of India, following the end of the British
rule, the emergence of the Islamic state of Pakistan and
the accompanying holocaust has been a constant point of
reference in public utterances and publications of
various sorts in South Asia. Despite Gandhi and his non-
violence, the Partition brought in its trail
unprecedented bloodshed abduction, arson, rape, forced
conversion to Islam of thousands of men, women and
children, forced marriage of thousands of Hindu and Sikh
women with Muslims culminating in the mass exodus of 7.30
million Hindu and Sikh refugees to India. But an attempt
has always been made to twist, distort and smother some
of the crucial features of this gargantuan ethnic
cleansing to suit political expediency.
To understand the origins of the division of British
India, and the fury let loose in the name of two nation-
theory, one has to keep in mind the Indian Muslims'
obsession with 'distinct identity'. The demand for a
separate Muslim homeland was an inevitable outcome of
this mindset. The roots of the antagonism and the
emergence of the Islamic state of Pakistan are to be
traced far back in time. The Hindu and Sikh resistance
movements in Mughal India or the Muslim communal
movements like that of the Wahabis, Faraizis and Moplahs
in the colonial period are reflective of this
confrontationist outlook. While not constantly engaged
in mutual annihilation there were numerous instances of
peaceful living too but the differences in their
respective world views continued to grow. Those who look
for its origin in the Aligarh movement of Sir Syed Ahmed
Khan or the alleged mischief of the `perfidious Albion'
simply ignore its ancient lineage.
As for the inhuman atrocities perpetrated on a
beleaguered people, it had been sanctioned from the top.
Jinnah had said on the eve of Direct Action, (17 August,
1946), "We bid good-bye to constitutional methods...
Today we have also forged a pistol, and are in a position
to use it". The Muslim League had always used the slogan
of 'Islam in Danger', and unleashed a mob frenzy.
Politics of street violence had- become its main tactical
weapon. NO wonder Pakistanis saw the emergence of their
country primarily as a religious or ideological
phenomenon.
Based on years of dialogue with the refugee victims of
India's partition, both from the west and the cast, this
paper is specifically derived from a set of questions
passed on to 74 families ' Hindus and Sikhs, representing
all the provinces of West Pakistan - North West Frontier
Province, Sind, Baluchistan and the Punjab.
The questionnaire contained queries on their actual
experiences. This paper, however, contains their
perception of certain
aspects, like their understanding of collective
psychology, composite culture - multi-culturalism, role
of the common man or elite manipulation, role of
leadership, administration and the armed forces.
The nature and extent of ethnic cleansing that occurred
over West Pakistan, is qualitatively different from what
happened over small parts of India. It is not easy, to
narrate the humiliation and future uncertainty suffered
even after half a century. It is perhaps more difficult
to record the emotional residues of having been subjected
to such shattering experiences. Some people would refuse
to say anything on the ground that it was beyond
description, and they would best avoid any further
thought. Most of the Hindus and Sikhs, despite the news
of occasional migrations as in the northwestern areas or
isolated pockets in Bengal never thought that they would
be totally blown off in the communal tornado. It was
this suddenness of violent uprooting that was most
traumatic. Until the last moment, they believed, that
after all, their ancestors had lived under Muslim rule,
and so, it would be making greater adjustments and
swallowing of humiliation in the new set-up. They found
it difficult to believe, much less accept, that the
familiar ambience had undergone such a horrendous
tranformation~
The accentuation of communal solidarity and the
uniformity of behaviour over far-flung areas is explained
by the historical memories of past domination of defeated
people (Hindus and Sikhs) by the master face. The
autonomy if action forcefully displayed by one segment of
the population was not brought about so much by the
British policy of divide and rule, but by older
traditions of intolerance of the kafir. If the genocidal
attacks had stopped at arson, murder, pillage and
eviction, then certain other explanation of mass
psychology would have been possible; since forced
conversion to Islam and forced marriage of Hindu and Sikh
women to Muslims formed such an important part of the
agenda in 1946-48 as on numerous ions in the near and
distant occasions in the near and distant past, the
Islamic strand assumes importance. The message was
clear that a community suddenly invested with unlimited
power against erstwhile neighbours - or fellow citizens
of British India would brook no other community in the
'holy land'. This was part of a tradition of
intolerance. What Minault has found in the Khilafat
movement and what other historians conveniently smother
in the Partition pogroms, may be used here to stress the
basic point.
When questioned as to why those in Punjab and Sind
failed to realise the impending catastrophe in light of
the developments in the North-West provinces, only a few,
perhaps with the advantage of hindsight, said they had a
lurking suspicion occasionally but the consequences being
too frightening they shrugged off such thought. Sonic
societies always refuse to learn from their past and
hence they always tend to suffer. Ale victims admitted
as much.
Much has been said in India on the so-called 'composite
culture', a mutual give and take, and, a fusion of Hindu-
Muslim ideas and practices. But the Partition may m, and
the experiences there from clearly show, "that while
there may be some validity of the prevalence of multi-
culturalism in India, this is an absurdity in societies
overshadowed by Islamic ethos and practices. The near-
total elimination of non-Islamic people and ' a studied
refusal of the Pakistani society to acknowledge its
Hindu-Buddhist past and the continuous harassment,
persecution and the consequential migration of non-
Muslims prove beyond doubt that neither multi-culturalism
nor composite culture can survive in intolerant
societies. The Hindu Muslim relationship which had
touched the bottom may be compared with the Hindu-
Cfiristian relationship. The latter never assumed the
complexion of the former. Despite doctrinal differences
and the presence of British Raj, Christian minorities had
behaved responsibly. Except the initial vandalism of the
Portuguese, the Christians have never indulged in temple
destruction, mass conversion and systematic genocide of
others. Hindus may have prejudices against others but
that never manifested in such wanton destruction; nor
have they ally ideological sanction for such behaviour.
The role of leadership in the gory drama is another
contentious issue; and that is generally avoided in
India. Questions continue to be asked, why did Gandhi
never go on a fast to prevent Partition? After all, did
he not say again and again, that India can be partitioned
only over his dead body? This question was put to the
maximum number of persons, both from East Pakistan and
West Pakistan; every one felt cheated.
All of them held that this was the inevitable result of
Gandhian decision to support the Pan-Islamist cause
during Turkish-Khilafat issue in 1921-12. They also felt
that Gandhi-Nehru intervention was minimal and did not
contribute in any way to the safety and security of the
Hindus/Sikhs. Some people did blame Mountbatten's
decision to prepone the date of Independence from June
1948 to August 1947 as the single most contributory
factor. But the ultimate responsibility rests primarily
on the shoulders of India's national leadership. This is
one issue over which there was greatest unanimity. The
Muslim League had consistently maintained that they would
fight to wrest Pakistan, and, for them the choice was
between 'a divided or a destroyed India'. As against
this, India's leadership, while refusing to accept the
two-nation, theory paid the ultimate price for failing
to preserve the unity of India, and, then, standing
quietly while the ethno-religious cleansing of Hindus and
Sikhs went on. Most of the interviewees felt exchange of
population would have avoided the catastrophe.
The nature of communal tension in the Punjab has often
been compared with the one prevailing in the United
Provinces. Yet, only a small number of Muslim migrated
to Pakistan from the latter. And among the people who
migrated, were people who had dreamt of Pakistan, and for
them, it was hijrat - migration to the promised land.
Even the vastly outnumbered Hindus. Sikhs living in
North West Frontier Provinces (8 per cent), Baluchistan
(12 per cent) and Sind (2.5 per cent) were made to leave
and flee to India. As against this, the Hindu majority
areas in India did not witness any such exodus of
Muslims. Thus, this pattern of non-Muslim exodus reveals
the nature of Muslim polity and its consequences more
clearly than anything else. While professional
historians ignore this crucial dimension, the victims
vividly realise the significance. In light of the
expulsion of the entire Hindu population from India's
Kashmir Valley, who have become refugees in their own
homeland, this particular strand assumes greater
significance.
Centuries of coexistence of different communities, often
with antagonistic world-views in a plural woe is made
possible either by the tolerance of the majority
community, a fairly impartial and stern politico-
administrative authority or by a natural human tendency
to keep in check primodial tendencies to fulfil `holy
missions' if he political environment is not conducive.
In post-Independence India, the Muslim population has
continued to grow, whereas in Pakistan, non-Muslim
minorities, who were 23 per cent in 1947 have been
reduced to a mere 3 per cent; in Bangladesh (earlier East
Pakistan), they were 29 per cent at Partition, now they
are around 12 per cent. While it takes time, patience and
ingenunity to a system of administration develop ethos of
governance yet with a sudden transformation in the
ambience, it may collapse in no time if the majority
lacks in tolerance.
--------------------
