August 15, 2007
Ripped AsunderHistory
India and Pakistan are now 60 years old, as is the bloody partition that created them. My father’s family was caught up in what became arguably the largest mass migration in history: 14.5 million people were moved, roughly the same number in each direction, and somewhere between 500,000 and one million of them died in the process. 
Because independence was declared prior to the actual Partition, it was up to the new governments of India and Pakistan to keep public order. No large population movements were contemplated; the plan called for safeguards for minorities on both sides of the new state line. It was an impossible task, at which both states failed. There was a complete breakdown of law and order [Link]
The management of partition was badly botched; if you think Brownie did a heck of a job, Mounty makes him look like a paragon of engagement and sensitivity. Mountbatten insisted that the partition line be drawn in only six weeks! Think of how slowly the US government moves today, and that will give you a sense of how ridiculous and uncaring that deadline was. The line was drawn by Sir Cyril Radcliffe; this is what his private secretary, Christopher Beaumont, had to say about the process:
“The viceroy, Mountbatten, must take the blame - though not the sole blame - for the massacres in the Punjab in which between 500,000 to a million men, women and children perished,” he writes. “The handover of power was done too quickly…”… it was “irresponsible” of Lord Mountbatten to insist that Beaumont complete the boundary within a six-week deadline - despite his protests. [Link]
Mountbatten was a pretty boy from a royal family whose track record during WWII led him to be “known in the British Admiralty as the Master of Disaster.” [Link] His track record in India seems similar - he was charming and glib, but unconcerned about the feasibility of plans or the lives which would be lost.
As Viceroy of India, he advanced the date of independence by nine months (no reason was ever given), making the problems associated with partition worse. Critics argue that he foresaw bloodshed and didn’t want it to happen on British watch; he was willing to make things worse as a form of CYA rather than take responsibility for the situation.
So how did the Last Viceroy spend the evening of August 14th, having put calamity into motion? Was he apprehensive? Concerned about the lives he had condemned? Not at all:
… on the evening of August 14, 1947, a few hours before Britain’s Indian Empire was formally divided into the nation-states of India and Pakistan, Lord Louis Mountbatten and his wife, Edwina, sat down in the viceregal mansion in New Delhi to watch the latest Bob Hope movie, “My Favorite Brunette…” [Link]
In the end he was killed by the IRA rather than O’Dwyered by one of his victims from India. Mountbatten had a very difficult job to perform, but from what little I have read, he did not do it well.
Related links: Exit Wounds, the New Yorker book review of Indian Summer by Pankaj Mishra
ennis on August 15, 2007 12:43 PM in History · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
I bet they did! But I don't like the photo on eth cover of this book--it makes Pandit Nehru look obsequious, although he's obviously laughing at a joke Edwina cracked.
in what became arguably the largest mass migration in history
__________________________________________________________________
I'm pretty sure the current migration from China's rural areas to its coastal cities dwarfs this, but "one of the largest," sure.
Pankaj Mishra is huge burden, with his circuitous and pandering proclamations. What kind of BS is this, published this week in the NYer? "Though blessed with many able administrators, the British found India just too large and diverse to handle." Totally propping up the worst attitudes to South Asia disguised as polite reasoning. The sooner people like him of that generation stop talking and writing and making decisions, the better off all brown folk will be.
Name is now linked.
Michael Brown. As in the Bush statement"you've done heckuva job, Brownie"
Thanks for the clarifications, Ennis@#6 and Pravin@#7
I think Manan Ahmed got it right on his blog:
Pankaj Mishra leads the pack with a rather starchy and frustrating article in the NYer, Exit Wounds. I can overlook that preciously Marie-Antoinettesque opening. I can even ignore that he faithfully reproduces the post-imperial narrative which robs Indians - any of them - of all their agency (Independence happened because Britain was weakened and US put pressure. Killings happened because British fueled separatism). But I just cannot let go of his conclusion which as usual ignores history and reduces analysis to simply spotting every recursion of the word “Islam” and then connecting the dots
i'll never understand this adulation the British have for mountbatten (maybe it's because he was murdered by the ira) and churchill (nevermind his views on india and indians, how could they ignore his culpability in the sinking of the lusitania just to bring the u.s. into the war?)
Are there are any alternative history novels where the partition didn't happen? Something like this.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know of a photo/video and espeically audio archive of our elders' memories of Partition? I didn't have the knowledge or courage to ask my grandparents when they were alive, and my oldest uncle was only a few years old when it happened, so I have no access to first-hand accounts. Any ideas?
There's no comparison...Partition was a forced, bloody migration that took place suddenly and only lasted a few weeks...what's happening in China is just economic migration which is taking place all over the world to some degree or the other (not that it might not be a major migration in its own right). Apples and oranges.
As for the Viceroy, people say he had a soft spot for India and didn't really like Jinnah or Pakistan. They say that it's because of him that Gurdaspur district in Punjab went to India instead of Pakistan (despite a slight muslim majority) because of the strategic access to Kashmir that it would offer to India.
Anyway, although Partition could have been handled much better, I'm not sure there was anyway to make the dividing line any fairer...the principle was that Muslim-majority areas went to Pakistan, non-Muslim majority to India. And Radcliffe followed this principle to its extreme...no subtleties or nuance, but fair I suppose. As for the violence, I'm not sure if that could have been avoided...probably reduced signigicantly with some foresight and planning. I think what happened is no one realised that people would have to leave their ancestral homes...when violence started, and Muslims started driving Sikhs/Hindus out (sorry Al Mujahid, I know you won't like that comment), people fled without realising they would never come back. Of course they wreaked equal violence upon Muslims living in Indian Punjab. The whole thing happened spontaneously, and settled itself spontaneously. Jinnah had so much blood on his hands. And for what....the guy died a few months later. Jerk.
Or this? I haven't seen any, but would love to read them if they exist ...
A photography-related aside: the cover picture on the book is by Henri Cartier Bresson, who captured some of the smaller details of the conflict and not the epic sweep of history. But his work from that time is quite interesting. Here's an old review of his book on India.
Anyway, Auden's poem is apt:
==
Partition
Unbiased at least he was when he arrived on his mission,
Having never set eyes on the land he was called to partition
Between two peoples fanatically at odds,
With their different diets and incompatible gods.
"Time," they had briefed him in London, "is short. It's too late
For mutual reconciliation or rational debate:
The only solution now lies in separation.
The Viceroy thinks, as you will see from his letter,
That the less you are seen in his company the better,
So we've arranged to provide you with other accommodation.
We can give you four judges, two Moslem and two Hindu,
To consult with, but the final decision must rest with you."
Shut up in a lonely mansion, with police night and day
Patrolling the gardens to keep the assassins away,
He got down to work, to the task of settling the fate
Of millions. The maps at his disposal were out of date
And the Census Returns almost certainly incorrect,
But there was no time to check them, no time to inspect
Contested areas. The weather was frightfully hot,
And a bout of dysentery kept him constantly on the trot,
But in seven weeks it was done, the frontiers decided,
A continent for better or worse divided.
The next day he sailed for England, where he could quickly forget
The case, as a good lawyer must. Return he would not,
Afraid, as he told his Club, that he might get shot.
-- W. H. Auden.
===
Now that I got that out of the way, I think we should get away from the Indepdence = Partition meme. Enough already!
The Other Side of Silence: Voices from the Partition of India by Urvashi Butalia is an excellent book or oral histories. There are a number of online archives, some more ambitious than others.
Why? They're part of the same thing. At least for Punjabis and Bengalis, this is a bittersweet time.
But this is/was the reality for some families.
Ennis,
It undermines what independence was really about, throwing the yoke of colonial rule. There is a nefarious reason why the western media seems to be all interested in the subcon. 1947 was a live experiment for them - on what some are recommending as a solution for Iraq.
Btw, Mountbatten was admired by Indians. So much so that he was asked to stay after Independence for a while as Viceroy/Gov-Gen.
I think that even if partition hadn't happened the relative similar amount of bloodshed would have occurred in the next 60 years through religious violence. Only it might not have been concentrated in border regions.
Sorta tangent (on independence and not partition)
I just saw at a newsstand that today's financial times has an entire 6 page supplement titled "India: 60 years after independence". Lots of good stuff in there of the kind that's discussed on SM. Recommended.
Btw, Outlook India has an I-day special.
XariGirl, not that I know of, but I have been seriously toying with the idea of video interviewing my grandparents and other relatives who experienced the partition first-hand, next time I'm in India, and possibly making a short film out of it. It has always struck me odd that one can find hundreds of movies, books etc. on the Holocaust, but not that many about the partition. Some reasons could be that it is painful for people to talk about it, or maybe people are content to look forward rather than back, or maybe not enough attempts have been made to record personal stories, or maybe I haven't looked hard enough. :)
If others have any ideas or insights, please share.
"Now that I got that out of the way, I think we should get away from the Indepdence = Partition meme. Enough already!"
i was thinking about that myself. not to downplay the importance of partition and its legacy/consequences, but it's interesting to note that the bbc chose "what's the legacy of partition" as their Have Your Say topic to celebrate the 60th independence anniversaries of india/pakistan. i remember that being - i think - the same topic they discussed in detail on the occasion of the 50th anniversaries of independence of both countries. i would have thought by now a different angle could have been taken: what has each country achieved, where have they succeeded, where have they failed etc. but maybe it's still too early to not talk about partition. but on bangladesh's independence day, i wonder if they have a topic "what's the legacy of partition of pakistan into two countries?"
Ennis, thanks a ton for writing this. Indeed, this day will remain a bitter-sweet reality for many families on the two sides of the border.....for Punjabis, Sindhis, Bengalis and many many more communities this is as real as it gets.
One does not talk about partition to undermine the joy of freedom, but it is important to remember partition still, so that we know, PEACE is one thing we need the most!
Camille,
I didn't mean that we should stop discussion of partition as it relates to I-day. It is just that many articles have been focusing almost solely to it. Also, Ennis made an error by limiting partition to Bengalis and Punjabis alone. Kashmir, Hyderabad, Gujarat, Rajasthan were also partitioned in 47. Riots took place all over India.
Incidentally, Goa was liberated in '61 and Sikkim in 1975. So we have many I-days. :-)
I always hear about migration to and from West-Pakistan, but I am yet to hear about migration to and from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). I am curious because I think there was a huge movement of population (considering bengali was the largest spoken language before partition), but all the stories, movies, news I come across is always about the other side. Seriously, I am really curious about what happened on that side of India. Anyone has any stories ?
I have personally come across refugees from partition period in the Andaman islands where govt tried to rehabilitate them. They were really poor, and my heart went out to them when a lot of them lost much of their belongings again during the Tsunami.
errrm..I meant Hyderabad was directly affected by partition.
Conceded.
They wanted to commemorate the hand over with the celebration of WW II VJ day - Aug 15th 1945 (the day Japan surrendered). This has been documented as shared in the book my Manishanker Iyer (Secular Funamentalist)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/15/newsid_3581000/3581971.stm
shh,
The migration from East Bengal was massive and has not yet ended. Almost a million East Bengalis migrated just before 1971. Additionally, Hindus have been migrating (forced out) from Bangladesh since the 1990s. A large number of muslim migrants from Bangladesh migrated to Assam, causing direct economic, social and political turbulence leading to the formation of the radical ULFA. T. N. Seshan, the election commissioner during the 1990s, had commented on the dangers of this migration to the electoral process.
Amit
Indeed, while the Grandparents talk about everything else, its tough for them to actually narrate the story of actual move to across the border.....those were harrowing times. My Grandma spoke to me about it only once, upon a lot of coaxing and kajoling.....and no, i didn't feel good that i got her talking about it, not one bit! There are books that have partition as a backdrop, but only a few like Bhisham Sahni's Tamas are entirely based on partition.
Shh, I've also often wondered about the Partition on the Bengali side. How many people migrated? Was the violence similar? etc.
Thanks for clarifying, this makes more sense to me now. :) Although, I guess for many communities, Partition has had a legacy that stretches forward through time, as well.Thanks for showcasing this book! - I'm very interested in reading it.
The masterpiece Garam Hawa is about partition. Shyam Benegals 'Trikal' is about Goa - pre and post Independence.
musical - agreed. I've rarely heard folks who were directly affected by partition refer to it. It is often their children who seem more vocal about it. Perhaps the trauma was too much for the first gen-ers. I had a friend whose dad lost 5 sisters (abducted), 3 brothers/uncles/dad (killed) in West Punjab. His dad was saved by a servant, who packed him off in a train to Delhi. At the refugee camp in Delhi, someone stole his belongings and the money the govt gave him for repatriation. The dad never spoke about those days, not even to his children. [The dad went on to become the Chairman of a PSU.]
Those guys were amazing! I'd like to celebrate their victories rather than dwell on man's cruelties.
A couple of links for XariGirl:
A personal story of the Partition
audio slideshow from BBC
Partition memories
the reason there is so much footage of the holocaust is because the nazis took an enormous amount of videos. You dont think it was the prisoners who too those videos, do you? That would have taken a lot of foresight. Those Jews are really tenacious.
There was a TV mini series in the 80s called Tamas which was about the partition.
From the original poster,
if you think Brownie did a heck of a job, Mounty makes him look like a paragon of engagement and sensitivity. Mountbatten insisted that the partition line be drawn in only six weeks!
--> I would think Brownie is the wrong comparison. Bremer probably fits in much better, given the similarity in responsibilities. We might have to hunt for Edwina in green zone but the incompetence is all there(Rajeev Chandrasekaran's Imperial life in the emerald city portrays bremer in all his glory).
Whatever be the causes(anglo superiority, manifest destiny, oil, cotton, spices), they are culpable in the killings that followed, in India in 1947 and in Iraq currently.
Yes, I've read (and seen the TV series) Tamas, an excellent book. Another one is Pinjar, a movie based on Amrita Pritam's book. (I've seen the movie, but not read the book.)
Musical,
My apologies, I didn't see your comment about Tamas, I felt it was excellent and captured the events sorrounding the partition extremely well, Om puri and Deepa Sahi were really good.
Preston, the cover picture is brilliantly rude to Indians, imo, and I hate seeing it on a book cover now.
Josh, if your above comment is directed at me, I was referring to the movies and books in popular US/Western culture that address the Holocaust, if that wasn't clear from my comment, and not about any footage taken by Nazis.
Sindh wasn't partitioned, but don't forget the Sindhis ;).
While Tamas portrayed the effect of partition well, it was historically inaccurate. Bhism Sahni and his brother Balraj were famous communists (party members) and their sympathetic portrayal of the communist party's actions during '47 was nothing but fiction.
Tamas was on TV when I was but a kid. Scared the hell out of me. If it were now, I'd have the wisdom to avoid watching something so painful. Back then I couldn't miss anything on TV>
It's not just video footage. It's the analysis, the soul-searching, the educational outreaches, the dissemination of knowledge, the political repurcussions, the legal trials...Jews were very tenacious about it never being forgotten. And hats off to them...it never should be.
Partition on the other hand has not had 1% of that attention or analysis...and that is Indians' fault, no one elses. Personally, I think what makes Partition hard to analyse objectively is that (in my view) it was mostly the fault of Muslim leaders, and the street/village level violence (at least in the beginning) was the work of Muslim peasantry. Yes, as a reaction, there was equally horrifying violence committed by Hindus and Sikhs...but they didn't start it. These facts are unpalatable to a lot of people, who would like to think that everything was 50-50 all the way, and blame everyone equally. When it just wasn't like that. Partition is too hot a topic to ever come to terms with, because of the ways in which it bears upon Indo-Pak and Muslim-non Muslim relations to this day. Diplomatically, it's vital to be polite and make nice about it...which will never get us to the truth.
I think the Partition was and has been such a non-topic for my aunts, uncles, and grandparents was because of the utter horror of it and my understanding has been that everyone's focus has been to move away from it. My dad was 16 and my mom 7 when their families moved from the Lahore and Rawalpindi areas to the Punjab. Incidently, my parents' families moved in comparative safety and 5-star style...both my grandfathers were Indian army officiers and not only did they get prior notice but each of them due to their ranks got entire carriages to transport families (immediate and extended) families across the border. However, the land reparations were never equal to the amount they lost plus they lost all the baggage, money, and valuables in the baggage trains during the movement.
The horror of the butchery, rapes, kidnapping of young girls and women, and the deep sense of abiding shame of these events pretty much shut everyone up. I reccomend the movie "Pinjar" one of the absolute best movies on the partition and what happens to women, in particular, in these scenarios.
I must also note something critical to this: other than my parents and their younger siblings, every single relative over the age of 20 has always dated and continued to date events by "when Pakistan was created" or "10 years after the partition" or "15 years before the partition". I had the same experience with a Pakistani grandma I met from Kapurthala prior to the Partition. She dated things by "when India was created." However, I have never ever heard a negative word about muslims from anyone in our families.
sp
Come on, Amrita, it is a historical picture, reflecting a real event, capturing people in a candid, unposed composition that was rare at the time, especially for near-royalty like the Mountbattens. Besides which, it also brilliantly captures Mountbatten's indifference - in his faraway, I-don't-give-a-damn look, which applies both to the Edwina-Jawaharlal relationship as well as to the process of Partition; as well as showing that Nehru was in fact quite a bit shorter than both the Viceregal beings; in addition it correctly captures the insinuatory nature of Nehru's relationship - he came 'in between' Edwina and the Earl ! :)
I recommend Manto's Toba Tek Singh.
#23 circus in jungle
Jinnah had so much blood on his hands.
I think that even if partition hadn't happened the relative similar amount of bloodshed would have occurred in the next 60 years through religious violence. Only it might not have been concentrated in border regions.
--> While religious stupidity causes lots of deaths, that doesnt mean people like Jinnah are off the hook for causing it in the first place.
#10 Quizman
I can even ignore that he faithfully reproduces the post-imperial narrative which robs Indians - any of them - of all their agency (Independence happened because Britain was weakened and US put pressure. Killings happened because British fueled separatism). But I just cannot let go of his conclusion which as usual ignores history and reduces analysis to simply spotting every recursion of the word “Islam” and then connecting the dots
--> But Britain was weak at that time and ready to let India have its way. I can say it is wrong if some writers see it as the only reason but that doesnt mean it wasnt one of the legitimate reasons why India got independence when it did. The same with the '..british fueled separatism...' part.
Correct. The Bengali Muslims in West Bengal were left in relative peace, despite the violence being wreaked upon Hindus in East Bengal. So, with no one forcing them to go, they stayed right where they were and life went on. Whereas in Punjab, when the displaced Sikhs and Hindus from West Punjab got to East Punjab, despite being 'refugees', they made sure there were no Muslim left in East Punjab by the time they got done (except in Maler Kotla, where for a very specific historic reason related to Sikh history, the local Muslims were spared, and Maler Kotla has a large Muslim Punjabi population to this day, unique in all of Indian Punjab).
The difference is with Partition, unlike the Holocaust, civilians from all three communities were both victims and murderers. And unlike the anti-Semitism of the Holocaust, which has been roundly rejected by most everyone, "South Asian progressives" still believe the two nation theory to be morally defensible (as long as it is not Hindu nationalists who are advocating it). Go to any Western university and you will find that most professors believe that Pakistan has a legitimate claim to Kashmir based on its Muslim majority. We can record & remember, but political correctness does not allow for any lesson to be learned
Amit:
I liked "Pinjar" too-the book by Amrita Pritam is even better.
Quizman:
I know that the Sahnis have a communist connection, but the book Tamas, in its protrayal of common people, who bore the brunt of partition, was really very accurate. There's another short story by Bhisham Sahni "Sardarni" on partition.
Oh! and how i can forget the chilling afsanas/stories written by Saadat hasan Manto.....they are blunt but really true.
Has anyone been to the countryside of Punjab in India and seen all those old Muslim cemetaries and dilapidated mosques? Chilling. By the same token, the countryside in Pakistan is full of old Hindu temples and Sikh shrines in various states of ruin.
I was actually surprised to see it in the graphic of ennis' post. The Henry Holt (American) edition of the book, which I got recently from Amazon has a different image on the cover.
Amitabh,
In a Umer Sharf play, a chap goes around claiming that he is a nawab and that his forefathers have been staying in XYZ area for centuries. Umer Sharif asks him (rough translation), "Pray, then why does the nameplate on your gate say R.C. Sharma?"
#54 chachaji
Come on, Amrita, it is a historical picture, reflecting a real event, capturing people in a candid, unposed composition that was rare at the time, especially for near-royalty like the Mountbattens. Besides which, it also brilliantly captures Mountbatten's indifference - in his faraway, I-don't-give-a-damn look, which applies both to the Edwina-Jawaharlal relationship as well as to the process of Partition; as well as showing that Nehru was in fact quite a bit shorter than both the Viceregal beings; in addition it correctly captures the insinuatory nature of Nehru's relationship - he came 'in between' Edwina and the Earl ! :)
--> If you saw another picture with Jinnah in the middle(between Edwina and the 'Earl' as you put it), would you insinuate pretty much the same thing ? It is one thing to read a thousand intrepretations into a picture. It is quite another to claim what you did about the picture above and then supply your intrepretation. Plus what does Nehru being short have to do with anything ?
We can record & remember, but political correctness does not allow for any lesson to be learned
jinnah wanted and undivided punjab & bengal. guess why? ;-) the kolkatta bhadrolok's who didn't want bengal partition in 1905 sure as hell wanted it in '47. guess why? ;-)
It is rude to Nehru, but I will not concede that Nehru == India.
I used it because it seemed to capture Mountbatten's disengagement very nicely, and since I see no need to venerate Nehru (even on this day), that did not disqualify the picture.
Ritwik Ghatak is a good starting point. Final interview (translated). Partition trilogy -- Subarnarekha, Meghe Dhaka Tara, Komol Gandhar. (Links to first parts -- no subtitles)
I think what happened is no one realised that people would have to leave their ancestral homes...when violence started, and Muslims started driving Sikhs/Hindus out (sorry Al Mujahid, I know you won't like that comment),
I think what makes Partition hard to analyse objectively is that (in my view) it was mostly the fault of Muslim leaders, and the street/village level violence (at least in the beginning) was the work of Muslim peasantry. Yes, as a reaction, there was equally horrifying violence committed by Hindus and Sikhs...but they didn't start it. These facts are unpalatable to a lot of people, who would like to think that everything was 50-50 all the way, and blame everyone equally.
I think it is uncontestable that the partition movement was started and led by Muslims leaders so the partition can fairly be attributed to them for the most part though some historians have now claimed that the Muslim League leaders were calling for Pakistan as a ploy to get a bigger share of power from the Congress Party.
I would of course like to see some evidence of the partition related violence being started by Muslims. I am not talking about the 'Direct Action Day' etc. but the violence which came out of the mass movement of people. The claim that Muslims started it might very well be true but I would like to see the evidence.
musical, thanks for the recommendation re: Pinjar book. Glad to know others too enjoyed stories by Saadat Hasan Manto. There's also Train to Pakistan by Khushwant Singh, but I read it a loooong time ago and don't remember all the details.
I too would like to see evidence that the Muslims started it first.
Not that it would change my opinion of the partition.
sp
And lastly, I think "Pinjar" is a great depiction of Partition, although I find it hard to watch.
Amitabh:
i've lived my life in Punjab countryside. I agree with you about the mosques-but the various Sufi and Peer shrines still have lots of following-there usually is an urs/mela every Jumme-raat/Thursday and people usually bring diyaas with mustard oil for prayers. One those many shrines that i have seen , is within a temple, and its believed that everytime you visit the temple, you have to visit the shrine for your prayers to come true :). and again, there's an urs on Thursday at this shrine.
NPR was interviewing a British man who had served during parition. He claims they were woefully understaffed. 15k troops trying to manage millions. One thing he said was that the partition had been planned for 1948 but Jinnah probably had a hand in advancing the date by a year. Jinnah's idea of Pakistan was very progressive, it seems.
Jinnah died a few months after Aug 1947. Does anyone have any other inputs on the date change?
As a Southie married to a Punjabi, I realized the tremendous impact that Partition had on the lives of the older generation in my husband's family after I married him. His dadi passed away last year but I spent many hours with her hearing tales of their flight from Rawalpindi to India. Whenever we visited, I made it a point to hear her reminiscences because I knew that this precious history would soon be lost.One of my most poignant memories is of the time that I was searching for a piece of "Phulkari" emboridered cloth to complete a project. I searched high and low and when Dadi heard this she literally wept and told me that she had with her own hands embroidered enough cloth to keep 2 generations going .She cried and told me "we lost everything and had to leave everything.I had planned to embroider enough blankets to keep my grandsons sons warm ". What is most tragic is besides the loss of property and lives, the heritage of an entire generation is gone : the memorabilia, the Tchotchkes, the trinkets, the photos that chart family history is gone. There is nothing left to let my son know where his ancestors came from - nothing except the stories that we pass down
Amitabh said:
I say:
Although the intent was to award Muslim-majority areas to Pakistan and Hindu-majority areas to India, this principle couldn't always be followed to the letter and spirit. Let me toss some Partition-related arcana into the discussion, specifically relating to Cooch Behar district in West Bengal and what was then East Pakistan: http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/05/08/110-cooch-behar-the-mother-of-all-enclave-complexes/
An enclave complex like this may be intellectually tickling, but it brings up a number of real problems in the day to day lives of an already disenfranchised lot. Initiatives like the Teen Bigha agreement try to cure some of the pain, but all the bad blood from 60 years ago (and quite frankly, some misplaced pride) still stands in the way of a normalization of boundaries.
BTW - I love the comments I'm seeing here. I'm learning a ton, and the conversation is both civil and constructive. I'm very pleased that this hasn't degenerated, especially given the time I put into the post.
Here is an input:
History might have worn a different face had certain photographs been let loose. In India in 1946 Mohammed Ali Jinnah's doctor developed a set of X rays that spelled a death sentence for his patient. Tuberculosis had already severely damaged the lungs; he was not likely to live more than two or three years longer. Jinnah, the iron-willed leader of the Moslem League, was determined to create the Moslem state of Pakistan, no matter what the cost. He swore his doctor to secrecy; if his opponents were to find out he was under a death sentence, they would probably try to outlast him, and Pakistan itself would die before it ever existed. The doctor sealed the film in an unmarked envelope and locked it in his office safe. At midnight on August 14, 1947, in the wake of bloody riots and untold deaths throughout India, Pakistan became a nation with Jinnah at its head. Thirteen months later, the Father of Pakistan died. The photographs of his lungs were still sealed in an envelope in an office safe.
Camille
I NEVER EVER cry watching Hindi movies EVER. Pinjar was the first one and it didn't leave my heart and mind for months afterwards. That girl could have been one of my aunts.
Re the phulkari comment. All my older bhuas (father's sisters of which he had 5) had embroidered a dozen phulkaris each by the time of the partition. They also had ones from their grandmothers too. (Traditionally, phulkaris were used as shawls, blankets, bedspreads, and girls embroidered them for their trousseaus.) All of them were looted in the baggage train.
After the partition, none of my aunts ever made a phulkari again and they wouldn't teach us either.
Sonya
I sometimes think of the situation between Greece & Turkey where there was once large Turkish and Greek minorities in each other's territories. I know the dislocations there had a high death toll as well, but at least today a Greece and Turkey living together under the EU banner is conceivable within the next twenty years. This is only possible because both states are are least somewhat secular. It's next to impossible for me to envision a similar "Union of South Asian States" even in the next 100 years
I think the fundamental difficulty with the issue of partition is what it really represents to many. At its core, partition is about the idea that people of different religions can not coexist as neighbors within a singular community. It is the root of the conflict in Kashmir, and for the most part forms the raison d'etre of Pakistan itself (Pakistan was designed as a Muslim homeland fearful of being swallowed by a Hindu Majority). This position was firmly rejected by Gandhi and Co. and forms the basis of the pluralistic democracy that is India--Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists can live together as Indians.
Partition is difficult to talk about because at it personifies this difference in the two countries. Yes partition means Independence as well, but it also means division along religious/ethnic lines.
#69 Camille
Many of these decisions were made above the heads of "common folk" in India, and I don't fault Muslim leadership for wanting its own "safe haven" or state.
--> Defining a nation state based on religion is bad enough. Basing the definition on perceived injustice suffered(or the potential for it in the future) at the hands of the majority religion is irresponsible leadership.
Why wasnt it a fault of muslim leadership for wanting its own "safe haven" or state ? Would Hindu Mahasabha be looked upon the same way if they decided on a hindu rashtra ? How about Sikhs ? In 1947 of course.
Krishnan, you have asked the forbidden question. At the university I went to in the 90s you could be branded as a Hindu fascist just for asking such a question, even if you made it clear that you did not support the idea of "Hindu nationalism"
Runa, Sonya:
I am with you both on that.....i am speechless.....
Krishnan, maybe I am too reductionist, but I really don't think that individuals who are in the "majority religion" can ever understand the gross fear of violence that minority religious communities face. At the time of Independence, Sikhs contemplated asking for their own homeland, as well -- let's not pretend that other communities did not engage in this same dialogue. Ultimately they chose not to, for many reasons, and nearly 40 years later we had 1984, which for many was a glaring moment of "un-Indianness." Every time a minority religious or ethnic group is targeted, it's another tally on the scorecard for why a separate Pakistan was justifable.
I'm not saying that it's right or correct -- personally I don't think that the concept of nation-states really makes sense (although this was one of the core ideas behind independence movements worldwide at the time). But to blame the gross violence that happened during Partition on Muslim leadership? I think it's a stretch.
50 to 100 years ago, EU would have seemed impossible. the European countries were at each others throats. in WWII, naziism was a force to be reconed with. a lot of things can happen in 100 years. india could be one of the richest most powerful countries in the world by then. never say never...
How about we learn to stand in a single file line waiting for a flight, then worry about richest most powerful.
i'm with chachaji on the pic: nehru moving in on lady mountbatten while "pretty boy" louis looks on...personifying the changes in the relationship between the two nations.
We have different ideas of causality. The Partitions of '47,'71, and the Khalistani separatist movements contributed nothing to the fears of the majority community ? And there is nothing exceptional about the majority community that made it possible for Zoroastrian & Jewish communities to survive/thrive for thousands of years ?
Nobody has said it yet but I will. You know the guy some of us like to blame for "socialism" in India or the license raj (a vastly overstated criticism in my opinion especially since India could not have hoped to have the convenience of the U.S. market, like the east asian tigers did since the latter neatly fit the larger geo-strategic aims of the U.S. post wwii), he was one of the few leaders who was still thinking rationally and, insofar as human agency can be credited, he, along with other much maligned congress leaders, were responsible for India's initial survival as an unified entity.
dude....100 years is a long time. the difference between 1907 and 2007. the world looks really different today than it did 100 years ago.
louiecypher
The Zorastrians and the Jews were never large enough communities to be perceived as a thorn in your side, let alone a threat of any kind.
i would imagine 100 years ago, no one would predict the british empire would be virtually non existant in 100 years...
" individuals who are in the "majority religion" can ever understand the gross fear of violence "
Sikhism is the 5th largest religion in the world. I hardly call it a minory religion.
Clever use of the word "perceive". No, people who come to trade, instead of with sword in hand, are generally not perceived as a threat. Unless it is an American with a KFC drumstick in one hand and a Coke in the other and you are Arundhati Roy
well...yes. it is a minority relion in india. the majority of indians aint sikhs. not even close to a plurality either. you can have a large number of people and still be a small minority in a country if 1b people.
rich traders are often followed by powerfull armies...
"Krishnan, maybe I am too reductionist, but I really don't think that individuals who are in the "majority religion" can ever understand the gross fear of violence that minority religious communities face."
i think the hindu pandits of kashmir/some of the hindus of the northeast can understand, but then again, i guess they are considered a minority there but are often not perceived to be because of the numerical strength of hindus in india as a whole.
Sikhs comprise 2% of India's population, which in any book constitutes a minority.
Also, it was very clear during the Bhinderawale phase of Punjab, Operation Blue Star, and the killing of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards, how state-sponsored oppression and discrimmination can be unleashed and positively encouraged in the general population on a minority community. (In my opinion, a large part of it was brought upon the Sikhs by themselves...fighting words I know but I will stand by them to the bitter end.)
I need to point out here I personally was and am against a separatist Sikh movement and was not a follower/believer whatever of THAT man responsible for derailing the progress of Punjab by 50 years.
Until Blue Star, the Indian Armed Forces consisted of 30% Sikhs; after BlueStar, an edict was issued to bring it down to represent the population %. Additionally, the careers of many high-ranking officers at the general and brigidiar-level were derailed due to Blue Star and fear of the army turning against the govt.
Yet, I consider myself Indian first and then Punjabi Sikh.
sp
I look forward, not to a Union, but a future confederation, as a more realistic, and indeed also a more idealistic objective - the Confederate Sovereign States of South Asia (COSSSA). This can't happen unless India, the largest state, first loosens itself up considerably - with devolution, decentralization, electoral reforms - and the economy continues to do well, so it can offer trade concessions to its neighbors, on the way to a true free trade area - and then, when we get to the stage that India begins having Muslim, Sikh, and Christian PMs routinely - then it will be clear that the fear that Muslims and other minorities had, of being dominated by a 'Hindu' majority, will be proved to be unfounded. Till then progress toward COSSSA will be slow.
The United States of South Asia (USSA) was actually talked about in the early 1940s, as one possible future after the British exit, but fell by the way side, at least partly due to Congress's majoritarian politics. One way Partition could have been averted, for example, was if Nehru had agreed to let Jinnah be interim PM in 1946, because till then it was just a bargaining chip, and Jinnah might well have settled for a system of nationwide separate electorates with some kind of 'reserved seats' for Muslims. But this conflicted with the 'secular' vision of Nehru, who did not want to formally recognize the political dimension of religious identities, whatever the reality on the ground.
The idea of COSSSA animates my own vision for the future of South Asia - sovereign states with their own flags and symbols etc; which come together, trade freely, have a rotating Presidency, share jurisdiction on many matters; have single jurisdiction on others, etc. The right to leave the confederation should exist, the hope being that, with that guarantee people would be more likely to come together in the first place, and use it only as a last resort. This would be like the EU in some ways, such as the recognition of multiple official languages; and like Canada in the way minority rights are guaranteed. Can't happen unless the dream exists first, and gets fleshed out clearly, and discourses that encourage the South Asian common identity are promoted, and the idea finds acceptance in the general population.
#82 Camille
Krishnan, maybe I am too reductionist, but I really don't think that individuals who are in the "majority religion" can ever understand the gross fear of violence that minority religious communities face.
--> How easy(or fair) is it to assume anyone raising that question is from the "majority religion" ?
My intent behind asking that question was to point out the terrible nature of religion(majority or minority) and the horrific effects that can happen if it is used for defining a nation state(as in 1947).
If , as you say, individuals who are in the "majority religion" can have real difficulty understanding the gross fear of violence that minority religious communities face, how would that make a state based on religious identification any more safe for its people ?
If after a state has been carved out for people of a particular religion, a majority subgroup becomes the terror of all other subgroups, what then ?
Or is it your assumption that everyone who identify themselves as part of a religion are a monolith within that nation state ?
If that assumption is true, how different is it from Hindu Mahasabha claiming hindus are a monolithic entity, albeit at a subgroup level ?
Wouldnt it be more reasonable to not define a state based on (stupid) religion(s) in the first place ?
Every time a minority religious or ethnic group is targeted, it's another tally on the scorecard for why a separate Pakistan was justifable.
--> That is a breathtaking claim. On what basis is it justified ? Wouldnt it be more reasonable to work towards minimising the pernicious influence of religion and maximising participation of all the people in public sphere than creating a new nation state for each subgroup(Left handers have been targeted for persecution in India, I demand a new state, peechchaangarai) ?
I'm not saying that it's right or correct -- personally I don't think that the concept of nation-states really makes sense (although this was one of the core ideas behind independence movements worldwide at the time). But to blame the gross violence that happened during Partition on Muslim leadership? I think it's a stretch.
--> To me, nation state is a concept, however flawed, is better than the alternative solution(language state, religion state, youngest sibling state etc.,) out there. Kind of like Churchill's comment on democracy.
I dont think it is a stretch at all to blame(not the entire portion) the muslim leadership for causing partition. As for the ongoing butchery during partition, the usual culprit, religions(the whole lot of them) come to the rescue, taking all the blame on itself.
Guys,
A lot of Jinnah papers, correspondence with British leaders has been declassified.
It goes into two things:
1) MA Jinnah was never scared for muslim minority in India. He never was. He biggest thing was that muslim will never have (or realise) their full potential (or live to the fullest, control their desitny) in the Hindu majority land. There is some merit to that observation. In fact, recently Pakistan school textbooks have been revised, correcting this (the orgin and reasons for Pakistan). I thank Pakistan for that.
2) The series of religious rioting in India goes back to a focal point - Direct Action Day. It became a pattern that the people in power in Indian subcontinent (in Direct Action Day, it was Muslim League, later it would be BJP and Congress four decades later) would use their influence to run amock on the other. Before, direct action day, religious rioting was never as systematic, maybe, due to iron grip of the British. ALM, I do not know whether Muslims really started it all in the Partition. In some places, they did, Suhawardy (the future foreign minister of Pakistan) was quite hawkish in Calcutta, but to his credit, he did turn around eventually, and help quell the riots.
Now to the question is: Did Pakistan help in safe gaurding muslim? The answer is: No, 1971 and before in East Pakistan. Only the fair skinned ones, not shorter ones with darker skin. 1971 makes everything else, teenagers fighting each other by orders of magnitude.
Guys, can we avoid getting too far down the BlueStar path? It usually gets very ugly. I understand it's relevant here, but ... tread lightly please?
"100 years is a long time. the difference between 1907 and 2007. the world looks really different today than it did 100 years ago."
I'm talking about a flight I took 2 years ago.
I don't think comparing the Holocaust and Partition is the same thing, or you can compare how to document and remember it as the Jews have done with the Holocaust. It is almost universally acknowledged that the Holocaust was a bad thing (except by deniers and a few germans). The majority of Germans, who maybe tacitly went along with it during it, now feel shame and remorse and there is little dispute as to the immorality of the Holocaust in the German psyche. Partition, however, despite the violence and widespread deaths, is still viewed by some as wrong, some as right and necessary (by both some Indians and Pakistanis) and some as in-between. You only have to read the responses to the bbc have your say on what is the legacy of partition to see the deep-seated distrust and even outred hatred that still exists between indians/pakistanis and between subcontintenals/british. Asking that question in that forum hasn't brought out any great insight into partition, but only negativity and bitterness for the most part. It hasn't contributed to any peace. The legacy of the Partition is important, but I don't think it will ever be easy to document it as clear-sightedly as the Holocaust and as impartially. It will remain as divided as India/Pakistan are today.
ROFL.. while the other states move towards the glorious rule of "Sharia". I guess they are already there..
Right on, in state building and in "interfaith dialogue", the burden is placed squarely on Hindu shoulders.
I think partition is the best thing to have happened to India. (with sincere apologies to all those who got directly affected).
But on the whole it worked out well. You only need to read the Cabinet Mission Plan to see the alternative.. It's a miraculous escape for Indians.. I'll elaborate later.
Circa 1947, the percentage of muslims in India (or British India - whatever you want to call it), was about 25 %. That is not a tiny minority.
I Quad-E-Azam, MA Jinnah was sheepish enough to talk about safe heavens. He dreamed big - He wanted a land of the pure - Pakistan - which means the land of the pure in Persian/ Urdu. He himself was quite secular, and fair, I think.