Is this usage appropriate?
You would have read about the German Holocaust
under the Nazis in Class IX. The term �holocaust� in a
sense captures the gravity of what happened in the
subcontinent in 1947, something that the mild term
�partition� hides.
(more content follows the advertisement below)
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
It also helps to focus on why Partition,
like the Holocaust in Germany, is remembered and
referred to in our contemporary concerns so much. Yet,
differences between the two events should not be
overlooked. In 1947-48, the subcontinent did not witness
any state-driven extermination as was the case with
Nazi Germany where various modern techniques of
control and organisation had been used. The �ethnic
cleansing� that characterised the partition of India was
carried out by self-styled representatives of religious
communities rather than by state agencies.
The power of stereotypes
India-haters in Pakistan and Pakistan-haters in India
are both products of Partition. At times, some people
mistakenly believe that the loyalties of Indian Muslims
lie with Pakistan. The stereotype of extra-territorial,
pan-Islamic loyalties comes fused with other highly
objectionable ideas: Muslims are cruel, bigoted,
unclean, descendants of invaders, while Hindus are
kind, liberal, pure, children of the invaded. The
journalist R.M. Murphy has shown that similar
stereotypes proliferate in Pakistan. According to him,
some Pakistanis feel that Muslims are fair, brave,
monotheists and meat-eaters, while Hindus are dark,
cowardly, polytheists and vegetarian. Some of these
stereotypes pre-date Partition but there is no
doubt that they were immensely strengthened
because of 1947. Every myth in these constructions
has been systematically critiqued by historians. But
in both countries voices of hatred do not mellow.
Partition generated memories, hatreds,
stereotypes and identities that still continue to shape
the history of people on both sides of the border.
These hatreds have manifested themselves during
inter-community conflicts, and communal clashes
in turn have kept alive the memories of past violence.
Stories of Partition violence are recounted by
communal groups to deepen the divide between
communities: creating in people�s minds feelings
of suspicion and distrust, consolidating the power
of communal stereotypes, creating the deeply
problematic notion that Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims
are communities with sharply defined boundaries,
and fundamentally opposed interests.
The relationship between Pakistan and India has
been profoundly shaped by this legacy of Partition.
Perceptions of communities on both sides have been
structured by the conflicting memories of those
momentous times.
Why and How Did Partition Happen?
Culminating point of a long history?
Some historians, both Indian and Pakistani, suggest
that Mohammad Ali Jinnah�s theory that the Hindus
and Muslims in colonial India constituted two
separate nations can be projected back into medieval
history. They emphasise that the events of 1947
were intimately connected to the long history of
Hindu-Muslim conflict throughout medieval and
modern times. Such an argument does not recognise
that the history of conflict between communities has
coexisted with a long history of sharing, and of
mutual cultural exchange. It also does not take into
account the changing circumstances that shape
people�s thinking.
Some scholars see Partition as a culmination of
a communal politics that started developing in the
opening decades of the twentieth century. They
suggest that separate electorates for Muslims,
created by the colonial government in 1909 and
expanded in 1919, crucially shaped the nature of
communal politics. Separate electorates meant that
Muslims could now elect their own representatives in
designated constituencies. This created a temptation
for politicians working within this system to use
sectarian slogans and gather a following by distributing
favours to their own religious groups. Religious
identities thus acquired a functional use within a
modern political system; and the logic of electoral
politics deepened and hardened these identities.
Community identities no longer indicated simple
difference in faith and belief; they came to mean active
opposition and hostility between communities.
However, while separate electorates did have a
profound impact on Indian politics, we should be
careful not to over-emphasise their significance or to
see Partition as a logical outcome of their working.
Communal identities were consolidated by a host
of other developments in the early twentieth century.
During the 1920s and early 1930s tension grew
around a number of issues. Muslims were angered
by �music-before-mosque�, by the cow protection
movement, and by the efforts of the Arya Samaj
to bring back to the Hindu fold (shuddhi ) those
who had recently converted to Islam. Hindus were
angered by the rapid spread of tabligh (propaganda)
and tanzim (organisation) after 1923. As middle class
publicists and communal activists sought to build
greater solidarity within their communities, mobilising
people against the other community, riots spread in
different parts of the country. Every communal riot
deepened differences between communities, creating
disturbing memories of violence.
Yet it would be incorrect to see Partition as the
outcome of a simple unfolding of communal tensions.
As the protagonist of Garm Hawa, a film on Partition,
puts it, �Communal discord happened even before
1947 but it had never led to the uprooting of millions
from their homes� Partition was a qualitatively
different phenomenon from earlier communal politics,
and to understand it we need to look carefully at the
events of the last decade of British rule.
|
|
AKHAND PRATAP SINGH
