The Longest August

Title: The Longest August – The Unflinching Rivalry between India and Pakistan

Author: Dilip Hiro

Publisher: Nation Books, 2015 (First)

ISBN: 9781568585154

Pages: 503

When the British gave independence to India, it came at an excruciating price. The country was divided into two, in the name of religion and a bloody transfer of population between the countries. The British acceded to the demand of the Muslim League, acting as the voice of Indian Muslims. The Congress party opposed it at first, but it was fairly obvious to impartial observers to discern the strong justification for the cry for partition of the country – that the Hindus and Muslims are two nations. If we take a glance at the violent history of the subcontinent of the last 1200 years, it may be seen that the Muslims who mattered most came here by invasion and/or forced conversion. For 1000 years, their descendants subjugated the country until effectively challenged by the Rajputs and Marathas in the 18^th century CE. But before they could achieve anything substantial, the British came along, conquering all the warring parties. 150 years under colonial rule taught the country to look at the wider world without the crippling restrictions imposed by religion. As it was evident that the country would be left with a democratic form of government based on universal adult franchise when the British leave for good, a section of the Muslims were worried at the prospect of the country being ruled by Hindus, who commanded a majority in numbers. For the most part, Indian Muslims never lived under Hindu rule in history. Perhaps if the Marathas had had a little more leeway in the 18^th century, or if the British had came on the scene a hundred years later, Indian Muslims would have learned how to live peacefully and prosperously under a Hindu ruler. As it was, their apprehensions were understandable and the demands found acceptance by the colonial regime, who carved Pakistan out of India. Dilip Hiro, who had himself emigrated out of Pakistan after partition tells the story of the unflinching rivalry between the sister nations and the exacting toll it had claimed from both sides in term of men, money and resources, to say nothing about missed opportunities. The book essentially covers the period from 1900 to 2013.

It is an unwritten dictum in children’s comics that superheroes don’t fight each other. Who has seen Mandrake the Magician plotting against Phantom, or Spiderman? But in politics, when there is not enough maneuvering room for two tall leaders, tussle is bound to ensue. A classic example is illustrated in the first few chapters of the book, in the form of the cold war between Gandhi and Jinnah, Fathers of the Nation, respectively of India and Pakistan. The estrangement began right when Gandhi returned to India after his two decades long stint in South Africa. Jinnah was comfortable only with English, which he termed the only language in which he was sure not to make any mistakes. When he began a salutary speech for Gandhi in the reception organized in Bombay, he felt chided by Gandhi’s stickler for using Gujarati (the mother tongue of both) in the function. Jinnah abhorred Gandhi’s schemes for mass participation in his political programs. He was staunch supporter of legal procedures and for meetings behind closed doors to wrest more power for Indians. Even though the Muslim League was formed way back in 1906, its meetings were planned near to the dates of Congress meetings and in the same city, since Muslims were members of both organizations. When World War I ended, the Turkish sultan stood defeated, as he sided with the losing party in the war. He saw dismemberment of his empire which included the holiest sites of Islam. As he was also the caliph of Muslims worldwide, Indian Mussulmans were angered at the cavalier way in which this spiritual master was being treated by the British. Radicalization began in consequence to it, but Gandhi sided with Ali brothers in proceeding with Khilafat agitation to recuperate the king of Turkey. This had absolutely no political significance to India, which was then reeling in the aftermath of the Jalianwala Bagh Massacre, and was a clear case of mixing religion with politics to garner popular support. Jinnah opposed this move, but Gandhi was determined to use the communal plank. This set alight religious passion in copious quantities so as to spill over into many orgies of communal riots. As the Hindu and Muslim communities separated more and more in thinking, Jinnah changed his stance and sided with his own coreligionists. Here, one question faces us directly in the eye. If there was reconciliation between the two leaders and Jinnah remained secular and in Congress, would the idea of Pakistan ever have arisen? The answer would be an emphatic yes. Had Jinnah stayed back, he would have grown in stature like another Maulana Abul Kalam Azad – a leader to show off, but inconsequential. The predominantly Hindu Congress would not have allowed a Muslim to obtain absolute control over it. The separation of the two communities was a historical inevitability and if Jinnah was not in the picture, another Muslim leader would have donned that mantle. Hiro also mentions Gandhi’s dubious experiments involving his grand niece to attain moral merit by his abstinence from sexual desire which is to be helpful in his fight against Jinnah.

A contrasting picture of Jawaharlal Nehru against his image of a great scholarly national leader is painted by Hiro. Various instances are enumerated in the book that extols the fallacy of many acts perpetrated by India’s first prime minister. Nehru referred the Kashmir issue to the UN in response to Pakistan’s deploying its irregular troops into Kashmir and annexing a part of it. UN suggested a plebiscite which is the constant refrain on the part of Pakistan ever since. India strongly opposed any attempt to internationalize the issue, but it is highly embarrassing to it that the first move on this front was initiated by Nehru under the advice from Lord Mount Batten, India’s first governor general. Nehru maintained a haughty demeanour against other world leaders not matching him in their education, aristocratic background or scholarship. Ayub Khan, Pakistan’s military dictator, complained in private that Nehru look upon him with contempt. Nehru’s debacle against China resulted in loss of prestige for India in its disastrous war against its northern neighbour in 1962. The fuse is to said to have been lit by Nehru claiming the sanctity of the border between India and China as demarcated by McMahon as inviolable. China maintained that it had not ratified the border as did the existing maps. However, Nehru instructed that the boundary be made permanent and set up army posts in the disputed territory. This led to skirmishes which grew in intensity as both sides stuck to its guns. When Nehru ordered Indian troops to assault Chinese soldiers perceived to be crossing the border, China invaded on a large scale. Indian troops were unequal to meet the aggression. After imposing a humiliating defeat, the Chinese declared a unilateral ceasefire and returned to pre-war positions on the eastern front and Arunachal Pradesh, but not in Ladakh. Nehru’s boastful speeches on non-alignment with superpowers antagonized America right from the start, but during the Chinese incursion into the country, Nehru swallowed his pride and unashamedly begged US to provide military aid and equipment. Hiro also comments that India trained and deployed Tibetans to rebel against China, which irritated them greatly. However, he does not say a word against China’s forcible annexation of Tibet. Going by the author’s narrative, one gets the feel that Tibet had always remained a part of China and that India fomented trouble in a peaceful province of a neighbouring country.

Handling of history of the last three decades lacks sufficient depth, partly due to the fact that no epochal event such as a full scale war had materialized between the two countries. The narration falls to the level of a journal after the year 2000, expounding summit meetings and bilateral negotiations. It may be news to many people on both sides of the border to learn that the two countries had come to the brink of nuclear war in retaliation of the terrorist attack on Kaluchak army base in 2002. There is another reason for the lull in mutual engagement. As the economic clout of India grew, the disparity in GDP of the two countries widened.

Hiro includes an informative chapter on soft power exerted by India in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Afghanistan is a factor to contend with, in any discussion on South Asia, as both India and Pakistan try to woo them in their proxy war against the other. India’s soft power is visible in the field of television and cinema. Dramatized Hindi serials are having wide viewership in both its western neighbours. Indian films have surpassed the appeal of movies made in Pakistan. However, in a clear indication that both countries are deeply permeated by the bigotry of sectarian religious views, scenes depicting Hindu idols or offering pujas are masked out in public screenings. It is no wonder then, to deduce the unseen channel fertilizing Jihadism and its export around the world. In the same token, it may be realized that the strong attraction of Bollywood movies in Pakistan is helped in no small measure by the monopoly of the three Khans in its actor list and the efforts of the Mumbai underworld to keep it so.

The author asserts many facts in his narrative, but the sources are not strong enough to guarantee its veracity. In a few cases, he opts for sensationalism with no strong card in hand. For example, he avers that Vajpayee, India’s prime minister from 1998 to 2004 was unmarried, but not celibate! How on earth can he substantiate this allegation in a meaningful way? Every author writing on such topics would love to have a bit of controversy to boost the publicity and sale of the book. The unnecessary tirade – whether true or not – on Vajpayee may be seen in that light. However, this remark didn’t provoke a controversy in India. Hiro takes special pleasure in belittling the stature of Indian leaders while being extra careful not to say anything about the personal lives of Pakistani leaders.

The book is eminently readable and highly recommended.

Rating: 3 Star