Title: The Great Partition – The Making of India and Pakistan
Author: Yasmin Khan
Publisher: Penguin, 2017 (First published 2007)
ISBN: 9780143420675
Pages: 251
The partition of the Indian subcontinent into India and Pakistan in 1947 was the single most violent incident in the country’s history. Bloodshed is nothing new to India. Rivers of blood flowed in the incessant foreign raids during the 1000 years of Muslim hegemony and 200 years of British rule. But this was something different. Partition was reluctantly accepted by Indian politicians because of the widespread atmosphere of communal violence as a means to bring in much-needed peace. It was ironic that this necessary evil turned out to be an incarnation of the most heinous crimes imaginable. Nearly two million people were killed and about ten million migrated during this violent episode as the newly formed administrations of both countries were unprepared for a calamity of this sort. There have been numerous accounts of the Partition and many have been reviewed here earlier. Yasmin Khan is a British historian of Pakistani origin and is an associate professor of history at Kellogg College, Oxford. This book is her attempt to evaluate a catastrophe that originated from religious bigotry using the jargon of modern nation-making.
Muslims who constituted a minority in undivided India had in fact ruled the landmass for a millennium since the invasion of Mohammed bin Qasim in 712 CE. There have been numerous Hindu principalities in this period, but all were subservient in one way or the other to the sultan in Delhi or to his provincial governors. The Muslim – as a political community, not as individuals – lost power when the British usurped Mughal rule. Gradual constitutional provisions introduced by them caused the Muslims to envisage a new scenario. When it became certain that the British would one day leave India, it was sure that the Hindus would step into the shoes of the British in a probable democracy due to their numerical superiority. It is curious that even though the Hindus were divided into many castes and classes and were of different political persuasions, the Muslim mind saw them as a single entity threatening their existence. As per the religious laws of Islam, Muslims are not permitted to live under a regime which does not accept the primacy of sharia law (dar al-harb). Consequently, a demand was put forward that the Muslims constitute a separate nation and need an exclusive geographical territory separate from India. Hiding this plain truth, Yasmin Khan provides a post-factual justification for the theocratic state of Pakistan that was formed. She in fact puts blame on the Bengali bhadralok (elite) as the people who wanted partition as a solution to protect their business (p.74). This is nothing but dark humour as the Bengali Hindus were driven to call for partition due to general violence in all parts of Bengal and ethnic cleansing of Hindus in east Bengal which eventually became Pakistan. She brazenly declares that Partition is a loud reminder of the dangers of colonial intervention, imperial hubris, and the reactions of extreme nationalism. By transcribing the modern concepts of self-determination and nation state into a theological entity, the author knowingly or unknowingly becomes an apologist for Islamic fundamentalism. Partition acknowledged the right to self-determination of a large group of Muslims who had expressed their strong desire to extricate themselves from the Congress control. In the post-independent period, she euphemizes Pakistan’s support of terrorism as ‘backing of violent atrocities’ (p.209), carefully avoiding the word ‘terrorism’.
Khan portrays the ineptness of the administration to handle a crisis of this magnitude. Partition took place in a society only partially emerging from long years of war. 2.5 million Indian soldiers served in World War II of which 24,000 were killed and 64,000 wounded. This was the largest volunteer army in history. There were also issues connected to demobilization. The need to transfer large chunks of populations was not recognized even late into the sequence of events. Even after the June 3 declaration of the actual date of independence, Lord Mountbatten thought of only feeble mechanisms to reassure, protect or secure the position of minority communities in border districts.
The book expounds the role of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) in shaping up the idea of Pakistan and providing the intellectual leadership in steering the concept clear of all obstacles. This is a topic leftist Indian historians regularly sweep under the carpet, away from the public eye. AMU stood as the bulwark in building up the Muslim League. The institution was founded by Syed Ahmed Khan as a place to blend Islamic instruction with the demands of the western world and to impart all manners and educational benefits that an English public school could offer to well-heeled Muslims. Support for League and Pakistan had been a long-standing feature of the university described as the ‘arsenal of Pakistan’. Aligarh University students were at the cutting edge of pro-Pakistan thinking and they retrospectively claimed the credit for founding the state. When leaders such as Jinnah and Liaquat Ali visited the place, they were given rapturous receptions. League leaders were carried aloft the shoulders of students who set crackers on the railway lines to welcome them (p.41). A student union leader was claiming publicly to have killed Hindus with his own bare hands (p.42).
The weak administration’s role in encouraging ethnic cleansing in Punjab is narrated in detail. British troops were steadily withdrawn and sent back home. They were replaced by the limited and under-manned Punjab Boundary Force trying to protect a petrified, well-armed population. Nehru wanted the foreign soldiers to go immediately as their presence was resented as a symbol of occupation. This viewpoint neatly overlapped with the interests of the British establishment which was eager to bring its war-weary and homesick soldiers back. Native troops not only evaded their duty to protect minorities but in some cases actually took part in the violent offensive. Pakistani troops being transported to their new places of posting in Pakistan fired at civilians from the carriage windows of their passing trains at Ambala, killing or wounding sixty innocent passersby. Country-made mortars were mounted on strategic rooftops in Punjabi villages to repulse invaders. In Hasilpur of Bahawalpur state, a group of Pathans shot down 350 people by rifle fire while the soldiers remained neutral (p.129). The miscreants often consisted of well-prepared, trained, uniformed and efficient body of former soldiers and policemen. Gangs armed with machine guns in jeeps were able to inflict far more harm in one or two hours than villagers using clubs and pitchforks, were less alarmed by military patrols and could cover large distances. In addition, the two new governments had to solve the refugee crisis alone, with the international community barely involved. The Red Cross had actually closed its delegation in India six months before Partition. Europe turned inward as it attempted to heal its war wounds and its own refugee problem. The UNHCR was founded only in 1950. Both the governments set up full-fledged ministries to deal exclusively with refugees. Special taxes were imposed to finance the rehabilitation operations.
It has been a time-tested strategy of Islamists to drive a wedge between the untouchables and other castes in Hinduism. The former was subject to great oppression in the past and a number of them are obviously irate over this sad fact. Islamist and leftist historians never waste an opportunity to remind them of the atrocities perpetrated against their ancestors and thereby try to preclude any chance of rapprochement and reconciliation. Yasmin Khan also follows the same line. She even classifies newspapers as ‘upper caste’ (p.76). The author also claims that ‘untouchables as a separate community were left for themselves in Punjab’ and argues that they chose Pakistan to escape upper caste domination. But in fact, in the case of a few who chose likewise, there was no change in the situation and Muslims dominated them even more. This subhuman treatment is evidenced by the reverse migration of J N Mandal. He was an untouchable and the chairman of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. Soon afterwards, he was promoted ‘to a coveted ministerial position’ (p.155), but within three years he resigned and fled back to India resenting the inhuman treatment meted out to his fellow members in Pakistan. The author also notes the clever reevaluation of the Muslims in north India in terms of ‘economic and personal safety and security’, while all of them were League and Pakistan supporters before. The two-nation theory was thus conveniently hidden for the time being for survival.
What we see in this book is a grim equalizing under the guise of modern political concepts of self-determination and nation-making on behalf of a Pakistani author of the ideologies in the making of secular India and Islamic Pakistan. Misleading assertions are galore in the text, like the claim that ‘forced conversions from one faith to the other occurred’ (p.6) as if both communities indulged in this heinous custom. Forced conversions did take place to only one religion in India of 1947 and that was to Islam. The narrative is in a detached mode, without adopting any leader’s personal perspective like Jinnah or Liaquat Ali Khan. Extensive references to fictional works are seen such as Bhishma Sawhney’s Tamas or Khushwant Singh’s Train to Pakistan and also Intizar Husain’s semi-autobiographical novel Sunlight on a Broken Column.
Muslims who constituted a minority in undivided India had in fact ruled the landmass for a millennium since the invasion of Mohammed bin Qasim in 712 CE. There have been numerous Hindu principalities in this period, but all were subservient in one way or the other to the sultan in Delhi or to his provincial governors. The Muslim – as a political community, not as individuals – lost power when the British usurped Mughal rule. Gradual constitutional provisions introduced by them caused the Muslims to envisage a new scenario. When it became certain that the British would one day leave India, it was sure that the Hindus would step into the shoes of the British in a probable democracy due to their numerical superiority. It is curious that even though the Hindus were divided into many castes and classes and were of different political persuasions, the Muslim mind saw them as a single entity threatening their existence. As per the religious laws of Islam, Muslims are not permitted to live under a regime which does not accept the primacy of sharia law (dar al-harb). Consequently, a demand was put forward that the Muslims constitute a separate nation and need an exclusive geographical territory separate from India. Hiding this plain truth, Yasmin Khan provides a post-factual justification for the theocratic state of Pakistan that was formed. She in fact puts blame on the Bengali bhadralok (elite) as the people who wanted partition as a solution to protect their business (p.74). This is nothing but dark humour as the Bengali Hindus were driven to call for partition due to general violence in all parts of Bengal and ethnic cleansing of Hindus in east Bengal which eventually became Pakistan. She brazenly declares that Partition is a loud reminder of the dangers of colonial intervention, imperial hubris, and the reactions of extreme nationalism. By transcribing the modern concepts of self-determination and nation state into a theological entity, the author knowingly or unknowingly becomes an apologist for Islamic fundamentalism. Partition acknowledged the right to self-determination of a large group of Muslims who had expressed their strong desire to extricate themselves from the Congress control. In the post-independent period, she euphemizes Pakistan’s support of terrorism as ‘backing of violent atrocities’ (p.209), carefully avoiding the word ‘terrorism’.
Khan portrays the ineptness of the administration to handle a crisis of this magnitude. Partition took place in a society only partially emerging from long years of war. 2.5 million Indian soldiers served in World War II of which 24,000 were killed and 64,000 wounded. This was the largest volunteer army in history. There were also issues connected to demobilization. The need to transfer large chunks of populations was not recognized even late into the sequence of events. Even after the June 3 declaration of the actual date of independence, Lord Mountbatten thought of only feeble mechanisms to reassure, protect or secure the position of minority communities in border districts.
The book expounds the role of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) in shaping up the idea of Pakistan and providing the intellectual leadership in steering the concept clear of all obstacles. This is a topic leftist Indian historians regularly sweep under the carpet, away from the public eye. AMU stood as the bulwark in building up the Muslim League. The institution was founded by Syed Ahmed Khan as a place to blend Islamic instruction with the demands of the western world and to impart all manners and educational benefits that an English public school could offer to well-heeled Muslims. Support for League and Pakistan had been a long-standing feature of the university described as the ‘arsenal of Pakistan’. Aligarh University students were at the cutting edge of pro-Pakistan thinking and they retrospectively claimed the credit for founding the state. When leaders such as Jinnah and Liaquat Ali visited the place, they were given rapturous receptions. League leaders were carried aloft the shoulders of students who set crackers on the railway lines to welcome them (p.41). A student union leader was claiming publicly to have killed Hindus with his own bare hands (p.42).
The weak administration’s role in encouraging ethnic cleansing in Punjab is narrated in detail. British troops were steadily withdrawn and sent back home. They were replaced by the limited and under-manned Punjab Boundary Force trying to protect a petrified, well-armed population. Nehru wanted the foreign soldiers to go immediately as their presence was resented as a symbol of occupation. This viewpoint neatly overlapped with the interests of the British establishment which was eager to bring its war-weary and homesick soldiers back. Native troops not only evaded their duty to protect minorities but in some cases actually took part in the violent offensive. Pakistani troops being transported to their new places of posting in Pakistan fired at civilians from the carriage windows of their passing trains at Ambala, killing or wounding sixty innocent passersby. Country-made mortars were mounted on strategic rooftops in Punjabi villages to repulse invaders. In Hasilpur of Bahawalpur state, a group of Pathans shot down 350 people by rifle fire while the soldiers remained neutral (p.129). The miscreants often consisted of well-prepared, trained, uniformed and efficient body of former soldiers and policemen. Gangs armed with machine guns in jeeps were able to inflict far more harm in one or two hours than villagers using clubs and pitchforks, were less alarmed by military patrols and could cover large distances. In addition, the two new governments had to solve the refugee crisis alone, with the international community barely involved. The Red Cross had actually closed its delegation in India six months before Partition. Europe turned inward as it attempted to heal its war wounds and its own refugee problem. The UNHCR was founded only in 1950. Both the governments set up full-fledged ministries to deal exclusively with refugees. Special taxes were imposed to finance the rehabilitation operations.
It has been a time-tested strategy of Islamists to drive a wedge between the untouchables and other castes in Hinduism. The former was subject to great oppression in the past and a number of them are obviously irate over this sad fact. Islamist and leftist historians never waste an opportunity to remind them of the atrocities perpetrated against their ancestors and thereby try to preclude any chance of rapprochement and reconciliation. Yasmin Khan also follows the same line. She even classifies newspapers as ‘upper caste’ (p.76). The author also claims that ‘untouchables as a separate community were left for themselves in Punjab’ and argues that they chose Pakistan to escape upper caste domination. But in fact, in the case of a few who chose likewise, there was no change in the situation and Muslims dominated them even more. This subhuman treatment is evidenced by the reverse migration of J N Mandal. He was an untouchable and the chairman of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. Soon afterwards, he was promoted ‘to a coveted ministerial position’ (p.155), but within three years he resigned and fled back to India resenting the inhuman treatment meted out to his fellow members in Pakistan. The author also notes the clever reevaluation of the Muslims in north India in terms of ‘economic and personal safety and security’, while all of them were League and Pakistan supporters before. The two-nation theory was thus conveniently hidden for the time being for survival.
What we see in this book is a grim equalizing under the guise of modern political concepts of self-determination and nation-making on behalf of a Pakistani author of the ideologies in the making of secular India and Islamic Pakistan. Misleading assertions are galore in the text, like the claim that ‘forced conversions from one faith to the other occurred’ (p.6) as if both communities indulged in this heinous custom. Forced conversions did take place to only one religion in India of 1947 and that was to Islam. The narrative is in a detached mode, without adopting any leader’s personal perspective like Jinnah or Liaquat Ali Khan. Extensive references to fictional works are seen such as Bhishma Sawhney’s Tamas or Khushwant Singh’s Train to Pakistan and also Intizar Husain’s semi-autobiographical novel Sunlight on a Broken Column.
The book is recommended.
Rating: 2 Star
No comments:
Post a Comment