Title: Remnants of a Separation – A History of the Partition through Material History
Author: Aanchal Malhotra
Publisher: HarperCollins, 2017 (First)
ISBN: 9789352770120
Pages: 385
Before I begin: This is my 700th book review here. The journey which started about sixteen years ago still runs smoothly and happily.
The partition of India into two independent countries in 1947 was sordid to begin with but it turned into a disastrous nightmare with each passing week. An estimated one million people were killed, numerous women were raped or abducted and many tens of thousands were forcibly converted to Islam. Several millions had no choice but to migrate to the other side of the border with whatever little they could carry, mostly in their hands. In several instances, they had only a few minutes to prepare for cutting all roots from their native land. This book is about the reminiscences of those people who migrated in 1947. They were lucky to have escaped with their life, but not so fortunate as to be free of first-hand experiences of the carnage that was played out, especially in Punjab. This book does not simply compile the recollections of these octogenarians but makes them relive their past life based on the few material things they could bring along and has assumed a large sentimental value such as a piece of cloth, a utensil, an ornament or a souvenir connected to a prized association. The book carries the memories from a generation receding into the past to a generation advancing into the future, both with great speed. Aanchal Malhotra is an artist and oral historian working with memory and material culture. She is the co-founder of the ‘Museum of Material Memory’, a digital repository of material culture from the Indian subcontinent, tracing family histories and social ethnography through heirlooms, collectibles and objects of antiquity. The author is a descendant of migrants on both sides of the family. This is her dissertation thesis for the degree of MFA (Master of Fine Arts).
This book is organized as a collection of conversations with individuals who witnessed and experienced the unforgettable moments in the subcontinent’s history and its partition. Author’s engagement with the most senior members of a family (the partition is already 76 years old), persuade their great-grandchildren to view them in a new light and as a source of inspiration and encouragement. After all, not everyone goes through the tough times as brought down by cataclysmic events related to the partition of a country that was an organic whole for most of recorded history. The importance of material memory is focused on in this book. Not content with learning the individual experiences, Malhotra prompts her subjects to show her any item of interest that they had brought along in the exodus and still holds dear. These small articles of personal attachment suddenly get transformed into a tangible link to the painful past. We also see that younger family members, who had viewed these items with nothing better than indifference, if at all, quickly find them cherishable and priceless. In a sense, it brings out the links to the past as well as strengthens the ties to the future. The author’s remark on memory loss caused by aging is arresting: “memory begins to fade little by little. First the edges soften, eroding away the most recent years and then slowly age gnaws its way till it reaches even the seemingly impenetrable, the nucleus of our lives – our oldest and dearest memories”.
One similarity that runs through all the people’s experiences in the early stages is the disbelief and skepticism on the viability of partition itself. The sheer fact that a nation can be divided and its people separated did not cross the minds of common people who went about their normal lives while Muslim politicians openly demanded partition. There were indeed a few ‘nationalist’ Muslim leaders high up in the Congress hierarchy who opposed it but their ratio could be expressed in ppm (parts per million) rather than percentages. The author here gives some leeway to the guilty party and gives the nuance that both political sides wanted partition. She had to travel to Pakistan and interview the people who left India that probably made her adopt this ambivalent argument that is designed not to irritate anybody, but at the cost of truth. Lack of clarity on borders made the situation troublesome as Hindu pockets in Pakistan and Muslim pockets in India near the prospective border did not know to which country they would be annexed to by Cyril Radcliffe, the arbiter of the fate of millions. This book suggests that Radcliffe faltered in some cases and succumbed to favours by conceding to the needs of the elite few over the needs of many, much against the mapmaker’s better judgement.
The author claims that one cannot attribute the events that unraveled in 1947 to a single cause or community and hence the notion of singular responsibility is thereby absent (p.33). This is plain wrong and the result of unwillingness to see the elephant in the room. It was the Muslim side which demanded partition right from the partition of Bengal in 1905, also largely on religious lines. The Bengal division was later reversed, but as the Muslim League grew stronger and stronger with each passing year on the base of concessions by the Congress, it could finally run its writ in 1947. The demand for Pakistan was ignored at first and later resisted, but the League then intensified their claim and resorted to horrible violence such as the Direct Action Day of Calcutta in 1946. Pakistan was born with both pre-natal and post-natal bloodshed. Even then, 35 million Muslims chose to stay back in India. The author’s quest to balance the narrative is obviously woven to please their descendants. Malhotra then notes that ‘it is not religion; it is human nature and quest for power that drives madness of violence’. This is so absurd that it is not even wrong. It is what you can call a secularization of bigotry. The violence was aided and abetted by the tenets of a particular religion. When it flared beyond control, others also imitated their methods to pay them back in the same coin. This reluctance to face the intense religious zeal of interlocutors that went in in the creation of Pakistan is exemplified by an incident narrated in the book. Azra, a 90-year old matriarch in Lahore, had migrated from Jalandhar in Indian Punjab. She recalls that she had actively participated in public processions in Jalandhar shouting Hamara dil mein Quran hai (we hold the Quran in our hearts) and Hamein Pakistan chahiye (we want our Pakistan). At this point, our author incredulously ejaculates ‘but did you actually believe them?’ (p.65). She evidently did, but our author was not willing to accept that the old woman sitting in front of her was a fanatic of the first order! This is a classic instance of the typical liberal hare standing stunned motionless against the headlights of fanaticism. We also read about people who so loved the land to which they belonged that they were ready to convert for the simple privilege of being allowed to stay there. Bhoptiyan village in Lahore district was a Sikh majority one. All the Sikhs converted to Islam to remain there. The author also suggests a division of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 as a workable solution to the Kashmir problem which is embarrassingly naïve.
Even though the author has interviewed 19 people from both sides of the border and presented their cases with a heart-warming clarity, she has clearly missed the communal wood for the individual trees. We see that the people who had gone over to Pakistan do not flinch when asked whether they wanted to undo partition. They don’t. One of them says that there is indeed ‘a difference’ between Hindus and Muslims. The author is unnerved by this candid assertion and mumbles farak kya hai (what’s the difference) to which the kind Pakistani replies that ‘even though we considered ourselves equal to the Hindus in every way, there was no denying the inherent differences’ (p.180). Another boasts that ‘it was not money or material prosperity that brought me here to Pakistan but inspiration. I was inspired by the idea of this land and aspired to become something for it’. On the other hand, this book narrates an incident in which a person who had gone to Pakistan coming back a few years later and establishing a Muslim shrine in Samana, Punjab at which place people of all religions pray. Another lady claims to have come from a generation who professes to be secular and open to pluralism and multiculturalism. These facets are seen in action in India alone, while in Pakistan the minorities are either killed off or converted. One only needs to look at the percentages of minority population in both countries in 1947 and compare it to the numbers at present. The author also claims that when she read Jinnah’s Pakistan Address of March 1940, she ‘could not understand the vehemence, perhaps due to my own naivety’ (p.181). Bigotry is incomprehensible to the liberal mind. The unfortunate part is that since she does not understand it she assumes it to be absent.
Aged people are the subject matter of the book, but it is touching and the way the young generation treats the old is just lovely. The insight that has gone into the author’s occasional philosophical remarks such as ‘life is not easy, but it is never supposed to be’ is truly great. Even people who are not in any way connected to the partition would find this book appealing as it provides a pathway to the hearts and minds of their grandparents and to reevaluate them on the face of challenges they had encountered and overcome. A particular thing to note is that the book is biased towards stories of the rich, influential people like zamindars with large havelis, topmost bureaucrats or people who could afford a year-long world tour in 1947. Anyway, the book presents a rich and fulfilling reading experience.
The book is highly recommended.
Rating: 4 Star
Author: Aanchal Malhotra
Publisher: HarperCollins, 2017 (First)
ISBN: 9789352770120
Pages: 385
Before I begin: This is my 700th book review here. The journey which started about sixteen years ago still runs smoothly and happily.
The partition of India into two independent countries in 1947 was sordid to begin with but it turned into a disastrous nightmare with each passing week. An estimated one million people were killed, numerous women were raped or abducted and many tens of thousands were forcibly converted to Islam. Several millions had no choice but to migrate to the other side of the border with whatever little they could carry, mostly in their hands. In several instances, they had only a few minutes to prepare for cutting all roots from their native land. This book is about the reminiscences of those people who migrated in 1947. They were lucky to have escaped with their life, but not so fortunate as to be free of first-hand experiences of the carnage that was played out, especially in Punjab. This book does not simply compile the recollections of these octogenarians but makes them relive their past life based on the few material things they could bring along and has assumed a large sentimental value such as a piece of cloth, a utensil, an ornament or a souvenir connected to a prized association. The book carries the memories from a generation receding into the past to a generation advancing into the future, both with great speed. Aanchal Malhotra is an artist and oral historian working with memory and material culture. She is the co-founder of the ‘Museum of Material Memory’, a digital repository of material culture from the Indian subcontinent, tracing family histories and social ethnography through heirlooms, collectibles and objects of antiquity. The author is a descendant of migrants on both sides of the family. This is her dissertation thesis for the degree of MFA (Master of Fine Arts).
This book is organized as a collection of conversations with individuals who witnessed and experienced the unforgettable moments in the subcontinent’s history and its partition. Author’s engagement with the most senior members of a family (the partition is already 76 years old), persuade their great-grandchildren to view them in a new light and as a source of inspiration and encouragement. After all, not everyone goes through the tough times as brought down by cataclysmic events related to the partition of a country that was an organic whole for most of recorded history. The importance of material memory is focused on in this book. Not content with learning the individual experiences, Malhotra prompts her subjects to show her any item of interest that they had brought along in the exodus and still holds dear. These small articles of personal attachment suddenly get transformed into a tangible link to the painful past. We also see that younger family members, who had viewed these items with nothing better than indifference, if at all, quickly find them cherishable and priceless. In a sense, it brings out the links to the past as well as strengthens the ties to the future. The author’s remark on memory loss caused by aging is arresting: “memory begins to fade little by little. First the edges soften, eroding away the most recent years and then slowly age gnaws its way till it reaches even the seemingly impenetrable, the nucleus of our lives – our oldest and dearest memories”.
One similarity that runs through all the people’s experiences in the early stages is the disbelief and skepticism on the viability of partition itself. The sheer fact that a nation can be divided and its people separated did not cross the minds of common people who went about their normal lives while Muslim politicians openly demanded partition. There were indeed a few ‘nationalist’ Muslim leaders high up in the Congress hierarchy who opposed it but their ratio could be expressed in ppm (parts per million) rather than percentages. The author here gives some leeway to the guilty party and gives the nuance that both political sides wanted partition. She had to travel to Pakistan and interview the people who left India that probably made her adopt this ambivalent argument that is designed not to irritate anybody, but at the cost of truth. Lack of clarity on borders made the situation troublesome as Hindu pockets in Pakistan and Muslim pockets in India near the prospective border did not know to which country they would be annexed to by Cyril Radcliffe, the arbiter of the fate of millions. This book suggests that Radcliffe faltered in some cases and succumbed to favours by conceding to the needs of the elite few over the needs of many, much against the mapmaker’s better judgement.
The author claims that one cannot attribute the events that unraveled in 1947 to a single cause or community and hence the notion of singular responsibility is thereby absent (p.33). This is plain wrong and the result of unwillingness to see the elephant in the room. It was the Muslim side which demanded partition right from the partition of Bengal in 1905, also largely on religious lines. The Bengal division was later reversed, but as the Muslim League grew stronger and stronger with each passing year on the base of concessions by the Congress, it could finally run its writ in 1947. The demand for Pakistan was ignored at first and later resisted, but the League then intensified their claim and resorted to horrible violence such as the Direct Action Day of Calcutta in 1946. Pakistan was born with both pre-natal and post-natal bloodshed. Even then, 35 million Muslims chose to stay back in India. The author’s quest to balance the narrative is obviously woven to please their descendants. Malhotra then notes that ‘it is not religion; it is human nature and quest for power that drives madness of violence’. This is so absurd that it is not even wrong. It is what you can call a secularization of bigotry. The violence was aided and abetted by the tenets of a particular religion. When it flared beyond control, others also imitated their methods to pay them back in the same coin. This reluctance to face the intense religious zeal of interlocutors that went in in the creation of Pakistan is exemplified by an incident narrated in the book. Azra, a 90-year old matriarch in Lahore, had migrated from Jalandhar in Indian Punjab. She recalls that she had actively participated in public processions in Jalandhar shouting Hamara dil mein Quran hai (we hold the Quran in our hearts) and Hamein Pakistan chahiye (we want our Pakistan). At this point, our author incredulously ejaculates ‘but did you actually believe them?’ (p.65). She evidently did, but our author was not willing to accept that the old woman sitting in front of her was a fanatic of the first order! This is a classic instance of the typical liberal hare standing stunned motionless against the headlights of fanaticism. We also read about people who so loved the land to which they belonged that they were ready to convert for the simple privilege of being allowed to stay there. Bhoptiyan village in Lahore district was a Sikh majority one. All the Sikhs converted to Islam to remain there. The author also suggests a division of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 as a workable solution to the Kashmir problem which is embarrassingly naïve.
Even though the author has interviewed 19 people from both sides of the border and presented their cases with a heart-warming clarity, she has clearly missed the communal wood for the individual trees. We see that the people who had gone over to Pakistan do not flinch when asked whether they wanted to undo partition. They don’t. One of them says that there is indeed ‘a difference’ between Hindus and Muslims. The author is unnerved by this candid assertion and mumbles farak kya hai (what’s the difference) to which the kind Pakistani replies that ‘even though we considered ourselves equal to the Hindus in every way, there was no denying the inherent differences’ (p.180). Another boasts that ‘it was not money or material prosperity that brought me here to Pakistan but inspiration. I was inspired by the idea of this land and aspired to become something for it’. On the other hand, this book narrates an incident in which a person who had gone to Pakistan coming back a few years later and establishing a Muslim shrine in Samana, Punjab at which place people of all religions pray. Another lady claims to have come from a generation who professes to be secular and open to pluralism and multiculturalism. These facets are seen in action in India alone, while in Pakistan the minorities are either killed off or converted. One only needs to look at the percentages of minority population in both countries in 1947 and compare it to the numbers at present. The author also claims that when she read Jinnah’s Pakistan Address of March 1940, she ‘could not understand the vehemence, perhaps due to my own naivety’ (p.181). Bigotry is incomprehensible to the liberal mind. The unfortunate part is that since she does not understand it she assumes it to be absent.
Aged people are the subject matter of the book, but it is touching and the way the young generation treats the old is just lovely. The insight that has gone into the author’s occasional philosophical remarks such as ‘life is not easy, but it is never supposed to be’ is truly great. Even people who are not in any way connected to the partition would find this book appealing as it provides a pathway to the hearts and minds of their grandparents and to reevaluate them on the face of challenges they had encountered and overcome. A particular thing to note is that the book is biased towards stories of the rich, influential people like zamindars with large havelis, topmost bureaucrats or people who could afford a year-long world tour in 1947. Anyway, the book presents a rich and fulfilling reading experience.
The book is highly recommended.
Rating: 4 Star
No comments:
Post a Comment