Despite the Partition on religious lines, we are still religious factions whose ultimate loyalties are similar to those of Indians in the UK
The anniversary of Capitol Insurrection — when an incumbent President Donald Trump gestured through an apparent revolt that he was not accepting the electoral verdict in favour of Democrat Joe Biden — was all over the media last fortnight. Some writers seem to suggest that the Red States in the USA (Republican majority) could be prepared to separate from the Blue ones (Democratic majority). That might be a split between the Liberal and the Conservatives Americans, but by no means is wide enough to justify the breakup of the country. Lest one forgets, a bitter Civil War was fought for four years from 1861 to 1865 between the northern Yanks and the southern Confederates. Abraham Lincoln led the former with a missionary zeal, winning the war and preserving the Union, gaining recognition as the greatest President of the USA.
It is, however, true that being a creation of random immigration from the 15th century onwards, the USA does not have an integrated ethos. There are people of European, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Indian, Hispanic, Arab and other Islamic origins. Most Indians do not raise their political heads. The others have a political muscle which they could use to further their cause. Indian-origin citizens, when they show up at cricket grounds in the UK, cheer the ethnic team, i.e., India, despite themselves holding British passports. Nevertheless, this is not a desirable symptom because it reflects that the nation does not have a single ethos and holds out a threat of a breakup which we are discussing.
But why go far? India has one single ethos plus several other political sentiments. Despite the partition on entirely religious lines in 1947, we are still religious factions whose ultimate loyalties are similar to those of Indians in the UK. Unlike the USA and the UK, India has not undergone random immigrations. India’s is a unique tale, which can be told by a historian who cannot justify its lack of an integrated ethos that can ensure national unity for all times and under all circumstances.
There are times when circumstances override national interests. In fact, until the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century, there was little by way of a national awakening. If there was an ideology, it was either religion or language.
More than circumstances, the fault lay with the leadership at points of time of the countries concerned. Take France, for example. As a gesture of civilisation, Paris declared its overseas empire to be metropolitan France. This made it easily possible for people from French colonies like Algeria, Morocco, etc., to emigrate to the cities and towns of France. Today, this European country has two huge segments of people, European and African. Being culturally and religiously very different, they find it difficult to coexist. Germany and Turkey were allies during the two world wars. There were many Turks who did not have sufficient employment whereas Germany wanted cheaper labour. The former, therefore, arrived in droves to make Deutschland their home but Berlin insisted that they could settle only as guest workers, not as citizens. But what happens to children born to such guest workers? To add further to the population of Asians in the country, when refugees recently came rushing in from the civil war-ravaged Syria, Chancellor (now former) Angela Merkel welcomed many of them.
Britain made the same mistake after World War II when it needed cheaper labour. There were ready arrivals from the West Indies, India and Pakistan. Now there are problems with civic living in this multi-racial national life. In the 17th and the 18th centuries, the USA imported slaves from West Africa on a large scale. As we have noted, there was a four-year civil war between the northern States who wanted to abolish slavery and the southern ones, who saw this evil and inhuman institution as their legitimate way of life. But the American leadership did not learn their lesson and freely allowed in more and more settlers. The Democratic Party supports them whereas the Republicans wish to largely retain the white (European) character of the USA. Hence the Blue versus Red States divergence referred to above.
Who is India to give advice to these countries? It has also blundered. At Partition time and throughout 1946-47, the Muslim League insisted on an exchange of population as the homeland called Pakistan was for all the Islamic people of the subcontinent. Dr Rajendra Prasad, Independent India’s first President, wrote a book on the subject called India Divided, offering an answer for those who could not move out. They could stay on, but not as citizens. Instead, they would be treated as aliens with residence visas, sans political rights. Pakistan’s founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah endorsed Dr Prasad’s views. But Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru not only opposed this practical solution, but were unjust to millions of people. The distinguished Pakistani scholar Ayesha Jalal in her book The Sole Spokesman has raised the question: why Partition then? The Muslim-majority provinces like Punjab and Bengal did not need nor want the break; it were mainly the Muslim-minority provinces like UP and Bombay Presidency which pressed for it. Eventually, their minorities largely got left behind in India. What a fiasco it has turned out to be?
(The writer is a well-known columnist, an author and a former member of the Rajya Sabha. The views expressed are personal.)
