It’s time to move on from the pain of Partition, and find an amicable solution to various issues between the two neighbours, says Madan lall Manchanda
The gruesome tragedy of Partition of the sub-continent, which resulted in killing of one million people and the largest ever exodus of 10 million to safety across borders, has no parallel in the living memory of mankind anywhere in the world. The tale of the tragedy of such a great magnitude found expression in the literature of the period. Bhisham Sahni mirrors the horrific incident in graphic details as to how after their husbands were slaughtered, 90 helpless women in a small town Toha Khalsa alone, in a mass hirakari, jumped into a well to their watery grave.
Similarly, Manto sends shudders down the spine of readers by depicting a tormented father whose request not to kill his daughter was accepted by the Brute with orders to his subordinate: “Take off her clothes and put her on the other side.” Such heart-rending tales make a poignant reading and revive memories of terrifying days. Rahee’s classic couplet in which he ruefully gives vent to his sorrows is reminiscent of the barbaric time: “The sweet symphony of the music of five rivers drained out, and lofty Himalayas shook its peak in shame. The time was indeed hard as life had lost all respectability. And culture helplessly bewailed mental depravation.”
Peshawar Express by Krishan Chander and Train to Pakistan by Khushwant Singh besides a hosts of writers on both sides portrayed ghastly scenes that send shockwaves far and wide. Contrarily, underestimating the blood bath and the mayhem, noted writer Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar has, of late, termed Partition as ‘desirable’, expressing fear of escalation of the trouble into the civil war and getting far bloodier. He conveniently seems to forget the cardinal point that where minority is pitched against majority, minority cannot venture to indulge in mischief or be sure to escape unscathed. As such, the fear of civil war could not be real. Secondly, the writer’s argument that Hindus and Muslims have no tradition of living together is denial of the truth of history.
India is a pluralistic country and has centuries-old tradition of living together in harmony with Muslims, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, Jews and Christians. Akbar, the great was born under the hospitable roof of a Hindu Rajput during the wanderings of Humayun. Not only did he marry Jodha Bai, many Hindus held important posts in his Government. Bahadur Shah Zafar, the last Mughal emperor who was in the forefront of India’s struggle for Independence and a distinguished poet, also participated in the Hindu festival Holi, called Gulabi Eid, according to Feroze Bakhat Khan. Ghalib’s prose letters Oud-e-Hindi bear testimony to the fact his confidants included Hindu friends to whom many of his literary letters were addressed.
Coming to the modern period, undeniably the British administration had certain strong points in that Hindus and Muslims lived together fearlessly even in Muslim majority areas. At the same time, it is also true that due to the dual policy of British Government in India — divide and rule — stray incidents of violence did flare up among Hindus and Muslims. However, the view that Partition was ‘inevitable’ is solely the viewpoint of the then British Government in India. This is not shared by the Indian National Congress, the party in the forefront of our struggle for Independence.
Dr Zakir Hussain, co-founder of Jamia Millia Islamia, a man of formidable stature and an educationist of great repute, in his historic speech delivered on the silver jubilee celebrations of Jamia University, woefully expressed his anguish at the communal violence preceding the Partition: “The raging fire of our mutual hatred has vitiated the atmosphere that our work of garden tending seemed a mad pursuit. This fire will scorch the earth and wipe out humanity and civility.”
He made a fervent appeal to Qaid-e-Azam Mohd Ali Jinnah, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who had joined the celebrations: “For God’s sake, unite to introspect to extinguish the fire. Fire is on, put it down. It is not the question of survival of this or the other community, it is the time to choose between civilised way of life or of a jungle rule.”
Another noted Muslim scholar, Dr Abid Hussain, who is all praise for India’s great tradition of secularism which allows people of different faiths full religious freedom, stated in unequivocal terms that it is ironical that Jinnah, who did not abide by tenets of Islam, as opposed to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a religious leader, succeeded in forming Pakistan on the basis of Islam.
True, Nehru and Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel failed the acid test to work with Muslim league Finance Minister in the interim Government. It was impossible to come to terms with the Muslim league under the leadership of Jinnah; it was thought that a clean Partition would be better and it happened through the voluntary agreement of the Congress and Muslim league.
Partition was far more agonising for NWFP leader Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, camp follower of Mahatma Gandhi, who had an abiding faith in non-violence. Under the charismatic leadership of Ghaffar Khan, also called Frontier Gandhi, Pathans belonging to his party known as Khudai Khidmatgar, notwithstanding that cult of Pathan is ‘blood for blood’, the red shirt volunteers abjured violence and bravedlathi and baton charges of British Police without any retaliation in India’s struggle for Independence.
Frontier Gandhi, whose brother Dr Kham Saheb headed the provincial Government of Congress in NWFP, felt let down by the Congress. The loss of trusted allies Red Shirt Volunteers under the leadership of Khan brothers was equally traumatic for India.
Mahatma Gandhi failed to mitigate the Muslim nationalism that culminated in the formation of Pakistan — this view was advanced by Mashir-ul-Hasan, a historian who also analysed that Gandhi’s drift towards Muslims cost him his life when a Hindu assassinated him in 1948. Mahatma’s battle was spiritual, Jinnah and Veer Savarkar were temporal; and Savarkar felt Hindus were losing out. Gandhi could not prevent Partition; he supported a newly formed Pakistan’s rights not because of its flaws, but that of others. This concession had to be made for whom Roman Rolland called a ‘mortal demi- god’.
Similarly, the fear expressed by the writer Aiyar that had India escaped Partition, civil war would have ensured the nation split into dozen countries is ill- founded. How conveniently the merger of over 500 States into the Indian Union has been forgotten! It was indeed a rare fate, credit for which goes to the Indian leadership, in particular to Sardar Patel for consolidating India and proving British critics wrong who sneered that an Independent India would disintegrate.
Also, Sardar Patel, a great man of action, after a successful military operation in Hyderabad, and understandably on the basis of reality that unfolded there, reportedly then thundered over radio: “let this be the last occasion when British have interfered in the internal matter of India.”
While he did not hesitate to convey his concern in strong words to the erstwhile rulers, his remarkable restraint is evident in his historic wisdom packed Amritsar speech in which he pleaded for exchange of refugees and for ensuring their safety. Sardar Patel advanced the logic that even rules of war provided for full protection to refugees.
leave aside the sizeable Muslim population left over to stay in India due to practical difficulties, the multitudes of migrants who took shelter in Pakistan after its formation do not appear to have been received with open arms.
Sahir ludhianvi bemoaned their utter dejection and despondency. Similarly, Josh Malihabadi cried out: “I am in Karachi, the way Hussain was in Koofe, it seems I am set for martyrdom.” This is not to say that migrants to India faced no difficulties. Their rehabilitation was a herculean task.
India has no expansion dreams, even then Pakistan attacked her thrice. The Pakistan territory occupied by India has been ceded back to Pakistan. India does not want to grab even an inch of Pakistan. India entered into the Simla Agreement, but Pakistan failed to abide by it. India has tried to maintain cordial relations with all its neighbours, including Pakistan.
It is, however, unfortunate that terrorist attack of 26/11 was mounted on India by Pakistan. Terrorism has cost a long shadow on India-Pakistan relations. This view is accepted by both India and Pakistan, and it has resulted in a setback for finding an amicable solution to various issues between the two countries.
“War solves no problem, and no people want war, but some Governments do want power. That is why we are in a precarious position and no real peace,” said Elina Roosevelt in context of global peace. likewise, the two parts of the sub-continent have to introspect and not allow this soar to fester, find ways to avoid conflicts and focus more on prosperity of people on both sides, and look forward to peaceful co-existence. True, our recent past has been quite painful. Sahir ludhianvi puts the bitter reality thus. It matters not whether it be the blood- shed of one’s own self or of an adversary. The hard reality remains that after all it is bloodshed of the human race, progeny of Adam.
Therefore, do not allow the phantoms of the past hold our future to ransom. After all, the two countries belong to the same stock and have common roots. We have a common link — language. We share the same cultural values. Socially, we have not changed a bit. Zindagi channel from Pakistan is as popular in India as Indian films are in Pakistan.
India is in the earnest to mend ties with all the neighbouring countries, especially SAARC, including Pakistan. The renewed efforts are on. People-to-people contact seems the only way out. Bilateral trade is essential too. Both countries have great potential and the existing level of bilateral trade can be boosted up to 10 times more or so for the prosperity of our people. Peace is, however, basic for trade to flourish, and dialogue is the only way to find ways and means to address security concerns of both countries for larger good.
Hopefully, wise counsels of the great visionary poet philosopher Dr Mohd Iqbal would hold sway and guide people of both countries: “Dharti ke vasion ki mukti preet mein hai. (Salvation of the earthly beings lies in mutual love.)”
madanlallmanchanda@gmail.com