The partition of India in August 1947 has always been a burning topic of extra-heated discussions among intellectuals of South Asia. Sometimes top politicians, including the prime ministers from India and Pakistan, join the fray. An innumerable number of books and film stories have so far been written on the theme. Usually, everyone repeats the oft-presented sets of arguments for and against the Partition that do not lead to a comprehensive conclusion.
Tragically though, this could never be restricted to any academic debate alone. Before and during the Partition, this hostility worked as one huge source of motivation behind the largest civil massacre of the known human history. After the Partition, the two countries have so far indulged in at least three full-scale wars and dozens of limited level battles. There has been a non-stop spilling of blood on both sides of the very long border till date.
Also, India and Pakistan have all along been spending precious resources and working hours of their top officers opposing each other on international level in the fields of diplomacy, agriculture, trade, industry, tourism and other related venues. Even the expatriates from both countries living all over the world have to face this unending confrontation from each other that consumes much of their energy and potential of growth and development. All this has been emanating from the contradictory stances over the philosophy of Partition existing on two sides of the divide.
In Pakistan, the debate is actually rooted in the very basis of its survival as a sovereign state. There always exists a very real possibility of Indian attack on the very existence of the country. Because of that threat, Pakistan always needs to be in a sate of preparedness to defend itself. During recent decades, clandestine interference through terrorist outfits has become a matter of routine.
On the other hand, the resistance against creation of Pakistan from Indian side in fact formulates an essential pillar of "Indian nationalism." Actually the very edifice of nationalism in that country has been erected around the Indian version of the "division of motherland." This is the point where the whole controversy, contradiction and enmity against Pakistan as well as the Muslim population of India essentially come from. This not only takes away a huge portion of that country's budget on the pretext of readiness for future attack against Pakistan, but also deeply cuts a sharp line of hatred against the Muslim community living in that country. The venom seeping abysmally down into the base of Indian society bifurcates the population along the religious lines, thus blocking their social, cultural and financial progress and development in an abnormal manner. Anti-Muslim rioting erupts on the drop of a hat and it has been an everyday phenomenon. A recent verbal brawl among top Bollywood actors along religious lines followed by a chain of threats from extremists can also be considered as examples of the intensity and depth of the communal detest that prevails in that society.
The Indian philosophy blames it upon the British Empire for following the policy of "divide and rule" by causing the Partition. The Partition came when the British had already been moving out, after the Empire was rendered too powerless to govern its overseas colonies in the aftermath of the Second World War. A law, the Independence of India Act 1947, was thus formulated by the government of Prime Minister Clement Attlee on the basis of the Mountbatten Plan, and it was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom which ultimately received the Royal Assent from King George IV.
However, the wearing away of the British Empire during the Second World War that caused its fall is not commonly mentioned in the debate as a basis of the independence. Briefly speaking, the Indian intellectuals, writers and politicians tend to build up a make-belief scenario of an "independence struggle" carried out by the Congress Party leaders against the British rulers. Then they go on to fantasize a victory and later they hurriedly jump upon the leaders of All India Muslim League for what they call their "betrayal to the motherland" by taking away some pieces of land as Pakistan right at the time of their "hard-earned" freedom.
Nationalism and patriotism are good pursuits if supported by truth and reality. But the incorrect historical notions raised from the Indian side - also quoted by dialogue writers of quite a few Bollywood movies - provide enough evidence to suggest that the Indian rulers and policymakers have purposely imagined an inaccurate past for their people to live in. By doing so, they exploit their population's nationalistic and patriotic emotions to divide them into two broad religious communities - Muslims and non-Muslims. The purpose is to confuse and mislead the people into an off beam direction so as to extort as much authority as possible for their vested interests.
An effort to dig a bit deeper into the historical facts can bring interesting realism to light. Indian public is wrongly forced to infer that the Muslim conquerors or the British forces invaded a united India ruled by natives at different points in time of history. This notion is inaccurate.
The old scriptures and ruins of the settlements found at Bhimbitka, Mehrgarh, Mohenjo-daro, Harappa, Dholavira and Kalibangan etc do not suggest existence of a united Hindustan spreading over the whole of the sub-continent during ancient times. Instead we find hundreds of big and small cities and territories under separate and independent rule in this entire region.
The only exception came with the reign of Ashoka, the legendary Indian ruler that at its peak covered almost all of the sub-continent except for Kerala and Tamil Nadu - ruled by ancient Tamil kingdoms. Here, one must not lose sight of the fact that Tamilean is much older language than Malayalam Ashoka had created this state through the power of his own sword and is said to have ruled it for 40 years. His empire did not last beyond another 50 years following his death in 232 BCE. Nevertheless, during the subsequent more than a dozen centuries, Hindustan as usual remained divided into hundreds of independently ruled localities, princely states, sovereign territories, chiefdoms and monarchies; some areas in the ancient Deccan even enjoyed democratic political system for a brief period in history.
The first Muslim sultanate of Delhi that commenced in 1206 CE under Qutb-ud-din Aibak conquered large parts of northern India. Subsequent Muslim dynasties continued to annex more and more land into politically centralized India. Unifying the entire India under Muslim rule took long years and decades. Finally, the Muslim rule witnessed at least five consecutive centuries of a united Hindustan - the longest so far. Yet it did not cover most parts of South India.
During the 150 years following the death of the last important Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, from 1707 to 1857, Hindustan again went back to its most followed tradition of disintegration into hundreds of pieces and fiefdoms. There emerged an exception this time though. Simultaneous to that collapse process, the "Honourable" East India Company, lovingly called as John Company, unwittingly assumed the task of re-uniting a disintegration India by capturing various separated or liberated territories. To name a few, these included Mysore of Tipu Sultan, Bengal of Nawab Sirajud daulah, Jhansi of Rani Rama Bai, Deccan of Nizams, Sindh of Talpurs, Oudh of Wajid Ali Shah, Rohilla state the western UP by the migrant Afghani warriors and their descendants, and the Sikh Empire of Punjab founded by Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Most important among the native powers was the Maratha Empire or Maratha Confederacy that existed from 1647 to 1818 over large areas of the sub-continent. This Empire also engulfed most parts of Punjab, Sindh and even the capital city of Delhi during its peak years before it gave in to the British forces. The Marathas are in reality credited to a large extent for ending the Mughal rule in India.
The process of re-integration of the many small pieces of land by the British had continued even after the Mughal Empire of Delhi completely vanished and the British Government nationalized the joint-stock East India Company. Many parts of India had been annexed much after the Crown took over all the Indian possessions, administrative powers and machinery of the John Company, and its armed forces, under the provisions of the Government of India Act 1858. Better part of the ensuing 90 years of British Government finally saw the vastest centrally-ruled sub-continent of India till 1947 that functioned under uniform legal, administrative and revenue systems like never before.
In this background, while the nationalists and patriots from today's Bharat or India lament over the "division of their motherland", one fails to understand as to what historical entity they exactly refer to. Because there existed no such geographical entity as a united India ruled by natives at any point during the past 2000 years. One tends to guess that they perhaps misconstrue the Muslim-conquered Hindustan or the united British India as their own motherland. But, as the above facts confirm, this claim is historically incorrect.
This fabricated version of history has given birth to deep rooted misconceptions in today's broken Indian society. A large part of the non-Muslims in reality consider their fellow Muslim citizens as being responsible for the partition of their motherland, thus liable to punishment. One can only hope and pray that the Indian intellectuals and policy-makers may refresh their understanding of history and find some positive motivational ideals to keep their people united instead of an unsubstantial prejudice against the creation of Pakistan. Mutual suspicion and has not only been spoiling their resources and energy but has also damaged their social fabric to irreparable extent. If they rather set the common prosperity and progress as a goal for their entire population then they would also be helping their injured society to shelve the internal hatred and to develop in constructive manner. Such a positive change will benefit Pakistan also.
Comments
Comments are closed.