The writer holds a postgraduate degree in Political Science. She works as a research associate and freelance writer.
The Independence Day of India is a good example of how different meta-historical narratives about the same historical event can exist.
As Neera Chandhoke puts it, some call it Independence, while some call it Partition. When an event that was so long awaited, portrayed as the dream of millions, finally came to fruition, it was in the dark shadow of intense violence and bloodshed, i.e. the partition of the subcontinent into India and Pakistan.
Saadat Hasan Manto’s lament comes to mind: “Hindustan had become free. Pakistan had become independent soon after its inception, but man was still a slave in both these countries — a slave of prejudice … a slave of religious fanaticism … a slave of barbarity and inhumanity.”
Bipan Chandra and other historians of the nationalist/left-leaning school of historiography contend that independence resulted from a ‘war of position’ fought by all sections of Indian society.
Others, like Perry Anderson, dismiss this as a romanticised, whitewashed portrayal of the events that led up to Partition. They contend that far from being an independence movement that was hard-won by common people, it was rather simply a transfer of power from one ruling class elite to the other, necessitated by Britain’s devastation after World War II.
Usually, in secular historiography, the Congress Party’s role in Partition is often ignored, and the blame is solely placed on “the communalism of both sides”, i.e. Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha.
There is now an abundance of critical literature that details how it was the Congress Party’s harbouring of communal, anti-Muslim elements within it, its refusal to grant separate electorates for Muslims, its intransigence and unwillingness to consider the fears of the Muslim community, and its desire to hold on to political power, that further stoked the fears of Muslims, and ultimately led to the demand for Pakistan.
Most importantly, the root cause of such attitude by the Congress was the rabid Islamophobia/anti-Muslim bigotry already so deeply entrenched in the majority community of India.
The anti-colonial nationalist movement led by the Congress could not shake off this Hindu-majority influence. Thus, the post-colonial Indian state also came to retain this mindset. G. Aloysius unpacks this idea in his essay, The Brahminical Inscribed in the Body Politic.
The Hindu nationalist movement has an interesting perspective on Partition. Its founders and ideologues notoriously sided with the British. In their version of events, India had been under “colonialism” since the start of Muslim rule in the subcontinent, under British rule after that and then, for the majority of the post-colonial era, under the domination of the Congress Party. In the Hindu nationalist version of history, India achieved true independence only when the Hindu nationalist party BJP came to power in 2014. Only one party/movement is to blame for Partition and its horrors, i.e. the Muslim League.
The supporters of Hindu nationalism conveniently forget that it was the movement’s political forerunner, the Hindu Mahasabha, and other Hindu nationalist organisations that had supported the two-nation theory, indeed, being the prime instigators of Partition themselves.
The Hindu nationalist movement is also virulently critical of the Congress Party but for different reasons. For them, the Congress Party consistently favoured Muslims over other social groups and engaged in minority appeasement. When the reality, as discussed in critical literature, is the stark opposite.
Thus, in the Hindu nationalist imagination, post-2014, India has entered a new era, and this time, Hindus will finally get a chance to achieve their aspirations as a community that was supposedly denied to them for so long, or they were held back from, due to Congress’ fake secularism.
In this light, we must consider the recent slew of different laws passed by the ruling party, from the CAA to the most recent new criminal laws, the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA).
These various legal/constitutional overtures are aimed at realising the different goals of the Hindu nationalist movement. CAA was aimed at institutionalising apartheid/discrimination, while draconian laws such as BNS, etc. are aimed at legalising a police state.
If Congress was so draconian, then surely the UAPA law should have been scrapped. But no, the law is used to the hilt to stifle dissent of critics of both the ruling party and the ideology of Hindu nationalism. In the case of the latter two laws, both are aimed at silencing critics and dissidents of the state’s inhuman policies.
Such measures are necessary for the Hindu nationalist movement to maintain its political and socio-cultural hegemony.
The recent slew of literature on Indian Muslim history portrays various instances in post-independent India’s history that should serve as a reminder of the consequences of past mistakes. In Another India, for example, the author explains how the lack of unity among the marginalised communities facilitated Congress hegemony in the electoral arena. “Torn by mutual prejudice and unconcern, no Muslim-Dalit-Tribe combine emerged to mount an opposition to the caste Hindus. The upshot, inevitably, was an electoral system rigged in favour of the Congress.”
Congress’ monopoly on politics and subsequent failures culminated in the rise of the Hindu nationalist movement and resulted in the political hegemony that we see today.
In a nation where history is constantly being erased, distorted, and rewritten, how do we reckon with the wounds of history?
Through jubilant, jingoistic celebrations replete with parades, marches, flags, and performances that further the myth of the nation-state?
Turn a blind eye to the contradictions and disparities that abound around it.
Or through blame game and crocodile tears evoked by the politically motivated designation of “Partition Horrors Remembrance Day”?
The Holy Quran carries a powerful heuristic on learning from the past:
“Have they not travelled through the earth and observed how was the end of those before them? They were greater than them in power, and they ploughed the earth and built it up more than they had built it up, and their messengers came to them with clear evidence. And Allah would not ever have wronged them, but they were wronging themselves.” (30:9)
The past contains several lessons for the wise.
Studying history and remembrance of its horrors should help us understand the patterns of human behaviour, humanity’s capriciousness, and the faultlines that lead to such horrors.
To identify when those patterns manifest and repeat themselves, we may be vigilant and guard ourselves against falling back into them.
To intervene in the fabric of space-time as upholders of justice & to create the kind of history our future generations can be proud of.
Very good article. We must learn from the mistakes of the Partition in 1947.