Partition revisited
N D Sharma
akistan is an acronym
coined by a Punjabi
Muslim student,
Choudhary Rehmat Ali, at
Cambridge University in
1933. It stands for Punjab,
Afghanistan, Kashmir, Sind and
Baluchistan and literally means the
land of the pure. What was a mere
'place-making exercise' among
students led in 1947 to the 'motheaten
Pakistan' as Mohammad Ali
Jinnah had reportedly described it
while accepting a division of the
provinces of Punjab and Bengal as part
of the partition plan.
This well-documented
book makes it clear that
both the countries were
either ill-prepared to cope
with the aftermath of
Partition or, more likely,
their leaders had failed to
gauge the magnitude of
the problem.
This interesting observation has
been made by Vazira Fazila-Yacoobali
Zamindar in her book The Long
Partition and the Making of Modern
South Asia. Assistant Professor of
History at Brown University (United
States), Vazira Fazila-Yacoobali
Zamindar says in her introductory
remarks that for the preparation of the
book she travelled to many different
countries across three continents. 'As I
crisscrossed the map of the world, I
became acutely aware of my privileges
as a scholar, and the extraordinary
generosity of family friends, and
strangers that have enabled and
sustained sometime seemingly
impossible border-crossings.'
As there was no single archive to go
to for a project of this kind, she had to
rely on networks of old friends,
scholars, and acquaintances who
enabled its research. A school friend's
mother's former colleague in Karachi,
she points out by way of an example,
gave her the name of his childhood
friend in Delhi, 'who received me as if I
were a member of his own family, and
introduced me to his students, who in
turn took me home and befriended
me as their own.'
The book has interviews with people on both sides of the border
who had been actively involved in the
post-Partition happenings either as
refugees or as officials. Cartoons
reproduced from Urdu newspapers of
Pakistan on the contemporary
developments occasionally enliven the
otherwise serious narration.
When the All India Muslim League
invoked 'Pakistan', it did so on behalf of
a nation of 'Muslims', even though
many Muslims did not support the
Pakistan movement, and yet others
would be simply left out of a state
drawn from regions where Muslims
formed an enumerated majority.
Those who did support the Pakistan
movement included Muslims of
regions like Delhi and Uttar Pradesh
who could not be part of its territorial
claims.
After the Muslim League and Indian
National Congress agreed to the
denouement of partition and transfer
of power to two territorial distinct
post-colonial states, nation as
community had to be transformed
into nation as citizens of two states.
This did not come out without
attendant questions: where did
Hindus and Sikhs belong who resided
in the territory now Pakistan? Did they
belong to Indian nation or become
citizens of Pakistan? And where did
Muslims belong who resided in the
territory now India? Could they be
citizens of India and yet part of an
imagined Pakistan nation?
Delhi and Karachi became the two
capitals of the post-independence
states. Although the two were
'dramatically different' before
independence', it is Partition itself that
binds them together.
Zamindar quotes 'colonial census of
1941' to point out that Delhi had
Muslim minority population of 33.22
per cent, while Karachi had a Hindu population of 47.6 per cent. 'Although
the enumerative power of the colonial
census is unmistakable, it does not
capture the enormous cultural
significance these religious
communities had for the two cities
Delhi has been described as an
'Indo-Islamic city' since it was the seat
of power for Delhi sultanates and
various Mughal rulers. Karachi, in
comparison, had been a small, sleepy
port city that served the Sind
hinterland, and was largely tied to
Bombay and the Malabar Coast for its
mercantile links.
From the perspective of Delhi's
Muslims, the state had failed to
protect them in their homes. There
were, though, some extremely
important efforts to reassure and
retain them. Mahatma Gandhi's arrival
in Delhi in October is widely regarded
as the most important intervention in
halting the murders and occupations.
Maulana Ahmad Salim, of the Jamiate-
Ulema-e-Hind recalls: 'Maulana
(Abul Kalam) Azad till the very end
tried to stop each and every person.
And there is a historic speech by
Maulana Azad at Jama Masjid. A very
historic speech… for a result of his
speech many people's packed
beddings opened, they say, packed
beddings opened…. at the time in our
mohalla there was a debate about
whether to go or not go. As I said, as a
result of Maulana Azad's speech
thousands of beddings opened.'
Azad, in his historic khutba, had
argued to the city's Muslims that 'this
escape that you have given the sacred
name of hijrat' was a hasty decision,
made in fear. He asked them to let
these difficult times pass, and said
they could always leave later if they felt
they wanted to. The impact of the
khutba went beyond those who were
actually present to hear it, the word of
mouth and newspapers spread Azad's
Dardnak cheekh (cry of anguish).
According to Chief Commissioner
(of Delhi) Khurshid, Muslim refugees
'in Purana Qila (where a camp was set
up for them) returned in thousands
to the city with more confidence….
and this was partly the result of the speech by Hon. Maulana Azad.'
As refugees from Purana Qila and
other 'Muslim refugee camps' in Delhi
boarded trains to Pakistan, most of
them made their way to Karachi,
Pakistan's new capital in the province
of Sind. In Pakistan, Muslim refugees
came to be officially called 'muhajirs'.
Although the specific Urdu word for
refugees is 'panahgir' (the seeker of
'panah' or refuge), the word muhajir
which means both migrant and
refugee, invoked the migration of
Prophet Muhammad and his followers
from Mecca to Medina in 622 AD.
Naming Muslim refugees who came to Pakistan muhajirs has been
interpreted as an attempt to
ideologically reinforce Muslim
League's broad claim that Pakistan
would be a home to Muslims, imbue a
sense of religious significance to the
hardships of displacement, and inspire
religious duty among local Muslim
inhabitants to receive the displaced.
Towards the end of May,
the United Kingdom High
Commission in Delhi had
informed the
Commonwealth Relations
Office that one lakh to
2.5 lakh Muslims had
returned, with 40,000 of
them having returned to
Delhi alone.
However, it is important to note
that hijra of 622 AD was an obligatory
migration that had to be undertaken
by all of Muhammad's followers as a
matter of faith, and that the Pakistan
state adopted this symbolic name
despite the fact that mass migration
was actively discouraged by it.
Sind was a region that was
particularly characterised for its
'communal harmony' and in the days
leading up to Partition, Sind's
Governor, Francis Mudie, described it
as a place which 'characteristically
carries on almost as nothing had happened or was going to happen' and
that he did not expect many real
Sindhi Hindus to leave the Province.
Karachi did not experience the scale of
violence that had ensued in Punjab
and Delhi. But soon after Partition, the
Hindu population began to leave
Karachi, so that in the decade between
1941 and 1951 almost the entire
Hindu population had left the city.
By the time the most notable
communal incident took place on
January 6, 1948, Hindus and Sikhs
were already leaving the city and the
province in large numbers. According
to Zamindar, the 'incident' took place
as Sikhs from various parts of Sind
arrived in Karachi to leave by ship for
India, and were taken in open horse
carriages to a gurdwara in the city.
Reportedly, Muslim refugees
surrounded the gurdwara and
attacked it, and this led to rioting in the
city which was brought under control
only when the army was deployed.
Jinnah's often-quoted speech of
August 11, 1947 --- 'in course of time,
Hindus would cease to be Hindus
and Muslims would cease to be
Muslim…. in the political sense as
citizens of the state' --- is usually
offered as evidence of a promise of
equal citizenship for all in the Pakistani
state. However, when after the riots
of January 6,1948, Premier of Sind
Ayub Khuhro toured Sind with Sri
Prakasa (Indian High Commissioner)
to urge the Sindhi Hindus not to leave
their homes, a Hindustan Times
reporter observed that 'Hindus
stopped their car every few miles and
urged for arrangements for early
evacuation.'
Zamindar's well-documented book
makes it clear that both the countries
were either ill-prepared to cope with
the aftermath of Partition or, more
likely, their leaders had failed to gauge
the magnitude of the problem. The
leaders of the newly created Pakistan
felt particularly more bewildered. A
large number of Muslims who had
migrated to Pakistan were soon
disillusioned with the 'welcome' they
received there and started trooping
back to India.