Issue :   
December 2016 Edition of Power Politics is updated.  Happy Diwali to all our subscribers and Distributors       December 2016 Edition of Power Politics is updated.   Happy Diwali to all our subscribers and Distributors       
Issue:December' 2016

BOOK BAZAAR

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.