Narendra Modi made his intentions clear by choosing August 14 as Partition Horrors Remembrance Day in India, focusing solely on Hindus and Sikhs, excluding the many Muslim victims of the Partition. It was a cynical, vote-gaining, gimmick designed for the majority-Hindu electorate in the upcoming UP elections.
Indeed, Modi’s BJP has regularly used anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim passions in UP to mobilise its Hindu base to ensure victory at the polls. Blaming MA Jinnah and the Muslim League alone for the Partition is a handy tool for the BJP.
Instead of diminishing the significance of an acutely tragic period in South Asian history, Modi should learn from the mass tragedy. Modi’s action could reopen old wounds and reignite ugly communal passions. It is time to put aside the blame game for the Partition and instead focus on its enduring ramifications for the region.
There is no simple way to explain the Partition. For 200 years, the British colonialists used the Hindu-Muslim schism to rule a large and diverse territory. The ‘divide and rule’ policy helped feed Hindu-Muslim distrust, diluting the anti-colonial struggle. Communal politics, myopic leadership, fear-mongering, and violence did not help. The idea that India belonged equally to all communities, and that democracy would prevent the dominance of Hindus or Muslims, did not last long — it led to the Partition in just a few decades.
Bouts of Hindu-Muslim riots were a part of life in the sub-continent. But the collective hate and savagery seen during the Partition caused an unprecedented scale of suffering. An estimated 2 million people — Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs — perished in the mindless mob violence and reprisal killings. 14 million lost their ancestral homes.
Today, the Partition is generally viewed positively, with the British being deemed primarily responsible for the deaths and suffering. And yet, getting over the bitter shadow remains difficult even after 74 years.
As novelist Pankaj Mishra aptly put it: “The vicious politics of partition still seems to define India and Pakistan.”
In its lead up, the Partition’s proponents presented it as a political compromise between two communities, torn apart by religious communalism and seemingly irreconcilable differences. And yet, the scourge of religious communalism still blights the region with majoritarianism and religion giving impetus to xenophobia and toxic nationalism, pushing India and Pakistan towards each other’s throats in a suicidal competition.
Revive the idea of South Asian harmony; keep religion separate from the state; combat identity-based politics; promote inclusive democracy; and abandon militarism to embrace peace
The Partition meant the abandonment of pluralism and syncretic culture. It negated the values of peaceful coexistence, removing the bedrock of secure, progressive, and open societies. The sad outcome of promoting homogeneous and exclusive identities is painfully evident in South Asia.
Hindu and Muslim extremists, often at odds with each other, add to the misery and struggle of the people, particularly minorities, castes, and women. The Islamist experiment roars ahead in Pakistan, emboldened by the Taliban ‘victory’ in Afghanistan. And Hindutva supporters move forward with the creation of the Hindu Rashtra in India.
The Partition did not mean change for the millions of people in the region who continue to live in conditions of abject poverty and deprivation. Prospects for billions of dollars of bilateral trade between India and Pakistan remain a distant dream, with relations officially frozen. India (131) and Pakistan (154) fare poorly on the Human Development Index. Democracy and Gender Gap Index ratings for both countries are not much better. Yet, India and Pakistan are two of the 25 major military spenders in the world.
Learning the following lessons from the Partition is a necessity for both: revive the idea of South Asian harmony; keep religion separate from the state; combat identity-based politics; promote inclusive democracy; and abandon militarism to embrace peace.
This can best honour the memory of the millions of innocent victims of the Partition.
“‘You have to squint very hard not to see a serious budding partnership between the Indo-Pacific’s four leading democracies,’ says Richard Fontaine, chief executive of the Center for a New American Security. ‘That is the most significant outcome of the summit.’
Quad proponents should feel optimistic. The group is a rare bipartisan point of agreement in Washington. President Trump spearheaded the Quad’s revival in 2017 after it had lain dormant for about 10 years. President Biden has doubled down on his predecessor’s commitment.
The elevation of the dialogue, accompanied by a flurry of practical proposals for cooperation, has quieted arguments that the Quad is nothing more than a talk shop. There now appears to be consensus in all four capitals that they can’t prevent Chinese belligerence by kowtowing to Beijing. ‘The idea that everything is premised on changing Chinese minds has gone out the window,’ says Mr. Fontaine. ‘I think increasingly in Washington and capitals around the world they see that a policy built on not provoking China hasn’t worked.'”
The rogue dictatorships of Pakistan and China, consider yourselves warned!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/india-china-aukus-quad-japan-indo-pacific-australia-huawei-11633033358?mod=hp_opin_pos_4#cxrecs_s
U R living im utopia. The underbelly of more than half a Billion living om abject poverty will come to ROOST that day is not far away. RSS and ARYA SAMAJ are the Talibans of India
Wishing for peace in South Asia but rising forces of extremism on both sides does not make it very hopeful.
And now on top we have GEO politics of China and US rivalry, that will complicate things in subcontinent.
This dispassionate analysis of the subject of the 1947 events conveys how a negative role of religious sentiments can be manipulated to drive the course of history. It is not a new conversation – but religious interaction could have also been structured to lead to other, more positive conclusions.
To my mind, the atmosphere of Lahore – a real cultural and educational center in the northern region, where I spent my formative years, had the foundation for creating something other than what we have witnessed.
The interaction with my Muslim school friends and the close relations my father had with his Muslim colleagues – who were frequent visitors at our home, remains carved in my world-view. The diversity could have been sculptured into another, brighter mosaic. Off course, this is now a fruitless lament of one of the survivors of that era.