Discursive Essay
Prompt: The dominant narrative of the Partition of 1947 is simplistic and reductive and is often hijacked by various forms of political rhetoric, which makes it dangerous. This dominant narrative can be challenged, subverted and complicated by allowing space for different kinds of stories of Partition. Discuss, with reference to at least 2 pieces of scholarship.
The popular narrative of the partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947 focuses mainly on the atrocities and the violence that was carried out by the non-Muslims on the Muslims of the subcontinent. This narrative is not only a simplified version of the truth but also dangerously twisted and is the reason behind the rift between the Pakistani and Indian people today. It depicts the partition as a warzone where Muslim blood was shed mercilessly all over the subcontinent, and it was only after the arduous and bloodied sacrifices of the Muslims of that time that we got a separate homeland for ourselves.
There are many instances where authors from both sides of the border and across the continent have delivered their go at the topic. All of them present a single perspective to the story: The Hindu perspective, the Muslim perspective or the British perspective. However, none of these perspectives align together to form a single story of the partition. This very statement indicates that the history of the subcontinent is perceived differently by different groups of people and therefore delivered differently too. Paul R. Brass, in his research paper on genocide says:
“As the violence extended more and more broadly and viciously in this site of political partition, the outgoing British authorities themselves (as will be shown below) struggled to define what was happening, what label to place upon it. Was what was happening simply a series of riots or massacres or a “communal war of secession?”
Here the writer points out how even at the time of the partition, the parties affected by the riots and communal violence were not sure of the scale at which the damage was being done. They did not have a definite idea of what was happening to the sub-continent in a global frame, and many misconceptions, simplifications and exaggerations might have been made in the narrative of the people who later dictated the events to their descendants or to historians.
We have another writer from the Radboud University Nijmegen who wrote in his thesis on the Three Perspectives of Partition: “Authors of Western historiography refer to the decolonization of India and the creation of Pakistan in 1947 with the term ‘partition’. This contrasts with non–Western authors of historiography who claim that ‘partition’ relates to the vivisection of the Punjab and Bengal regions in Northern India. Both regions were included with four other provinces to form the new state Pakistan. The different interpretations of the word ‘partition’ shows that historic discourse is produced in a specific political, social and historical context. At the same time, shapes our understanding of the past our interpretations of present and possible future.”
The three different groups; Hindus, Muslims and the British have completely different narratives of the partition of 1947. Where the British call it a ‘partition’, Muslims consider it ‘independence’ or the ‘formation’ of a new state whereas the Hindus perceive it as the decolonization of India. The reason why these different groups have adopted differing terminologies for the same event is because they choose to portray their part of history differently to their nations than what really happened. Every state in the world manipulates its history in such a way that it is acceptable to the people of that state. Which therefore requires them to filter the ugly parts out and only keep in records what would paint the state a clean-slate image.
Another part of the narrative that reeks of concoction is the farfetched visual of the atrocities and violence that occurred during the migration. Doubtlessly, people were killed, trains were looted, women and children were raped, and every other practice of abuse was carried out on the people who were migrating from one country to the other. But the narratives that we hear as individuals are all solely based on how horrific and terrible that time was. How the only thing that happened during the partition was brutal massacre of the people and nobody was safe at the hands of the extremists who were completely against the division of Punjab and Bengal into separate states for Hindus and Muslims.
For a fact though, most of the violence was carried out in Bengal and Punjab because these were huge provinces with millions of Hindus and Muslims living together. And when the partition was announced, the partition of the provinces angered and provoked the citizens and riots began. But it was not all over the Indian subcontinent, it was mainly the Punjab and the Bengal provinces which saw a lot of bloodshed and the hideous face of humanity. In the rest of the places across India, the violence was turned down a notch and only occasional events of angry mob lynching would occur in a few places.
What is wrong with this narrative is that it not only generalizes suffering and trauma subjectively but also exaggerates the horror of the events that occurred during and after the partition. This is not to say that there was no bloodshed during the partition or that the stories from the period of the partition are a hoax. The point here is that many facts and figures have been deliberately fabricated to manipulate the respective nations into believing that the other is their foe.
These kind of misconceptions and manipulative plays on the minds of the people not only result in a mis-informed community but also takes away from a nation its identity. What we are taught to believe as Muslims and as Pakistanis is that the Hindus and the Sikhs of the subcontinent were determined to make our lives miserable and to stop us from achieving what we had worked for, for so many years. They could not let us live in peace and wanted to make sure they held supremacy over us no matter what. This is the reason why we view them as our enemies even today. Even those of us who’ve never come across a Hindu or Sikh in our entire lives confidently hate them for the atrocious behavior of some of their ancestors during the partition.
The measures that have been taken to manipulate nations into believing all kinds of hoaxes about the other state are numerous. An excerpt from the article ’70 years of Partition: India, Pakistan have successfully demonized each other in popular imagination’ is as follows:
“Textbooks are hence revised on both sides of the border in an effort to purge Muslim and Hindu influences respectively, trying to carve out national identity premised on religious fervor, teaching children that a particular religion or civilization has always been superior to the other.”
Get Zainab Fatima’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
The basic way of instilling hate in the hearts of the people for the other state is to primarily teach them that the other state is our enemy and has always done us wrong. Therefore, history textbooks have been revised in ways which portray us as angels but on the other hand, show the other state as the villain of the story. This is far from what the truth is.
The Indian state may have caused a lot of trouble for Pakistan in the past and may still be going on to do the same thing. But the misconception that Pakistan has never retaliated or done anything seemingly wrong or unfair to the state of India is wrong. Both the nations have been at each other since the day partition came about. And there are many reasons for that too. The British especially, who used their divide and rule policy in India, made sure to divide the Muslims and Hindus to counter their strength and power and to stop them from becoming a threat to the British rule in India.
One of the most popular interferences of the British that ruined Hindu-Muslim relations is the Radcliffe Award which was announced by Lord Mountbatten in 1947. Radcliffe, who was supposed to draw the boundaries for the division of the Indian subcontinent, under the influence of some of the wealthier Hindus he knew, wrongly allotted Muslim majority areas to India which resulted in massive disturbance and riots. He wrongly awarded many of the key areas to India which encouraged the Indians to move forward and enter the Pakistani state to attack on the weaker areas of the country.
Had the Radcliffe Award been fair and just, half of the problems that have come between the two nations today would not have been there to start with.
There have been many accounts which have challenged these narratives to show the world the real picture of the partition. In fact, these stories show that Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs were not always as hungry for the other’s blood as we are taught to believe. There is an account of a retired Sikh that shows us how the whole picture has been hidden from us in clever ways:
In Rawalpindi, my family ran a grain store in the center of the city which was predominantly Muslim. We are Sikh, but my father was friends with the Muslims. They used to talk about poetry together.
We moved to Jalandhar in India because of partition. There were riots forcing the Muslims to go to Pakistan. My uncle said we should go and occupy the Muslims’ houses as people were leaving. My father was reluctant, but he was forced to do it by his brother.
As the Muslim family were leaving the house — I remember because I was there, about 12 at the time — my father apologized to the owner, an elderly gentleman, saying how sorry he was that this was happening. My father promised to look after the house. And the man said, please just look after my books they are more important to me than the house. Then a day later we heard that they were all killed by a Sikh mob on the way to Pakistan. They didn’t reach the border.”
This account clearly shows how a Sikh family was concerned for the safety of their Muslim neighbor and were even willing to look after their books because that’s was basic humanity is. They had to take over their neighbor’s house, but they were also extremely sorry for what was happening. They did not loathe their Muslim neighbor, they did not throw him out of his house. Instead they wished well for him. But this is a side of the story that we are never told by our history books and the magazine articles. For whatever absurd reasons, to amplify our patriotism we must hate every other nation that existed in the Indian subcontinent along with us.
The popular narrative of the partition is devised to instill a feeling of being different from the Indians and to isolate ourselves from them even when we share most of our culture and languages and attires. People from the era of partition can come out to challenge this notion, only when they’re given the platform to.
