Pain of partition by no means over

Myview

ON AUGUST 15, India and Pakistan – “Midnight’s Children” in the words of Salman Rushdie – completed 70 years of their noisy, unstable and tumultuous existence after gaining independence in 1947.

This landmark event became an occasion for introspection as well as crystal ball gazing about what is really in store for the two nations which are finding it difficult to reconcile to the violent partition that destroyed millions of lives and indelibly scarred the social and political fabric of these countries.

For 70 long years, the two countries have nursed conflicts and differences to deepen their identities in the context of each other. This is more so in the case of Pakistan, which tore away from India after its founding father, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and other members of the Muslim League firmly believed that after India gained freedom, there would be no space for Muslims in a nation that was expected to be predominantly Hindu.

Muslims needed a separate country, Jinnah and his vast legion of supporters demanded.

British rulers seemed too ready to accept this demand without really bothering about its dangerous implications. Questions were not asked about how people belonging to different faiths would move from one country to another.

Also, why should they leave their homes and livelihoods because some politicians decided Hindus and Muslims could not live together?

Answers to these came in the form of large-scale violence that was unleashed in unified India and more so in its northern and eastern part – geographically the areas that went to Pakistan.

It became impossible for members of the two religions to stay any longer in each other’s neighbourhoods. The violence was organised, heinous and barbaric.

Murderous gangs populated by soldiers who had returned from World War II were used for religious cleansing. More than a million died and 15million were displaced.

Stories of brutalities still influence conversations on building peace between the two neighbours which have not been able to eradicate poverty and illiteracy, but are armed with nuclear weapons.

Partition’s bloody legacy plays out in communal violence between Hindus and Muslims in different parts of the countries as well as in the disputed area of Kashmir.

Communal violence has shaped political discourse in both countries and contributed to the rise of the religious right wing.

India, whose leadership comprising Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru courageously sought to make it a secular republic despite grave provocation from those who demanded that it should be declared a Hindu state as the Muslims had their own country, has been particularly hard hit.

Nehru managed to have his say and that has been the reason for the most vitriolic campaign that has been unleashed against him – 51 years after his death – by the Hindu right wing that is now in power.

Nehru, in their view, is the person responsible for holding back India from reaching its full potential as he pursued policies of non-alignment and secularism, which in their reckoning, made the country weaker and clueless. Also, it made Indians ashamed of their religion.

Nehru’s policies are again blamed for the continued instability in Kashmir, where almost a million Indian security staff are stationed.

At the time of partition, the Hindu king of Kashmir decided to opt for India, much to the ire of its Muslim majority. Nehru then agreed to a plebiscite to ascertain from the people of the state where they wanted to stay – India or Pakistan – but an attack by Pakistani troops dressed as tribal people who occupied large parts of the valley, gave another spin to the dispute.

Now some Kashmiris want to join Pakistan, others want to stay with an economically rising India and many want freedom from both.

Nehru’s detractors claim this issue would not have become a festering sore had he not taken the matter to the UN and promised a plebiscite.

Now the BJP government in Delhi is trying to figure out how to undo the special status granted to the Kashmir valley at the time it merged with India.

Government agencies have become tough with those who want “azaadi” (freedom) and are causing problems for those who articulate the opposition’s narrative. Kashmir has become a seething cauldron of rage and unending misery for its people.

In the central district of Delhi, contemptuously referred to by rightwing followers of Prime Minister Narendra Modi as “Lutyens Delhi” as it is a crucible of secular conversation in the capital, is the Teen Murti Bhavan. This was the official residence of Nehru. After his death, it was turned into a library and museum that housed his memorabilia.

Ever since the BJP came to power in 2014, the status of the Nehru Memorial and Library has been progressively diminished.

Ironically, it is hosting more discussions and seminars involving people and issues that are opposed to Nehruvian ideology than about him.

India’s culture minister, who oversees the Nehru Library, has made it clear the place is not confined to Nehru and other prime ministers also have rights to it.

There is a tender out in Delhi newspapers seeking design consultants to turn Nehru Library into a museum that houses the memory of all prime ministers.

Some Congress leaders like Jairam Ramesh resented this move, but the grand old party is so feeble that it is not able to put up a decent demonstration to protest at the way its former leader’s image is being sullied.

In a reflection of changing times, the new president of India, Ramnath Kovind, did not mention Nehru’s name in his maiden address to the nation. There was no applause for that, except sharp reminders in editorials to Kovind about Nehru’s contribution towards building a post-colonial democratic society and imbuing it with pride and purpose at a difficult time in a young nation’s life.

The aggressive manner in which right-wing nationalists and their front organisations are engaged in ridding India of inclusive and secular Nehruvian beliefs suggests forbidding thoughts about the direction it will take in coming days.

These fears are justified as many of the challenges which the two countries faced at the time of partition largely have not been addressed. Even worse, the conditions that resulted in partition have not gone away.