The constitution of India proclaims India to be a “secular” nation, where each citizen has the “liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship.” However, India has, time and again proved that it cannot live up to its constitution. Even before the constitution was thought of, India has always been divided on the basis of language, culture and religion.
Religion is the most common reason for conflict in India. Over the years, followers of the two dominant religions in India- Hinduism and Islam- have refused to live together in peace. Muslims condemn Hindu idol worship, and Hindus criticize the Islamic idea of Jihad. In this way, fundamentalists of both religions create problems by insulting the other religion. For them, there is no place for compromise or co-existence. For the most part there is not much faith in the government. Hindus and Muslims believe the leaders of India favor the people of the other religion. According to the Hindus, the Congress only focuses on giving more privileges to the Muslims minority. The Muslims however say that the government’s only aim is to rebuild temples and please Hindus. This mentality has resulted in the formation of religion based communities in each settlement.
One of the main reasons for the India’s partition was politics. With the formation of the Indian National Congress, Muslims felt that they did not have fair representation in Hindu- majority Congress. This led to the formation of The All India Muslim League (AIML) in 1906. As the idea of independence of India seemed more likely, various leaders proposed different scenarios that would resolve the conflict. Alama Iqbal was one of the first to propose the division of India. He felt that the only way the Muslims would have ‘fair’ representation in the government was if they were a separate nation. A few years later, Iqbal and a few others convinced Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who until then had pushed for religious unity, that the Muslims really needed a new nation. Jinnah swayed and switched his allegiance to the AIML. He argued that the Congress was “insensitive to Muslim interest.” It was not only the Muslims who pushed for a division between Hindus and Muslims. Veer Savarkar, leader of a Hindu fundamentalist organizations- the Hindu Mahasabha stated, “India cannot be assumed today to be Unitarian and homogeneous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main — the Hindus and the Muslims.1” There were people like Gandhi and Nehru who insisted that a split India would be the worst thing for the nation. Gandhi believed that the two groups could live in peace. He said, “My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God.” However, because of the influence of the political influence of the Muslim League and Hindu fundamentalist groups, Muslims and Hindus turned against each other and the Partition of India happened.
Historically, Leaders like Aurangzeb, Jinnah, Baal Thackeray and Veer Savarkar have made the division more pronounced. They made sure that Hindus and Muslims identified themselves as different, rival groups. The destruction of Hindu Temples by Muslim kings and the mistreatment of Muslims by Hindu officials have made both sides thirst for revenge. India was exposed to Islamic culture 1000 years ago. An Afghan ruler, Mahmud of Ghazni razed through India, “leaving a trail of looted towns and wrecked Hindu temples.” Mahmud of Ghazni was the first in a long line of Muslim rulers who imposed his beliefs on Hindus and destroyed their (Hindu) sacred sites. The Mughals—the last dynasty of monarchs to rule India, adopted a policy of “allying themselves with Hindus when convenient [and] obliterating Hindu influence when necessary.” The British used their ‘Divide and Rule’ policy to make sure that animosity between the two groups remained. Just before granting Independence to India, they supported the Muslim League’s claim for the formation of Pakistan. By drawing a line giving the most Muslim populated areas to Pakistan, the British left the Indian Subcontinent in a state of terror.
The Partition of India in 1947 was the climax of Hindu-Muslim tensions. The conflict “led to the displacement of an estimated 10 million people, loss of land and property, widespread abduction, rape and violence and most shockingly, the murder of an estimated million people in some of the most horrific slaughters of the 20th Century.2” Those who escaped were scarred by memories of the communal killing that took place on both sides. Hindus escaping to India and Muslims escaping to Pakistan left their life-long homes and rushed to a land that would accept them. Both were angry at each other and their government. On Indian soil, Hindus and Sikhs felt that the Congress was granting the Muslim League’s every wish, whereas, Muslims felt that they were being forced out of their own country. Also, Hindus and Sikhs, still smarting from harsh Mughal treatment, decided that this was an opportunity to get revenge. Thus, finding reasons from history to hate each other, Muslims and Hindus began their butchery of each other.
Set during this time of partition, Train to Pakistan, by Kushwant Singh tells the story of a village, Mano Majra. Situated near a set of railway tracks that carried trains from Pakistan to India and vice versa, Mano Majra is at first depicted to be a happy village, with its inhabitants living at peace with each other. Half of the villagers were Sikhs and the other half Muslim. The story is told from different angles- Sikh, Muslim and communist. As rumors of tensions between Muslims and Sikhs or Hindus reached them, the Sikhs promise to defend their Muslim brothers with their lives. However, young Sikh activists from outside the village came to Mano Majra and encouraged Sikh villagers to hate the Muslims because of what other Muslims had done to Sikh men, women and children. The activists implored the villagers to murder their own Muslim neighbors as they left on their train to Pakistan.
The book also highlights the role of government officials in the Partition of India. Corrupt and manipulative, the District Magistrate himself- the very embodiment of Justice in India- is portrayed as an immoral man who used his position to get the best ‘entertainment’ in town. The magistrate at one point chose to arrest an innocent man for the murder of a Sikh landlord. Making matters worse, the official put the accused- Iqbal, down as a Muslim. The fact was, Iqbal was neither Muslim nor Sikh but a communist. However, official records revealed that a Muslim had murdered a Sikh landlord.
The so-called ‘law enforcers’ were bent on exploiting the ignorance of the villagers. Because the local government held sole responsibility over the region, nobody questioned the actions of the ‘police’. The inhabitants of Mano Majra were officially notified of the situation the night before the government transported Muslims from that area to Pakistan. Muslims who until then lived in perfect harmony with the Sikhs were being told to pack their bags and flee for their lives.
Singh also conveys to the reader the fact that officials who were supposed to maintain peace in an area did nothing to make sure that the exodus of Muslims and Hindus was non-violent. Most of the villagers of Mano Majra were uneducated. Because of this, when educated men came and told them that all Muslims were evil, most of them were gullible enough to believe them. Government officials, who knew that the educated men were rallying the Sikhs against the Muslims, did nothing to break up the group. The villagers didn’t believe life was significantly different from British rule. In fact, to them freedom from the British did not mean that their lives would change forever, for as one villager put it, “Freedom is for the educated people who fought for it. We were slaves of the English, now we will be slaves of the educated Indians—or the Pakistanis.” (Singh, 48) In their ignorance the villagers did not know about the killings that were going on around them. When rumors of violence between Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs reached them, they were shocked and refused to believe that anything like that could happen in their village. And, when told about the mass Muslim migration to Pakistan, one Muslim remarked, “What have we to do with Pakistan? We were born here. So were our ancestors. We have lived amongst [Sikhs] as brothers” (Singh, 126).
In conclusion, even though religion was a major cause of Partition, it cannot be asserted as being the sole reason. Without historical or political reasons, Partition could have been avoided or at least brought about without the communal violence. It was because of previous religious chasms created by previous leaders of India that there so much division between Muslims and Hindus or Sikhs. If both the Muslim League and the Congress joined forces and made sure that the migration was controlled, millions of lives could have been saved. Even today, tensions between Hindus and Muslims exist. However there is still hope for India- A hope that a time will come when one does not meet a Hindu, Muslim or Sikh but an Indian. All India needs to do is live up to the preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of India.
Bibliography:
- http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/
printed-books/train-to- pakistan-khushwant-singh/ 1072819/ - http://www.martinfrost.ws/
htmlfiles/aug2007/partition_ india.html - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Train_to_Pakistan - Sengupta, Somini, "Bearing Steady Witness To Partition's Wounds," an article in the Arts section, The New York Times, September 21, 2006, pages E1, E7
No comments:
Post a Comment