19
HINDU-MUSLIM NATIONALISM
AND
COLLECTIVE MEMORY OF SOUTH ASIA
NAME: TOOBA ASHRAF
National Antagonism in South Asia
Tensions grew between Pakistan and India after the terrorist attack at Pulwama,
earlier this year on 14 February 2019. Suspected to be the beginning of a nuclear war
between the two countries, decades old Indo-Pak antagonism intensified later in July after
India’s abrogation of Article 370 and 35a, which gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir.
The annexation of Kashmir led to a complete lock down in the disputed territory flaming the
tension between the neighbouring countries. Meanwhile the opening of the Kartarpur corridor
in Pakistan and India’s verdict on demolition of Babri Masjid on the same day stirred a new
debate on the future of South Asia. India and Pakistan’s agnostic relationship is not a 21 st
century phenomenon but can be traced back to the partition of 1947. In 1947 Britishers
decided to end their rule and divided subcontinent into two nations, Pakistan and India. After
independence from British Raj, post partition history of Indian subcontinent is stained with
blood leading both countries to fight 4 official wars against each other. This essay
investigates the history of Hindu-Muslim Natinalism and how significant collective memories
of Hindu-Muslim antagonism were in directing the politics of South Asia in 21st century. It’s
an analysis on the factors that led to the conceptualization of Hindu-Muslim nationalism
before partition and how significant they remained years after its Independence till date.
Benedict Anderson introduces a theory defining a nation as ‘imagined community’, a
socially constructed concept imagined by a group of people. The national community is
defined by Anderson as "imagined" since its members do not personally know each other but
yet they bear in their mind the thought of mutual connection. Anderson holds that any
community larger than the traditional village is essentially an imagined community.. For him;
‘The nation is imagined as limited because even the largest of them, encompassing perhaps a
1
National Antagonism in South Asia
billion living human beings, has finite, if elastic, boundaries, beyond which lie other nations.
No nation imagines itself coterminous with mankind. The most messianic nationalists do not
dream of a day when all the members of the human race will join their nation in the way that
it was possible, in certain epochs, for, say, Christians to dream of a wholly Christian planet.1
Perhaps a Punjabi living in Pakistan is culturally, linguistically and ethnically in proximity to
a Punjabi in India than a pashtun living in KPK. According to Anderson, the idea of nation
alienates human beings from each other through imaginary national borders.2
In an essay titled “Representing the Musalman by Shahid Amin, the author states; “The sense
of belonging-belonging to the present nation-involves the creation and replication of a sense
of them and us through icons, stories and narratives. 3 Nationalism cannot be created without
the conceptualization of collective memory, solidarity cannot be practiced without a shared
memory. James W. Pennebaker defined the significance of collective memory in constructing
an ideology by asserting that; “Families, neighborhoods, cities, regions and entire cultures are
bound together by a shared set of beliefs, experiences and memories. These shared histories
cement individual’s identities with the group to which they belong”. He further added
collective memories whether real or false are a powerful tool to instill wars, prejudice,
nationalism and cultural identities. 4 The collective memory are not always true and can be
biased according to national loyalties of the inhabitants. The idea to define ourselves from the
other is no respecter of a systematic narration of things of the past- of history. The urge
manifests itself in picking out past events, no doubt, but it is equally a product of belief,
memory and imagination. This imagination thrives ‘on facts’ without contexts and events
1
Benedict Anderson Imagined communities. Vol. 1991. London, 1983.
Ibid
3
Amin, Shahid. "Representing the Musalman: Then and now, now and then." Subaltern Studies 12 (2003)
4
James W. Pennebaker, Bernard Rim, and Dario Paez, eds. Collective memory of political events: Social
psychological perspectives. Psychology Press, 2013.
2
2
National Antagonism in South Asia
without history, and it soars ahead, usually unchallenged, unruffled by contradictions”. 5
Collective are created according to the needs of the present. In an essay entitled ‘Language,
Region and National Identity”, Indian sociologist Mahendra Narain Karna defines nation by
stating that nation has always been defined through history, culture, language, folklore,
territory or religion. For him today three terms nation, state and territory needs to be
described accurately to understand the notion of nation as collective identity, the state as an
expression of political sovereignty and territory as a geographical area. Nationalism is used as
a tool to gain hegemony over each other. Although some theorists might argue that the
construction of a nation is a natural process but on the contrary these ideologies are
politically constructed.6
History of South Asia is stained with the Hindu-Muslim national violence; the
memories includes Partition of 1947, Military wars of India and Pakistan, Kashmir Dispute
and Hindu-Muslim riots of Ayodha and Gujarat. These collective memories are based on the
experiences of loss, violence, and trauma and are not bound to a certain country, ethnicity or
territory but are widely spread across South Asia. Natives on both sides of the border
personally witnessed the brutality of partition and post partition violence in the form of
military wars and national hindu-muslim riots.7 India had a history of communal hatred, that
India had never been a united India. In one publication, the Muslim League wrote, India has
never been united but under a foreign rule. History amply proves it. Before the advent of
foreign rule India was divided into various autonomous states. The idea of united India is a
creation of the foreign ruler to serve his purpose. According to historians, the 1857’s Indian
5
Mayaram, Shail, M. S. S. Pandian, and Ajay Skaria, eds. Muslims, Dalits, and the fabrications of history. Vol.
12. Orient Blackswan, 2005.
6
M. N Karna, "Language, region and national identity." Sociological bulletin 48, no. 1-2 (1999): 75-96.
7
Anam Zakariya “Memories of the 'Other': Three Narratives of Partition.” YourStory.com, August 12, 2017.
https://yourstory.com/2017/08/memories-narratives-of-partition-india-pakistan.
3
National Antagonism in South Asia
mutiny resulted in a change of policy by British rulers. It was realized the hostility among
the natives of the colonial community would be beneficial for legitimizing British rule in
India. Thus the policy of divide and rule was introduced by Sir John Lawrence and his
associated in Punjab and was initially applied to the practice in Indian Army. Europeans
believed that the widespread unity among the sepoys of the Bengal army has led to rebellion
against the imperial authority. Army rankings have eradicated ethinic differences among the
natives and the army has become one which caused mutiny. Hence the divide and rule policy
was introduced to prevent the occurrence of mutiny. 8 The consequences of this event led to
the shift in the definition of Colonialism. Britishers were no longer preparing the colonies for
self-rule instead they started portraying natives as backward, inferior and sub-human, and
legitimized their colonial rule by showing that if Britishers left the Indian Sub-Continent,
these natives would tear each other apart on the basis of nationalism. British started
portraying themselves as the savior. This change is known as “New Imperialism” which
meant ruling the colonies in a policing form, arising out of a new movement, Social
Darwinism; extrapolated the notion of the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest
to justify and explain differences on the basis of class, race, gender, and nationality". 9
Although Britishers are widely blamed for Hindu-Muslim nationalism, Neil Stewert critically
negated that ‘divide and rule’ wasn’t actual reason. He saaid India was a predominately a
Hindu society which was later divided on the basis of religion with arrival of Islam in 8th
century and Sikhism in 15th century. According to him this division of the Indian society
cannot be associated to the ‘divide and rule’ policy of the British. Division on ethnic,
religious, lingual and political basis existed way before British annexation of Sub-Continent.
8
Neil Stewart "Divide and Rule: British Policy in Indian History." Science & Society 15, no. 1 (1951): 49-57.
www.jstor.org/stable/40400043.
9
Sophie Burr, "Partitioning India: Indian Muslim Nationalism and the Origin of the Muslim State (1800-1947)"
(2017).
4
National Antagonism in South Asia
Thus Britishers must not be blamed for dividing the Indo-Pak society. Hindu-Muslim
conflicts started right after the death of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. Hindu-Muslim
antagonsim was not injected by the ‘British’ under the ‘divide and rule’ policy. Imperial court
in India remained divided into groups which weakened the Indian empire. This disunity
among the Indian communities helped the British to establish their rule in the Subcontinent,
which does not mean that the Indians were divided by the British. Stewart quotes that “India
had never been one country, nor the Indians a nation. It was a veritable continent in itself,
having a greater variety of people than the whole of Europe and the Americas combined ".
10
Communal problem between Muslims and Hindus is not a recent divide but dates back to
centuries before the Britisher arrived. In one publication, the Muslim League wrote
“India has never been united but under a foreign rule. History amply proves it. Before
the advent of foreign rule India was divided into various autonomous states. The idea of
united India is a creation of the foreign ruler to serve his purpose. The Mughal rulers tried in
vain to unite India. To keep their rule firm the British Government have followed suit. These
present differences and dead-lock of the Indian problems are more than enough to refute the
so-called unity of India.”11
The Muslim League repeated the statement to defend the idea of Pakistan;
“Pakistan is history’s answer to the Indian problem. Never in thousands of years of known
history has India been ONE. The present and superficial unity has been imposed by the force
of British arms and must collapse when British arms are withdrawn. This also defended their
10
Neil Stewart "Divide and Rule: British Policy in Indian History." Science & Society 15, no. 1 (1951): 49-57.
www.jstor.org/stable/40400043.
11
Extract from Pakistan, vol. 1. no. 3., editor Ziauddin A. Suleri and S. Ziauddin Ahmad, (Edinburgh, Scotland:
Muslim League Branch Great Britain, March 3, 1946); India Office Private Papers (European Manuscripts
abbreviated as MSS Eur) F158/615:1942-1947
5
National Antagonism in South Asia
claim that a divided India was not a new idea, and therefore separate states in the
subcontinent was not a radical or unreasonable idea12
Enrique Balter writes in a journal that after Britishers invaded the subcontinent, they
toppled the Mughal empire from its former status and turned them into a religious minority
making muslims now competing against the Hindu majority. The fear of being a minority, led
to the strengthening of the collective imagination that Muslim’s need a seperate state. The
establishment of muslim nationalism wasn’t only an emancipatory vision but was a reaction
to the hindu nationalist movements. 13 Khushwant singh writes in his book “The end of India”
that Hindus felt deprived in their own homeland and humiliated by the foriegn muslim
invaders. For eight centuries, Muslims ruled over Hindus, destroyed their temples, forced
them into conversions, imposed jizya on them. According to him but such were the norms in
all medieval societies not in just muslim societies. Hindus rulers too tyrannized Buddhists
and Jains and destroyed their places of worships. Later the British followed the Mughals and
treated Hindus and Muslim equally but opened chritian missionaries to preach the gospel of
Christ. It was during this period that Arya Samaj began under the leadership of Swami
Dayanand Saraswati. He enchanted ‘Back to Vedas’ this later led to the establishment of
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) which was founded by Keshav Baliram Hedgerwar in
Nagpur. 14
Pioneered by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan in 1867 muslim nationlism was tranformed in
Jinnah’s Two nation theory. Two nation theory was practilized by Muhammad Ali Jinnah
with formation of Pakistan. Jinnah asserted;
12
All-India MuslimLeague, 50 Facts About Pakistan, MuslimIndia Information Centre, London MuslimLeague;
MSS Eur F158/615: 1942-1947: 16
13
Enrique Balter "The origins of Muslim nationalism in British India." Journal of Arts and Humanities 6, no. 5
(2017): 55-65.
14
Khushwant Singh, The End of India. Penguin Books India, 2003.
6
National Antagonism in South Asia
‘Muslims are a nation by any definition of a nation. Hindu and Muslims belong to two
religions, philosophies, social customs and literature. They neither inter-marry nor interdine
and indeed belong to different civilizations which are based on conflicting ideas and
conceptions; their concepts of life are different. As such they must have their homeland, their
territory and their state.15
1927 Simon Commission was sent to India by British government to introduce new reforms
under the Act of 1919. It was boycotted by majority of the Indian political parties because of
lack of Indian representation, Lord Birkendhead, Secretary of State for Indian Affairs
challenged the Indians politicians by stating that if Indians have any political capability and
competence then they should form a unanimous constitution and present it to us and we will
implement it. Hence Indian political parties called All Parties Conference at Delhi in January
1928. During the fourth session of the All Parties Conference held at Bombay in August 1928
seven member committee under the chairmanship of Motilal Nehru decided the future
constitution of India and presented ‘Nehru Report’ according to which there are only two
constitutional forces in India, British and Indians as represented by the Congress.16 Nehru
report marginalized the muslim communities, this led to the opposition of Muslims to live
under united India. Muhammad Ali Jinnah refused to accept this report and in 1933 began the
conceptualization of “Pakistan” on the basis of two nation theory when Chaudhry Rahmat Ali
founded the Pakistan National Movement. Pakistan” or “Pakstan” was introduced as name for
seperate muslim state. Muhammad Iqbal officially proposed the idea of creation of state for
Muslims in December 1930, but his percepetion of Muslim state was contrary to wides
15
Abdul Majid, Abdul Hamid, and Zahida Habib. "Genesis of the Two Nations Theory and the Quaid-e-Azam."
Pakistan Vision 15, no. 1 (2014): 180.
16
Nehru Report (1928).” History Pak. Accessed December 1, 2019. https://historypak.com/nehru-report/.
7
National Antagonism in South Asia
spread idea of seperate state. He wanted a Muslim state within India not in the form of
seperate state. 17 But According to Ayesha Jalal and Sujata Bose, Jinnah’s ideation Pakistan
was not designed for the benefit of Muslim community in India. It was the means with which
Muslim politicians wanted the right of equal share of power in India. Jinnah’s nationalist
sentiments were more in common with his Congress counterparts than with the narrower
perspectives of most of his own supporters.18
After ruling India for almost two centuries, the Britishers decided to leave the Indian
subcontinent hence dividing it into two independent states: Muslim dominated Pakistan and
Hindu-majority India and consequently the greatest and brutal migrations in human history
ever recorded began in 1947. Millions of Muslims migrated to West and East Pakistan (now
Bangladesh) while millions of Hindus and Sikhs headed towards India. Many hundreds of
thousands never made it. Communities that lived together for centuries brutally slaughtered
each other in sectarian violence, with Hindus and Sikhs on one side and Muslims on the
other. the carnage was especially intense, with massacres, arson, forced conversions, mass
abductions, and savage sexual violence. Some seventy-five thousand women were raped, and
many of them were then disfigured or dismembered.It is reported that the partition of India
was so intense that resulted in murders, forced conversions, abductions, sexual violence on
mass numbers. It is estimated that approximately seventy-five thousand women were raped.
According to reports, fifteen million people were deracinated from their homes, and between
one and two million were dead by 1948. 19 As Holocaust is a painful collective memory for
the Jews, Partition is a painful collective memory for the natives of South Asia based on
17
Sophie Burr, "Partitioning India: Indian Muslim Nationalism and the Origin of the Muslim State (1800-1947)"
(2017).
18
Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal. Modern South Asia: history, culture, political economy. Routledge, 2017.
19
William Dalrymple “The Mutual Genocide of Indian Partition.” The New Yorker. The New Yorker, July 9,
2019. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/29/the-great-divide-books-dalrymple.
8
National Antagonism in South Asia
irrepareable damage. This memory directs the current politics of South Asia. Ayesha Jalal
asserted on the topic of partition, “A defining moment that is neither beginning nor end,
partition continues to influence how the peoples and states of postcolonial South Asia
envisage their past, present and future.” 20
Most disastrous consequences of partition was Punjab which became killing fields for
communal violence. Punjab consisted of 28 million residents. Out of which 16 million were
Muslims, 12 million Hindus and Sikhs. Two western division of Rawalpindi and Multan were
added to Pakistan, and the eastern division Jullundar and Ambala were included to India.
According to reports issued by Governor Evan Meredith Jenkins in mid of March 1947,
500 people were reported to be killed in Punjab’s cities and towns, and 520 in rural areas,
mostly non-Muslims. About 1,000 more people had been “seriously injured’ in the recent
Punjab riots. Jenkins visited Attock and Rawalpindi the next day and found some 25,000
refugees and another 35,000 refugee villagers and reported “Attacks on non muslims have
been organized with extreme savagery”. According to the report submited to Field Marshal
Auchinleck by Punjab’s Commanding General F.W Messservy, he stated that although a
political party, Muslim league has been significant in its nationalist propoganda on the basis
of Pakistan and Islam by manipulating uneducated muslims to fight against other
communities. On the other hand the decision of dividing Punjab and resignation of Unionist
Punjab Government started an anti-Pakistan campaigns by militant Master Tara Singh and
other Sikh leaders, they all were aroused to fanaticism. Militant Hindus and Sikhs joined
forces to march down Multan’s main road shouting ‘Death to Jinnah,’ and torched the muslim
communities. General Messervy added “We are dealing with disease and cannot eradicate the
disease by military action. The disease comes from political leaders of all parties. The only
20
William Dalrymple “The Mutual Genocide of Indian Partition.” The New Yorker. The New Yorker, July 9,
2019. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/29/the-great-divide-books-dalrymple.
9
National Antagonism in South Asia
complete cure is from them to come to an agreement.” But the disease never found it’s cure.
Subsequently five death and arsons were reported in Lahore, Amritsar had two communal
riots and four arsons, there were chaos in Gurgaon and total sixty number of villages burned.
Casualties were unknown, known death toll rose to 100. Sikhs were angry, muslims were
angry, they all were threatening to destroy Punjab completely. After the aftermath of
partition, Nehru wrote to tell Mountbatten that he was “sick with horror, There is still an
odour of death, the smell of blood and and burning flesh…. This Punjab business have
become bigger and bigger.. I imagine that quite a million have been uprooted. Another
million are in refugee camps wither in west or east Punjab or are wandering about. 21
The atrocities of partition and pain of Punjab was captured beautifully by Amrita Pritam,
where she appeals to Waris Shah to arise from his grave, witness the tragedy of Punjab and
turn over a new page in Punjab's history.
Aj Ankhan Waris Shah Nuu,
Kiton Qabraan Wichon Bol,
Tey Ajj Kitaab-e-Ishq Daa,
Koi Agla Warka Phol
Today, I call Waris Shah,
“Speak from inside your grave”
And turn, today,
the book of love’s next affectionate page
Ikk Royi Sii Dhi Punjab Di,
Tu Likh Likh Maarey Wain,
Ajj Lakhaan Dhiyan Rondiyan,
Tenu Waris Shah Nuu Kain
Once, one daughter of Punjab cried;
you wrote a wailing saga
Today, a million daughters,
cry to you, Waris Shah
Uthh Dard-Mandaan Diya Dardiya,
Utth Tak Apna Punjab
Ajj Bailey Lashaan Bichiyaan
21
Stanley Wolpert Shameful flight: The last years of the British Empire in India. Oxford University Press, 2009.
10
National Antagonism in South Asia
Tey Lahoo Di Bhari Chenab
Rise! O’ narrator of the grieving;
rise! look at your Punjab
Today, fields are lined with corpses,
and blood fills the Chenab. 22
Gandhi cried aloud at a prayer meeting in Delhi; It is not only the Sikhs have gone mad, or
only the Hindus or the Muslims…. India is today in the plight of the sinking elephant king. 23
According to the book ‘Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire’ written
by a British historian Alex von Tunzelmann, Jinnah called the demand for Pakistan the
biggest blunder of his life. On 11 Sept'1948, Jinnah, who was suffering from tuberculosis,
lung cancer, and pneumonia, was on a flight from Quetta to Karachi when in a state of
delirium he told his sister Fatima: Kashmir… give them…the right…to
decide…Constitution…I will complete… soon…Refugees…give them…all
assistance…Pakistan. On reaching Karachi airport, he saw the then Prime Minister Liaquat
Ali Khan and told him that ‘the demand for Pakistan was the biggest blunder of my life’ and
something else along the lines of: If I get an opportunity I will go to Delhi and tell Jawaharlal
to forget about the follies of the past and become friends again.24 All leaders regretted their
political decisions regarding Independent India and Pakistan.
The resurgence of communal hatred in modern South Asia is rooted to 1947 partition.
Since its partition, India and Pakistan fostered the pre partition hostility through military wars
over the disputed region of Kashmir started in 1948. British gave the freedom to princely
states to choose India or Pakistan for themselves by signing the Instrument of Accession or
deciding to remain an independent territory. Initially many of these princely states didn’t
22
“Aaj Aakhan Waris Shah Nu: Amrita Preetam.” Qausain, 11 Nov. 2009,
https://qausain.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/aaj-aakhan-waris-shah-nu/.
23
Stanley Wolpert Shameful flight: The last years of the British Empire in India. Oxford University Press, 2009.
24
Alex Von Tunzelmann, Indian summer: The secret history of the end of an empire. Macmillan, 2007.
11
National Antagonism in South Asia
become part of either side, but later decided to sign the Instrument of Accession. Kashmir is
the only princely state that wasn’t integrated with either side after independence.
Wounds inflicted on dainty spring
Bear mute testimony to bloodshed
One can imagine the hue that has stained the celestial garden
Infernal flames are scorching the tranquil Paradise
We had just stopped to rest under the shade of majestic Chinars. - Ravi
25
The first Indo-Pak war occurred over the conflict of Jammu and Kashmir in October 1948.
This war resulted in the division of Kashmir into two territories. The Indian occupied the
western wing of Jammu and Kashmir comprising regions of Kashmir valley, Jammu and
Ladakh, whereas Pakistan held the western side of Kashmir including the High Himalayan
regions known as Gilgit Baltistan. The United Nations resolved the issue temporarily by
dividing it in a Cease Fire line in 1949 under the UN Resolutions. First war was followed by
Operation Gibraltar, second military war between India and Pakistan which sparked large
scale military engagement.26 After first war India and Pakistan military fought three wars
over Kashmir. The conflict of Kashmir between roots back to pre partition Hindu-Muslim
nationalism which tranformed into India-Pakistan nationalism. Pakistan’s Islamic state and
India’s secularist state conceded the idea that Kashmir belongs to the other side.Therefore,
Kashmir got victimized by two nationalisms. Kashmir issue is an ethnic, religious, territorial
dispute in South Asia. In 1971, India and Pakistan fought over succession of East Pakistan
now known as Bangladesh. During the Indo-Pak war of 1971 the Indo-Pak border was
renamed to Line of Control (LoC) after an agreement signed between the two countries at
Simla in July 1972. Indo-Pak military fought another In 1999 when Pakistani troops crossed
25
Omkar Razdan, The Trauma of Kashmir: the untold reality. Vikas Pub, 1999.
Majid, Abdul, and Mahboob Hussain. "KASHMIR: A Conflict between India and Pakistan." South Asian
Studies (1026-678X) 31, no. 1 (2016).
26
12
National Antagonism in South Asia
into Kargil, the two countries came close to a nuclear exchange. Despite various peace
negotiations, the Indo-Pak antagonism remains the dominant political issue of South Asia.
Amtive Ghosh stated about borders:
“What interested me first about borders was their arbitrariness,
their constructedness – the ways in which they are ‘naturalized’
by modern political mythmaking. I think this interest arose because of some kind of inborn distrust of anything that appears to
be ‘given’ or taken-for-granted (...). I think these lines are drawn
in order to manipulate our ways of thought: that is why they
must be disregarded.” 27
In Independent India the memory of partition is negative one. Partition seems to be
the reason behind Hindu-Muslim antagonism that Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are using as
tool to intill hatred among the masses by destroying a mosque and erecting Ram’s temple in
its place. The resurgence of ‘communalism’ in self-professedly secular India evokes many
but not all the memories of 1947.28 Communal antagonism continued not only between India
and Pakistan, India’s secular state too failed to stop civil hindu-muslim antagonism from
growing. India has witnessed various riots and civil violence between Hindus and Muslims.
The Gujarat violence of 2002 is a significant deathly event of communal violence in India. It
is estimated that 984 people mainly Muslims were killed following the death of 59 Hindu
passengers on a train near Godhra on February 27, 2002. Known as ‘post-Godhra’ violence,
riots continued for four months and later for another six months. Khushwant Singh quotes a
document from the riots of Bhiwadi and Jalgaon, an event of Hindu-Muslim violence which
took place three decades prior to 2002 gujrat riots in 1970’ Judge Mason wrote,
27
Amitav Ghosh, The shadow lines. Penguin Books India, 2010.
Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal. Modern South Asia: history, culture, political economy. Routledge, 2017.
28
13
National Antagonism in South Asia
‘It was a lonely, arduous and weary journey through a land of hatred and violence, of
prejudice and perjury. The encounters on the way were with men without compassionting for
the blood of their fellow men, with politicians who trafficked in communal hatred and
religious fanaticism, with local leaders who sought power by sowing disunity and bitterness,
with police officers and policemen who were unworthy of their uniforn, with investigating
officers without honour without scruples, with men committed to false hood and wedded to
fraud and with dealers in mayhem and murder’
Religion has always been exploited for political purposes before partition, it remained the
same after partition.
Khushwant stated these riots were the beginning of Hindu-Muslim communal violence in
India. To understand the intensity of hostility between both the communities, Khushwant
visited Ahmedabad in 1970, five months after the riots. He quotes from an article he wrote
after his return.
‘I had constituted myself into a man of commission of enquiry to find out all I could in three
day sand pass on my verdict to my readers. My object was to not discover what had happened
. . . but why it happened and even more, what the people of Ahmedabad thought about it
today and what they would do tomorrow if some incident again stained relations between 905
Hindus and 10% Muslims.
He starts his investigation by visiting the temple of Jagannath . . .
‘I detect no sign of damage. To make sure I ask a priest. He tells me to look outside. Above
the entrance gate is a glass pane to cover an effigy of a mahant. The pane is splintered in
three places. I approach a band of ash-smeared sadhus lolling under the shade of a banyan
tree and ask them if anything else had been damaged. . . They express themselves in unholy
language. I walk around the bazaar and come to a dargah where it is said to have begun- with
14
National Antagonism in South Asia
the herd of temple cows stampeding into pilgrims going to some Urs. The dargah is barred. A
pose of constabulary guard the entrance. I ask the care taker seated outside if this the right
place. He looks at me suspiciously. For an answer-a blob of phlegm on the pavement. The
sub-inspector of police gives a dirty look. I do not like policemen. I move on. I go to the
sindhi bazaar. It is a cluster of cubicles made of plywood and corrugated tin. Row upon row
of mini shops cluttered with bales of cloth and hund with multicolored saris. The place looks
inflammable as an Indian Oil petrol carrier. I was told the bazaar had gone up in smoke. I can
well believe it. But I see no sign of damage. Sindhis are an enterprising race; they must have
re built it and resumed business. I accepted one of many invitations hurled me to something. .
. I pay for a dhoti to buy information. I get an earful of hate. ‘I hire a scooter. From the
Arabic numerals 786 painted on the meter I know the faith of the driver. A scooter is not the
best mode of transport for a friendly dialogue. I yell my comment on the “bad days’ The
driver turns back ‘You take me for a sucker? I know which side you are!’ He doesn’t so with
his tongue but with his doleful eyes.’ ‘I try paan walas, chaiwalas, fruit vendors. The result is
the same. If they talk they are Hindus, if they do not, they are muslims. Both speech and
silence are pregnant with hate.’ 29
According to historical evidence, communal nationalism is not new in modern South
Asia. This land has witnessed various events of hatred and violence and many factors played
a significant role in deepening these hostile emotions. The first communal antagonism in the
Indian sub-continent began with the arrival of Islam. Since then the natives and Hindus felt
threatened and marginalized by the Islamic outsiders. Only one Mughal Emperor; Akbar tried
to reconcile the communal differences between Hindus and Muslims through ‘Deen i Ilahi’, a
syncretic religions comprising of all the important elements of various religions including
29
Khushwant Singh, The End of India. Penguin Books India, 2003.
15
National Antagonism in South Asia
Islam, Hinduism, Christianity and Ziorastrism. Which was later abolished by Aurangzed
through establishment of Shariah Law 'Fatawa-i-Alamgiri. After the fall of Mughal Empire
and the arrival of British in the Subcontinent, the political geography of India changed, where
Hindu were being marginalized, they rose to power alongside British and Muslims isolated
themselves from all other communities. This led to a major divide among both the
communities. After the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 and inclusion of ‘Divide and Rule’ policy in
state politics to prevent another rebellion, this agenda further divided the Indian community,
completely alienating Muslims and Hindus from each other which resulted in emergence of
Two Nation theory- Muslim nationalism in 1867 and Hindutva-Hindu nationalism in 1923.
Partition was the last nail in the coffin of Hindu-Muslim nationalism, which scarred the entire
Indian Subcontinent for generations. After the Subcontinent's Independence from British the
entire region was divided into two states, India on one side and Pakistan on the other. After a
year of official Independence, the two nations confronted each other in a military war on the
issue of Kashmir. According to sources Operation of Gibraltar of 1965 the Indian-Pakistani
antagonism through the help of media using patriotic songs and films. The war of 1971 and
separation of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was significant in South Asian history. Jinnah’s
two nation theory failed after separation of Bengal and India’s secularism failed with the first
civil disorder between Hindus and Muslims. Hindu-Muslim antagonism in South-Asia is not
a 21 centrury phenomenon but spans centuries . This land has been witness to bloodshed for
centuries and will witness for centuries to come if the misconception of nationalism persists.
Kashmir is an important issue that needs to be solved as soon as possible, not through
crackdown or violence but through peace and productive negotiation.
Bibliography
16
National Antagonism in South Asia
“Aaj Aakhan Waris Shah Nu: Amrita Preetam.” Qausain, 11 Nov. 2009,
https://qausain.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/aaj-aakhan-waris-shah-nu/.
All-India MuslimLeague, 50 Facts About Pakistan, MuslimIndia Information Centre, London
MuslimLeague; MSS Eur F158/615: 1942-1947: 16
Amin, Shahid. "Representing the Musalman: Then and now, now and then." Subaltern
Studies 12 (2003)
Bose, Sugata, and Ayesha Jalal. Modern South Asia: history, culture, political economy.
Routledge, 2017.
Ghosh, Amitav. The shadow lines. Penguin Books India, 2010.
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of
nationalism. Verso books, 2006.
Buur, Sophie, "Partitioning India: Indian Muslim Nationalism and the Origin of the Muslim
State (1800-1947)" (2017).
Dalrymple, William. “The Mutual Genocide of Indian Partition.” The New Yorker. The New
Yorker, July 9, 2019.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/29/the-great-divide-books-dalrymple.
Extract from Pakistan, vol. 1. no. 3., editor Ziauddin A. Suleri and S. Ziauddin Ahmad,
(Edinburgh, Scotland: Muslim League Branch Great Britain, March 3, 1946); India Office
Private Papers (European Manuscripts abbreviated as MSS Eur) F158/615:1942-1947
“How India, Pakistan and Bangladesh Were Formed.” India-Pakistan Partition | Al Jazeera.
Accessed November 27, 2019.
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2017/08/india-pakistan-bangladesh-formed-17
0807142655673.html.
Karna, M. N. "Language, region and national identity." Sociological bulletin 48, no. 1-2
(1999): 75-96
Majid, Abdul, Abdul Hamid, and Zahida Habib. "Genesis of the Two Nations Theory and the
Quaid-e-Azam." Pakistan Vision 15, no. 1 (2014): 180.
Mayaram, Shail, M. S. S. Pandian, and Ajay Skaria, eds. Muslims, Dalits, and the
fabrications of history. Vol. 12. Orient Blackswan, 2005.
“Nehru Report (1928).” History Pak. Accessed December 1, 2019.
https://historypak.com/nehru-report/.
Pennebaker, James W., Bernard Rim, and Dario Paez, eds. Collective memory of political
events: Social psychological perspectives. Psychology Press, 2013.
17
National Antagonism in South Asia
Singh, Khushwant. The End of India. Penguin Books India, 2003.
Stewart, Neil. "Divide and Rule: British Policy in Indian History." Science & Society 15, no.
1 (1951): 49-57. www.jstor.org/stable/40400043.
Razdan, Omkar. The Trauma of Kashmir: the untold reality. Vikas Pub, 1999.
Von Tunzelmann, Alex. Indian summer: The secret history of the end of an empire.
Macmillan, 2007.
Wolpert, Stanley. Shameful flight: The last years of the British Empire in India. Oxford
University Press, 2009.
Zakaria, Anam. “Memories of the 'Other': Three Narratives of Partition.” YourStory.com,
August 12, 2017.
https://yourstory.com/2017/08/memories-narratives-of-partition-india-pakistan.
18