Independence Day: Why Partition was a good thing for India
Utopians wish Partition had never happened. Supposed realists say Partition was inevitable. I would go a step further and say it was desirable.
Today we celebrate the 65th anniversary of India's independence. Some mourn it as the 65th anniversary of India's partition, which killed a million people and forced 10 million to flee across borders for safety.
Utopians wish Partition had never happened. Supposed realists say Partition was inevitable. I would go a step further and say it was desirable.
Had the British left without Partition, Hindu-Muslim antagonism would have escalated into civil war, leading ultimately to an even bloodier Partition. The civil war would have converted India into a hotbed of Hindu communalism and violence, with secularists sidelined as traitors or worse. Partition, warts and all, has been a better outcome.
Some well-meaning Hindus want the two countries to unite again. They have no idea how utterly insulting the suggestion seems to Pakistanis. For Pakistan, Independence Day celebrates independence from Hindu dominance no less than British dominance. To suggest returning to an undivided India means, to them, a return to Hindu dominance. This is as insulting to most Pakistanis as suggesting a return to the British Raj would be to Indians.
Partition was not inevitable. One myth fed to youngsters is that Britain forced Partition on India. That's wrong. After arguing for years that Hindus and Muslims could work together, Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel failed the acid test of working with the Muslim League when the British put them together in the interim Cabinet of 1946-47.
Muslim League finance minister Liaqat Ali riled Congress ministers by holding up financial sanctions for even minor things they proposed. Liaqat then presented a high-tax budget in 1947 to soak businesses that had made huge profits in World War II. Congressmen interpreted this as an attack on Hindu businessmen by a Muslim finance minister.
This was an unwarranted, communal interpretation: the high taxes fell equally on Hindu and Muslim businesses. Yet, Congress stalwarts concluded it was impossible to work with Jinnah, and that a clean Partition would be better. That's how Partition happened, through the voluntary agreement of both the Congress and the Muslim League.
Today, we are used to coalition governments kowtowing to minority partners. Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi kowtowed to the Left Front in 2004-09 and to Mamata Banerjee after 2009. In retrospect, it seems amazing that Nehru and Patel could not put up with Liaqat's needling. If only they had kept their cool and accommodated the Muslim League, some people argue, Partition would have been avoided, and the subcontinent would have been a far better, more peaceful place.
Sorry, but this totally ignores the desire of Muslims for a nation of their own, and their willing to make great sacrifices for that end. A Pakistani once told me that every time they hear of a communal riot in India, they thank Allah that they achieved liberation from Hindu domination and hypocritical crap about secularism.
Utopians wish Partition had never happened. Supposed realists say Partition was inevitable. I would go a step further and say it was desirable.
Had the British left without Partition, Hindu-Muslim antagonism would have escalated into civil war, leading ultimately to an even bloodier Partition. The civil war would have converted India into a hotbed of Hindu communalism and violence, with secularists sidelined as traitors or worse. Partition, warts and all, has been a better outcome.
Some well-meaning Hindus want the two countries to unite again. They have no idea how utterly insulting the suggestion seems to Pakistanis. For Pakistan, Independence Day celebrates independence from Hindu dominance no less than British dominance. To suggest returning to an undivided India means, to them, a return to Hindu dominance. This is as insulting to most Pakistanis as suggesting a return to the British Raj would be to Indians.
Partition was not inevitable. One myth fed to youngsters is that Britain forced Partition on India. That's wrong. After arguing for years that Hindus and Muslims could work together, Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel failed the acid test of working with the Muslim League when the British put them together in the interim Cabinet of 1946-47.
Muslim League finance minister Liaqat Ali riled Congress ministers by holding up financial sanctions for even minor things they proposed. Liaqat then presented a high-tax budget in 1947 to soak businesses that had made huge profits in World War II. Congressmen interpreted this as an attack on Hindu businessmen by a Muslim finance minister.
This was an unwarranted, communal interpretation: the high taxes fell equally on Hindu and Muslim businesses. Yet, Congress stalwarts concluded it was impossible to work with Jinnah, and that a clean Partition would be better. That's how Partition happened, through the voluntary agreement of both the Congress and the Muslim League.
Today, we are used to coalition governments kowtowing to minority partners. Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi kowtowed to the Left Front in 2004-09 and to Mamata Banerjee after 2009. In retrospect, it seems amazing that Nehru and Patel could not put up with Liaqat's needling. If only they had kept their cool and accommodated the Muslim League, some people argue, Partition would have been avoided, and the subcontinent would have been a far better, more peaceful place.
Sorry, but this totally ignores the desire of Muslims for a nation of their own, and their willing to make great sacrifices for that end. A Pakistani once told me that every time they hear of a communal riot in India, they thank Allah that they achieved liberation from Hindu domination and hypocritical crap about secularism.
No comments:
Post a Comment