Ram
Puniyani
Puniyani
History is not just the past. It is a potent
weapon for various political agendas in the present. It can be clearly seen in
the use of history in rise of Hindu-Muslim rightwing in India. As far as
presently dominant Hindu national politics is concerned, this abuse of history
can be seen in the type and period of History used. When Meenaxipuram,
conversions of dalits to Islam took place in 1981, the message taken up was that
of Islam’s spreading in India as a ‘threat’. With the rise of Ram Temple
movement, the indication was towards the Muslim kings’ destroying Hindu temples
and insulting Hindu religion. The Babri demolition and consequent violence had
the underlying propaganda of temple destructions by Muslim kings. At the same
time a slogan came up ‘Muslaman ka do hi sthan: Kabristhan ya Pakistan (only
two places for Muslims: Pakistan or graveyard), asserting that India is meant
only for Hindus. As we move a bit more towards Gujarat carnage 2002 we see the
projection of ‘terrorism’ and Muslims on one hand and the projection of Miyan
Musharraf as the symbol of Indian Muslims. In Maharashtra Shivaji was projected
in various ways to show the tyranny of Muslim kings. Currently serials like
Bharat ka mahan Saput Rana Pratap, and Jodha Akbar also give the same message.
weapon for various political agendas in the present. It can be clearly seen in
the use of history in rise of Hindu-Muslim rightwing in India. As far as
presently dominant Hindu national politics is concerned, this abuse of history
can be seen in the type and period of History used. When Meenaxipuram,
conversions of dalits to Islam took place in 1981, the message taken up was that
of Islam’s spreading in India as a ‘threat’. With the rise of Ram Temple
movement, the indication was towards the Muslim kings’ destroying Hindu temples
and insulting Hindu religion. The Babri demolition and consequent violence had
the underlying propaganda of temple destructions by Muslim kings. At the same
time a slogan came up ‘Muslaman ka do hi sthan: Kabristhan ya Pakistan (only
two places for Muslims: Pakistan or graveyard), asserting that India is meant
only for Hindus. As we move a bit more towards Gujarat carnage 2002 we see the
projection of ‘terrorism’ and Muslims on one hand and the projection of Miyan
Musharraf as the symbol of Indian Muslims. In Maharashtra Shivaji was projected
in various ways to show the tyranny of Muslim kings. Currently serials like
Bharat ka mahan Saput Rana Pratap, and Jodha Akbar also give the same message.
Lately the present history, history of Modern
India is under the chopping block of communal forces. On one hand the
projection of Sardar Patel, with emphasis on his being anti-Nehru and the other
various conjectures of this period are being dished out. It is being asserted
that Congress ‘facilitated Partition’ (Narendra Modi while talking in Kheda in
Gujarat). This is a very motivated statement. As a matter of fact the two major
leaders who were handling the negotiations at that time, on behalf of Congress,
were Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel. Mr. Jaswant Singh’s book on
Jinnah, taking one sided view blames Nehru-Patel for partition. It was banned
by Modi in Gujarat, as he won’t brook any criticism of Sardar Patel. Here with
a forked tongue, two things are being said at the same time, Patel eulogized
for his contribution and Congress being blamed for partition, unmindful of the
fact that it was Nehru-Patel duo, which was acting together on the issue of
India’s partition.
India is under the chopping block of communal forces. On one hand the
projection of Sardar Patel, with emphasis on his being anti-Nehru and the other
various conjectures of this period are being dished out. It is being asserted
that Congress ‘facilitated Partition’ (Narendra Modi while talking in Kheda in
Gujarat). This is a very motivated statement. As a matter of fact the two major
leaders who were handling the negotiations at that time, on behalf of Congress,
were Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel. Mr. Jaswant Singh’s book on
Jinnah, taking one sided view blames Nehru-Patel for partition. It was banned
by Modi in Gujarat, as he won’t brook any criticism of Sardar Patel. Here with
a forked tongue, two things are being said at the same time, Patel eulogized
for his contribution and Congress being blamed for partition, unmindful of the
fact that it was Nehru-Patel duo, which was acting together on the issue of
India’s partition.
That way the tragedy of India’s partition is
like a big canvass, and most of the commentators look at the part of the
canvass which suits their politics and put all the focus on that. This focusing
on one part of canvass, selective historiography, is due to the motives and political
understanding of these commentators. Seeing the whole process will tell us a different
tale. The partition tragedy cannot be located just in the final phase when the negotiations
between British rulers, Muslim League and Congress were going on. Partition
process was the culmination of a long process, which began with the aftermath
of anti-British revolution in 1857. The first factor in the process of division
was the British decision to implement the policy of ‘Divide and rule”, thereby
to introduce communal historiography. The second major factor was the
persistence of feudal classes despite the beginning of industrialization and
modern education. These feudal elements, the declining classes, felt threatened
by the rising, nascent democratic nationalism, as represented in the formation
of various organizations of industrialists, workers and educated classes and
the formation of Indian National Congress. These declining classes, Hindus and
Muslims landlord-kings, were together in the beginning. One major step in the
direction to break them along religious lines was Lord Elphinstone’s
encouragement to Muslim landlords, Nawabs, and to recognize them as representatives
of Muslims. This led to formation of Muslim League in 1906. In tandem with this
Punjab Hindu Sabha came up in 1909, Hindu Mahasabha in 1915 and RSS in 1925. These
communal organizations started getting support from section of educated elite
apart from some upper castes and traditional traders. These communal
organizations were against democratic nationalism and articulated religious
nationalism.
like a big canvass, and most of the commentators look at the part of the
canvass which suits their politics and put all the focus on that. This focusing
on one part of canvass, selective historiography, is due to the motives and political
understanding of these commentators. Seeing the whole process will tell us a different
tale. The partition tragedy cannot be located just in the final phase when the negotiations
between British rulers, Muslim League and Congress were going on. Partition
process was the culmination of a long process, which began with the aftermath
of anti-British revolution in 1857. The first factor in the process of division
was the British decision to implement the policy of ‘Divide and rule”, thereby
to introduce communal historiography. The second major factor was the
persistence of feudal classes despite the beginning of industrialization and
modern education. These feudal elements, the declining classes, felt threatened
by the rising, nascent democratic nationalism, as represented in the formation
of various organizations of industrialists, workers and educated classes and
the formation of Indian National Congress. These declining classes, Hindus and
Muslims landlord-kings, were together in the beginning. One major step in the
direction to break them along religious lines was Lord Elphinstone’s
encouragement to Muslim landlords, Nawabs, and to recognize them as representatives
of Muslims. This led to formation of Muslim League in 1906. In tandem with this
Punjab Hindu Sabha came up in 1909, Hindu Mahasabha in 1915 and RSS in 1925. These
communal organizations started getting support from section of educated elite
apart from some upper castes and traditional traders. These communal
organizations were against democratic nationalism and articulated religious
nationalism.
 |
| A group photo of people accused in the Mahatma Gandhi’s murder case. Standing: Shankar Kistaiya, Gopal Godse, Madanlal Pahwa, Digambar Badge. Sitting: Narayan Apte, Vinayak D. Savarkar, Nathuram Godse, Vishnu Karkare (Courtesy: Wikipedia) |
The third and major theoretical expression for
partition comes from the ideologue of Hindu Mahsasabha, Vinayak Damodar
Savarkar, who said that there are two nations in the country, the Hindu nation
and Muslim nation. The separate country for Muslims was articulated by
Chowdhary Rahmat Ali in 1930, Pakistan. This got politically consolidated in
1940 with Jinnah’s demand for a separate country in the form of Pakistan (West
and East). Fourth important step in the direction was the fact that the demand
of Pakistan suited the designs of British colonialist’s long term plan to have
a base in South Asia. As Communism, Soviet block was progressing and inspiring
leaders of many national movements, like China Vietnam in particular,
colonialists wanted to counter this by having a political base in South Asia. In
India, Soviet Union inspired the communist and socialist movement. People of the
caliber of Nehru, Jaya Prakash Narayan and others were with Congress Socialist
Party, an in-house organization within Congress. Seeing the influence of
socialist ideology on the major leaders of national movement, the colonialists
and imperialists were keen that India should not remain united. There keenness of
partition encouraged the demand of Pakistan.
Congress at this point of time found itself in
a trap. On one side the stalwarts of National movement, Gandhi and Mualana Azad
were opposed to the partition in the deeper political way. Nehru and Patel; experienced
the blockades put up by the Muslim League in interim government. The choice
before this duo was either to go on with a Cripps mission plan, which gave very
little power to the center, or to go for partition and have a strong Center in
India. The calculation of Nehru was that without the centralized economy; country
cannot progress. The Bombay plan, economic blueprint of industrialists, wanted
the state to provide for heavy industries, as industrialists realized that they
are not capable for setting up large industries. This was parallel to the
vision of Nehru, who envisaged land reforms and industrialization to take India
forward. Sardar Patel had the vision of the strong center so he was also not
for the loose federation of states as provisioned by Cripps mission.
a trap. On one side the stalwarts of National movement, Gandhi and Mualana Azad
were opposed to the partition in the deeper political way. Nehru and Patel; experienced
the blockades put up by the Muslim League in interim government. The choice
before this duo was either to go on with a Cripps mission plan, which gave very
little power to the center, or to go for partition and have a strong Center in
India. The calculation of Nehru was that without the centralized economy; country
cannot progress. The Bombay plan, economic blueprint of industrialists, wanted
the state to provide for heavy industries, as industrialists realized that they
are not capable for setting up large industries. This was parallel to the
vision of Nehru, who envisaged land reforms and industrialization to take India
forward. Sardar Patel had the vision of the strong center so he was also not
for the loose federation of states as provisioned by Cripps mission.
To blame Congress of facilitating India’s partition
is nowhere close to the truth. But the way History, even the modern Indian history,
is being bulldozed for the political convenience, and the eagerness to grab
power come what may, sacrificing the truth, is not a big deal for the communal politicians.
is nowhere close to the truth. But the way History, even the modern Indian history,
is being bulldozed for the political convenience, and the eagerness to grab
power come what may, sacrificing the truth, is not a big deal for the communal politicians.
Leave a Reply