Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, August 15, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version Print | Comments

Document India's Internal Partition

by Ramachandra Guha

Reposted from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/opinion/15guha.html?th&emc=th

Bangalore, India

IN the last months of 1990, a property dispute sparked a series of bloody riots across India. The right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party sought to "reclaim" for Hindus the birthplace of the legendary god-king Ram, in the small northern town of Ayodhya. That meant demolishing the mosque that had been built there in the 16th century and replacing it with a spanking new temple.

Starting in September, the militant Bharatiya Janata leader Lal Krishna Advani journeyed for five weeks between Somnath and Ayodhya, making fiery speeches at towns and villages en route, denouncing the Indian government for "appeasing" the Muslims. In many places Mr. Advani visited, attacks on Muslims followed.

In New Delhi, where I then lived, Mr. Advani's march represented a grave threat to the inclusive, plural, secular and democratic idea of India. My boyhood hero had been Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first and arguably greatest prime minister.

When India and Pakistan came into existence in 1947, exactly 60 years ago, Mr. Nehru insisted that India would not be a "Hindu Pakistan." Three months after the partition, he wrote to the chief provincial ministers about the Muslim minority: "whatever the provocation from Pakistan and whatever the indignities and horrors inflicted on non-Muslims there, we have got to deal with this minority in a civilized manner. We must give them security and the rights of citizens in a democratic state. If we fail to do so, we shall have a festering sore which will eventually poison the whole body politic and probably destroy it."

The Bharatiya Janata Party's idea of India was the opposite. Their ideologues treated Muslims as potential fifth columnists. "Pakistan ya Kabristan!" (to Pakistan or the graveyard) they cried during the riots. Nonetheless, many million Muslims stayed in India; after the formation of an independent Bangladesh, in 1971, India had even more Muslim citizens than Pakistan.

Yet among my close friends in India there was not a single Muslim. The novelist Mukul Kesavan, a contemporary, has written that in his school in Delhi he never came across a Muslim name: "The only place you were sure of meeting Muslims was the movies." Some of the finest actors, singers, composers and directors in Bombay's film industry were Muslims. But in law, medicine, business and the upper echelons of public service, Hindus dominated. There were sprinklings of Christians and Sikhs, but very few Muslims.

As it happened, my first Muslim friend was a Pakistani I met in America. In the mid-1980s, the economist Tariq Banuri and I, both teaching at East Coast universities, were part of a colloquium on third-world development. Our bond was partly intellectual and partly linguistic, for we had grown up speaking Hindustani, that wonderful hybrid of Hindi and Urdu that was once the lingua franca of much of the Indian subcontinent. My hometown, Dehradun, and Tariq's, Peshawar, lay at opposite ends of what was once a common cultural zone, fractured by the partition.

After I returned to India, and Tariq to Pakistan, in 1987, the antipathy between our countries meant I could not visit him. The phone lines were blocked, and the Internet had not been developed. News that trickled in from mutual friends was episodic and desultory; inevitably, we lost touch.

In the winter of 1990, Tariq began appearing in my dreams. I was always on the verge of visiting him in Islamabad, only to be thwarted by hostile immigration officials, barbed-wire fences, massed soldiers or canceled flights. That I dreamt of my friend at a time when my fellow Hindus were mounting frequent attacks on Muslims was surely not accidental.

Back in Delhi, I also came to understand (though not support) why so many Indians had favored building a Ram temple in Ayodhya. Once a center of Islamic civilization, later the center of a white man's Raj, after 1947 Delhi had become a city of the Hindu and Sikh victims of partition. These Punjabi migrants had lost homes and businesses in that bloody summer of 1947. Starting from scratch, they had come to dominate Delhi's commerce and social life. Yet they remained insecure; who knew when catastrophe might come again? And so they hoarded diamonds and maintained Swiss bank accounts.

They also cheated their tenants. In six years in Delhi, my wife and I had four landlords, all refugees from the Pakistani part of Punjab. All four hooked their appliances to our electricity meter, and all kept our deposits when we left.

In 1995, I finally got to visit Pakistan. I saw Tariq in Islamabad and then proceeded to Lahore, illegally, since my visa was for one city only. I met one of the last seven Hindu families in Lahore and visited the tomb of the Sikh warrior-king Ranjit Singh.

Then I went across to the majestic Badshahi Mosque, built by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. It was Friday evening, and a large crowd of worshipers was coming out after the weekly prayers. Walking against the flow, I had to jostle my way through.

As I bumped into one worshiper, I was seized by panic. In one pocket of my kurta lay my wallet; in the other, an exquisite little statue of the Hindu god Ganesh, dancing. I am not a believer, but this was my mascot, a gift from my sister, carried whenever I was separated from my wife and little children. What if it now fell out and was seized upon by the crowd? How would that turn out — an infidel discovered in a Muslim shrine, an Indian visitor illegally in Lahore?

As a liberal and secular Hindu, I should not have been worried about being found out. But my fear was symptomatic also of the deeper failures of partition. It had been meant to solve, once and for all, the Hindu-Muslim question. But in both countries, the two communities have only grown further apart.

Despite their shared culture, cuisine and love for the game of cricket, India and Pakistan have already fought four wars. And judging by the number of troops on their borders and the missiles and nuclear weapons to back them, they seem prepared to fight a fifth.

Ramachandra Guha is the author of "India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy."

Comments 1 - 10 of 10 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #63652 by posiedon on August 15, 2007 at 8:13 am

 avatar
Despite their shared culture, cuisine and love for the game of cricket,

It's a shame they can't settle their differences on the cricket pitch, rather than the battlefield.

Other Comments by posiedon

2. Comment #63663 by Oliver Leif on August 15, 2007 at 9:03 am

The India-Pakistan situation is rooted in a difference of religion..

It's the same with the Israel and Palestine.

Other Comments by Oliver Leif

3. Comment #63671 by USA_Limey on August 15, 2007 at 9:36 am

 avatarComment #63663 by Oliver Leif wrote:

"The India-Pakistan situation is rooted in a difference of religion..

It's the same with the Israel and Palestine."


... or, for an alternative viewpoint, see my post here:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1531,After-60-Years-Will-Pakistan-Be-Reborn,Mohsin-Hamid#63665

Other Comments by USA_Limey

4. Comment #63720 by the_assayer on August 15, 2007 at 2:17 pm

HAPPY INDEPENDANCE DAY!! To all Indians on this site. :D

Other Comments by the_assayer

5. Comment #63822 by heathen2 on August 16, 2007 at 10:15 am

 avatarI am saddened by the Hindu-Muslim conflicts that just go on and on in India. In some part this is due to the fact that the culture is mired in superstition of one kind or the other. At least though it is not a theocracy like Pakistan.

Other Comments by heathen2

6. Comment #63963 by fullmuppet on August 17, 2007 at 3:55 am

The BJP are scary - BJP leaders have expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler and they have a paramilatary wing that is closely modelled on the SS. Like most such parties they always downplay these associations and play the brain-dead nationalist card to garner votes.

Other Comments by fullmuppet

7. Comment #63977 by DavidMcC on August 17, 2007 at 5:56 am

 avatarThere is some hope, posiedon:
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/YAOI-6YK2ZE?OpenDocument

Other Comments by DavidMcC

8. Comment #64007 by kpsri on August 17, 2007 at 8:59 am

Comment #63652 by posiedon

It's a shame they can't settle their differences on the cricket pitch, rather than the battlefield.

--> In mid-80s, there was an offer from Pakistani captain Imran Khan(now a politician) that Kashmir issue be settled on the cricket pitch(Needless to say, Pakistan were whupping India big time during that period in cricket).

Comment #63963 by fullmuppet

The BJP are scary - BJP leaders have expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler and they have a paramilatary wing that is closely modelled on the SS.

--> Not to justify BJP but they are not alone in that reasoning. There are secular political parties in India that are modeled similarly. BJP is horrendous on multiple fronts but the malaise is more wider among political parties than that.

Other Comments by kpsri

9. Comment #64011 by Oliver Leif on August 17, 2007 at 9:16 am

Limey,

... or, for an alternative viewpoint, see my post here:

It's an amusing theory.. Certainly imperialism has had its hand in creating the situations within Inida/Pakistan and Isreal/Palestine, however I do believe that religious belief is the main source..

Other Comments by Oliver Leif

10. Comment #64071 by Tumara Baap on August 17, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Many Indians, just like the 19th century Hindu leader Vivekanand, consider piety India's biggest asset. Nothing could be further from the truth. In India the extent of belief is abysmal ... everything from levitation to holy men pulling sacred ashes out of thin air. The stupidity frequently culminates in riots and mass murders in religion's name.
It would help to heed to the words of one of India's founders, Jawaharlal Nehru: "religion has not only broken our backs but stifled and almost killed all originality of thought or mind"

Those fascinated with India and the British Empire ought to look up "Exit Wounds" in The New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/08/13/070813crbo_books_mishra

Other Comments by Tumara Baap
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

Send a letter to the editor of the original media outlet.
letters@nytimes.com