Pakistan or Partition of India (1940, Revised 1945)
B.R. Ambedkar
Dr Ambedkar is often voted as the single most important icon of India, surpassing Gandhi and the members of the Nehru clan. He has been described as one of the most erudite people from the subcontinent. He is credited with the drafting of the Indian Constitution. One of his many books that seem to be ahead of its times and is especially relevant in these trying times of identity politics is this one.
It was written at the tumultuous times when India was fighting a war for the British while at the same time, in the local front struggling for self-rule. Like two siblings fighting for the coveted candy from their parents, it was a time when Muslims were fighting for a separate nation. The Hindus wanted to keep it that way as it had been since time immemorial.
As early as 630AD, through the writings of the travelling Buddhist monk, Hsuan Tang (Xuanzang), the Indian subcontinent had been described to spread from Afghanistan. The 8th-century Indian philosopher, via his travels to the four corners of the country, had demarcated the extent of India. So, to carve out part of the country, for sentimental reasons, is considered sacrilege.
From the 8th century onwards, waves upon waves of Muslim invaders infiltrated from the North changing the landscape of the country altogether. It is said the destruction of various gems of knowledge were burnt to the ground. Temples were desecrated and looted. Then on it was a series of the path of destruction with kingdoms rising and falling, each new warrior claiming to protect their way of life. Finally, the British East India Company put the final death knell to the once glorious land.
By the time the British were ruling India, the dichotomy between the Hindus and Muslims were quite pronounced. The wealthy Muslims who prospered when the Mogul Emperor was ruling had all lost their influence. At about that time, the Ottoman Empire, the sick man of Europe, was no worthy representative of the past glory of the religion. There was a dire need amongst the elite group to reignite this.
The last time, the Hindus and Muslims join forces to combat a common enemy was during the Sepoy Mutiny in 1857. The Colonial Master must have noticed this and using their time-tested 'divide-and-rule' tactic, they managed to create distrust between the two sides. So, when Independence was fought for, the Muslims were fervent on distrusting the Hindus. They claimed that they would get fair treatment in a country dominated by a Hindu majority. Hence, the call for a Muslim nation called Pakistan began as early as the 1930s. The calls for Islamic union started with Khalifat movement in 1919. They were sympathisers of the Ottoman Empire but were disappointed when Turkey became a republic instead of re-establishing an Islamic Empire.
Babasaheb Ambedkar was in a unique position to be the best person to critically evaluate all the merits and demerits of creating a Muslimraj nation. He, having the brunt of the discriminations hurled upon for being a Dalit and a Hindu, knows too well about the downside of the ugly treatment of the backward castes in a Hindu community. Being one who delved in different religions (before his mass conversion later), he is also well versed in the Islamic scriptures. Armed with this knowledge, he went on to discuss whether Partition should happen and what are the dangers should Pakistan were not created, from a Hindu and Muslim perspective.
Ambedkar had a lot of criticisms about Gandhi's way of going about getting Swaraj from the British. His cooperation with the Khalifat Movement and his back-bending means of appeasing to their whims and fancies were frowned upon. His inactions after the Mopla Rebellion in Kerala and the use of his secret weapon, fasting, for political gain and Indian unity were admonished.
The Hindus, at least the ones in the upper crust (caste) of the society were mostly against Partition. Many wanted to maintain the status quo by clinging on to the civil service. Creation of a new nation would mean loss of their status. They were happy with Muslims living in India within pockets of Muslim majorities. They felt they would be fair.
The French-speaking and the English-speaking Canadian can live together. So can the English and the Boers in South Africa. And Switzerland has a harmonious mix of French, Italians and Germans in their populace. During the writing of the book, Czechoslovakia was living proof that two ethnicities, Czechs and Slovaks can come together as a country.
But, at the same time, in the case of Czechoslovakia, trouble can start from within. Like the Sudeten German who engaged Hitler to march into their country.
Ambedkar accused the Muslim of unable to show nationalism or nationalistic spirit. For them, there is the only allegiance to religion. The religious tie of Islam is the strongest in humanity. There was no assurance that Pakistan would be fair to their non-Muslim minorities and vice versa.
The author was also worried that what was left of India could even disintegrate. Unlike proposed Pakistan with a universal language of Urdu (and religion), India was a potpourri of cultures and languages.
On top of all of the above, India had to deal with the bad foreign press. He quoted a 1927 novel 'Mother India' which was written by a Miss Mayo who was quick to paint a horrible picture of traditional Hindu way of life - child brides, widowhood etc. It created great dissatisfaction in India. The story was rewritten later and made into a blockbuster movie in 1957 to instil nationalism.
To conclude, in the epilogue, the author took the stand that it was inevitable that Partition should happen. Even though India had survived a cultural basket for generations, the creation of two nations was not pre-destined but a deliberate attempt to emphasise the difference when it was more beneficial to find commonalities.
Communal antagonism is present everywhere. We should learn to embrace each other's differences.
https://etouch-jayanthinathan.blogspot.com/2017/05/pakistan-or-partition-of-india-by-dr-br.html
https://medium.com/@PranavSJ/book-review-pakistan-or-the-partition-of-india-by-dr-babasaheb-ambedkar-80f75dc5d368
B.R. Ambedkar
Dr Ambedkar is often voted as the single most important icon of India, surpassing Gandhi and the members of the Nehru clan. He has been described as one of the most erudite people from the subcontinent. He is credited with the drafting of the Indian Constitution. One of his many books that seem to be ahead of its times and is especially relevant in these trying times of identity politics is this one. It was written at the tumultuous times when India was fighting a war for the British while at the same time, in the local front struggling for self-rule. Like two siblings fighting for the coveted candy from their parents, it was a time when Muslims were fighting for a separate nation. The Hindus wanted to keep it that way as it had been since time immemorial.
As early as 630AD, through the writings of the travelling Buddhist monk, Hsuan Tang (Xuanzang), the Indian subcontinent had been described to spread from Afghanistan. The 8th-century Indian philosopher, via his travels to the four corners of the country, had demarcated the extent of India. So, to carve out part of the country, for sentimental reasons, is considered sacrilege.
 |
Char Dham (4 Abodes) - Holy pilgrim sites
as described by Adi Shankaracharya from
Kerala who united the nation of India through
his travels and philosophical debates to all
four corners of the country.
|
By the time the British were ruling India, the dichotomy between the Hindus and Muslims were quite pronounced. The wealthy Muslims who prospered when the Mogul Emperor was ruling had all lost their influence. At about that time, the Ottoman Empire, the sick man of Europe, was no worthy representative of the past glory of the religion. There was a dire need amongst the elite group to reignite this.
The last time, the Hindus and Muslims join forces to combat a common enemy was during the Sepoy Mutiny in 1857. The Colonial Master must have noticed this and using their time-tested 'divide-and-rule' tactic, they managed to create distrust between the two sides. So, when Independence was fought for, the Muslims were fervent on distrusting the Hindus. They claimed that they would get fair treatment in a country dominated by a Hindu majority. Hence, the call for a Muslim nation called Pakistan began as early as the 1930s. The calls for Islamic union started with Khalifat movement in 1919. They were sympathisers of the Ottoman Empire but were disappointed when Turkey became a republic instead of re-establishing an Islamic Empire.
Babasaheb Ambedkar was in a unique position to be the best person to critically evaluate all the merits and demerits of creating a Muslimraj nation. He, having the brunt of the discriminations hurled upon for being a Dalit and a Hindu, knows too well about the downside of the ugly treatment of the backward castes in a Hindu community. Being one who delved in different religions (before his mass conversion later), he is also well versed in the Islamic scriptures. Armed with this knowledge, he went on to discuss whether Partition should happen and what are the dangers should Pakistan were not created, from a Hindu and Muslim perspective.
Ambedkar had a lot of criticisms about Gandhi's way of going about getting Swaraj from the British. His cooperation with the Khalifat Movement and his back-bending means of appeasing to their whims and fancies were frowned upon. His inactions after the Mopla Rebellion in Kerala and the use of his secret weapon, fasting, for political gain and Indian unity were admonished.
The Hindus, at least the ones in the upper crust (caste) of the society were mostly against Partition. Many wanted to maintain the status quo by clinging on to the civil service. Creation of a new nation would mean loss of their status. They were happy with Muslims living in India within pockets of Muslim majorities. They felt they would be fair.
The French-speaking and the English-speaking Canadian can live together. So can the English and the Boers in South Africa. And Switzerland has a harmonious mix of French, Italians and Germans in their populace. During the writing of the book, Czechoslovakia was living proof that two ethnicities, Czechs and Slovaks can come together as a country.But, at the same time, in the case of Czechoslovakia, trouble can start from within. Like the Sudeten German who engaged Hitler to march into their country.
Ambedkar accused the Muslim of unable to show nationalism or nationalistic spirit. For them, there is the only allegiance to religion. The religious tie of Islam is the strongest in humanity. There was no assurance that Pakistan would be fair to their non-Muslim minorities and vice versa.
The author was also worried that what was left of India could even disintegrate. Unlike proposed Pakistan with a universal language of Urdu (and religion), India was a potpourri of cultures and languages.
On top of all of the above, India had to deal with the bad foreign press. He quoted a 1927 novel 'Mother India' which was written by a Miss Mayo who was quick to paint a horrible picture of traditional Hindu way of life - child brides, widowhood etc. It created great dissatisfaction in India. The story was rewritten later and made into a blockbuster movie in 1957 to instil nationalism.
To conclude, in the epilogue, the author took the stand that it was inevitable that Partition should happen. Even though India had survived a cultural basket for generations, the creation of two nations was not pre-destined but a deliberate attempt to emphasise the difference when it was more beneficial to find commonalities.
Communal antagonism is present everywhere. We should learn to embrace each other's differences.
https://etouch-jayanthinathan.blogspot.com/2017/05/pakistan-or-partition-of-india-by-dr-br.html
https://medium.com/@PranavSJ/book-review-pakistan-or-the-partition-of-india-by-dr-babasaheb-ambedkar-80f75dc5d368
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Comments
Post a Comment