It isn't just an idle obsession. In the years that the hydra-headed, bloodthirty monster of partition ran amok, it claimed over million lives, rendered millions homeless , obliterated millions worth of property, drove millions to penniless, miserable and bitter refugeehood, besides leaving behind an enduring legacy of Hindu-Muslim antipathies to live down and an inimical, scheming neighbour barking and snapping at the north western frontiers. Costs ineluctably astronomical to be easily effaced from the collective memory.
Before the issue blew up Ambedkar, in 1945 , had clinically dissected the case for partition and laid it threadbare in this book. It is a lucid, scholarly presentation of Indian history and politics in its unvarnished communal aspects by an astute and intellectually fecund mind. Coming from an informed participant but only a bit player on the sidelines, somewhat of a lone wolf political agitator, its voice is exceptionally non-partisan , a virtue that in itself commends it to readers.
The book reads like a consummate lawyer's pleadings in the people's court. Only that the lawyer wears the mantle of a petitioner and defendant in turns - the muslim case for Pakistan and the Hindu case against it argued successively - and then dons the black robe and woolly wig of the judge to deliver the verdict- whatever the merits and demerits in the pleadings , 'if the muslims are bent on Pakistan it must be given to them.' The arguments and compulsions spelled out are compelling and erudite. A definitive dissertation that separates the grain from the chaff , and a veritable treasure trove for the seeker after truth.
There are copious references to other nations' handling of minority issues. For instance, he asks why in the three multi-racial, multi-cultural nations - South Africa, Canada and Switzerland- minorities did not seek partition? Because they had no fear of losing their nationality, distinct identity, ethos under one nation, one constitution, he answers. Against this he places Hindu Mahasabha leader, Savarkar's saying "the two nations( muslim and Hindu nations) shall dwell in one country and shall live under the mantle of one constitution: that the constitution shall be such that the Hindu nation shall be enabled to occupy a predominant position that is due to it and the Muslim nation made to live in the position of subordinate cooperation with the Hindu nation. " If he claims Hindustan as a Hindu nation, can he deny Pakistan as a Muslim nation, Ambedkar wonders. The Congress stance about minority rights was irrefutant, vague and indefinite; impliedly, Savarkar's was brutally frank, bold and definite - the difference between the two about as much as that between being polite and being acerbic. Neither assuaged the muslim psyche.
Beyond a historical record has the book any contemporary relevance? We still have a state where tinders of muslim nationalism have been aglow for over seventy years and fuelling separatist proclivities inspite of close army surveillance and monitoring - Kashmir. Are the causative factors that led to things spiralling out of control in 1940s casting their reflections in the present-day in that state ? The book can serve valuable thought foodies in that direction.
I will rest with a few quotes from the book. Let the reader judge whether it has any current relevance.
Savarkar 'exhorting' muslims, " If you come, with you ; if you dont , without you ; and if you oppose ,inspite of you."
Ambedkar, " the danger to a mixed composite state lies in the internal resurgence of nationalities which are fragmented, entrapped, suppressed and held against their will."
"Constitution like clothes must suit as well as please."
A stimulating read.
No comments:
Post a Comment