Anda di halaman 1dari 2

The Partition of India

The partition of India is a signal event in world history, not merely in the history of the
Indian subcontinent. British rule became established in eastern India around the mid-
eighteenth century, and by the early part of the nineteenth century, the British had
tightened their grip over considerable portions of the country. The suppression of the
Indian revolt of 1857-58 ushered in a period, which would last ninety years, when India
was directly under Crown rule. Communal tensions heightened in this period, especially
with the rise of nationalism in the early 20th century. Though the Indian National
Congress, the premier body of nationalist opinion, was ecumenical and widely
representative in some respects, Indian Muslims were encouraged, initially by the British,
to forge a distinct political and cultural identity. The Muslim League arose as an
organization intended to enhance the various -- political, cultural, social, economic, and
religious -- interests of the Muslims.

The bulk of the scholarly literature on the partition has focussed on the political processes
that led to the vivisection of India, the creation of Pakistan, and the "accompanying"
violence. Numerous people have attempted to establish who the "guilty" parties might
have been, and how far communal thinking had made inroads into secular organizations
and sensibilities. Scholarly attention has been riveted on the complex negotiations, and
their minutiae, leading to partition as well as on the personalities of Gandhi, Nehru,
Jinnah, Azad, Patel, and others, and a substantial body of literature also exists on the
manner in which the boundaries were drawn between India and Pakistan, on the western
and eastern fronts alike. (In general, however, the partition in the Punjab has received far
more scholarly attention than the Bengal partition.) There has been much speculation
about the role of the British in hastening the partition, and Gandhi’s inability to prevent it;
indeed, some Hindu ideologues have even suggested that, whatever his stated opposition
to the bifurcation of India on religious grounds, Gandhi is more properly viewed as the
‘Father of Pakistan’ rather than the ‘Father of the Indian nation’. Whatever the "causes"
of the partition, the brute facts cannot be belied: down to the present day, the partition
remains the single largest episode of the uprooting of people in modern history, as
between 12 to 14 million left their home to take up residence across the border. The
estimates of how many people died vary immensely, generally hovering in the 500,000 to
1.5 million range, and many scholars have settled upon the nice round figure of 1 million.
There is nothing nice or comforting about this somewhat agreed-upon figure, and it is
interesting as well that few scholars, if any, have bothered to furnish an account of how
they came to accept any estimate that they have deemed reasonable. We know only that
hundreds of thousands died: in South Asia, that is apparently the destiny of the dead, to
be unknown and unaccounted for, part of an undistinguished collectivity in death as in
life.

In recent years, the scholarly literature has taken a different turn, becoming at once more
nuanced as well as attentive to considerations previously ignored or minimized. There is
greater awareness, for instance, of the manner in which women were affected by the
partition and its violence, and the scholarship of several women scholars and writers in
particular has focussed on the abduction of women, the agreements forged between the
Governments of India and Pakistan for the recovery of these women, and the underlying
assumptions -- that women could scarcely speak for themselves, that they constituted a
form of exchange between men and states, that the honor and dignity of the nation was
invested in its women, among others -- behind these arrangements. Earlier generations of
scholars hardly bothered with oral histories, but lately there have been a number of
endeavors to collect oral accounts, not only from victims but on occasion even from
perpetrators. These accounts raise important questions: should the partition violence be
assimilated to the broader category of genocide so widely prevalent in the twentieth
century? or was the violence of the partition something very different, a kind of
uncalculated frenzy? was it really a time of insanity? can the partition justly be
differentiated from the bureaucratized machinery of death installed by the holocaust
perpetrated against the Jews? why do we insist on speaking of the violence as merely
"accompanying" the partition, as though it were almost incidental to the partition?

There was a time, not long ago, when scarcely any attention was paid to the partition.
Perhaps some forms of violence and trauma are better forgotten: the partition had no
institutional sanction, unlike many of the genocides of the twentieth century, and the
states of Pakistan and India cannot be held accountable in the same way in which one
holds Germany accountable for the elimination of Europe’s Jews or Soviet Russia
accountable for the death of millions of peasants in the name of modernization and
development. It is also possible to argue that the partition theme gets displaced onto other
forms of expression. But it can scarcely be denied that now, more than ever, it ha has
become necessary to adopt several different approaches to the partition, taking up not
only the questions covered in the more conventional historical literature -- the events
leading up to the partition, the ideology (indeed pathology) of communalism, and the
immediate political consequences of the partition -- but also the insights offered by film,
literature, memoirs, and contemporary political and cultural commentary. Of course, the
consequences of partition are there to be seen: India and Pakistan continue to be
embroiled in conflict, and Kashmir remains a point of contention between them. The
psychic wounds of partition are less easily observed, and we have barely begun to fathom
the myriad ways in which partition has altered the civilizational histories of South Asia. If
the partition appeared to some to vindicate the idea of the nation-state, to others the
partition might well represent the low point of the nation-state ideology. Will the people
of South Asia ever leave behind their partitioned selves?

Anda mungkin juga menyukai