The human cost of Indian Partition

Indian partition “was one of the twentieth centuries darkest moments,” according to well respected historian, Yasmin Khan.

In her book, The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan, Yasmin shows the impact of this tragic period in history on the people of the subcontinent. She focuses on the lives that perished, the ensuing refugee crisis and the loss of a homeland for all parties.

This is a valuable perspective, as often the narrative focuses on politics and the key players including the British Empire, the Congress and the Muslim League. The devastation suffered by the people is a secondary, and is often engulfed by blame and hatred of the ‘other’. The communities that were affected, and continue to be affected deserve a voice for their pain without being drawn into nationalist rivalries. This is the added value that Yasmin’s work brings.

Yasmin’s argument is that Partition was not inevitable. It could have had a multitude of outcomes. She states: “The outcome was never a foregone conclusion.” Independence from the British was not delivered in a structured manner. In fact, she paints it as a big mass of confusion.

Yasmin says: “There was no straightforward exchange of the baton of government. The protracted, unruly end of empire in South Asia was a shock of epic proportions that destabilised life for millions of its inhabitants. In 1946, people felt entirely uncertain about what the future would deliver. It is not entirely implausible that South Asia could have spiralled into an even more devastating civil war, or that Pakistan could have failed to come into existence.”

The eventual creation of Pakistan was not what Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Founder of Pakistan), the Muslim League and its supporters envisaged, according to Yasmin and other prominent historians such as Ayesha Jalal. Yasmin states: “Crucially, though, anti-Congress feeling and heartfelt support for Jinnah and the League did not necessarily translate into support for Pakistan as we know it today with its current borders and boundaries. The Lahore Resolution, passed at the annual Muslim League meeting on 23 March 1940 and identified by Pakistanis as the foundation stone for their state, is not much of a guide.”

The disorderly process of Partition and lack of clarity is attributed to the British in this book. It is common knowledge that Partition was rushed as the British wanted to get out of India as quickly as possible. They left a trail of disaster and destruction behind them, and did not turn back. The consequence of which, the world is living with today especially the inhabitants and diaspora of South Asia. Yasmin stats: “The border would be devised from a distance; the land, villages and communities to be divided were not visited or inspected by the imperial map maker, the British judge, Cyril Radcliffe, who arrived in India on 8 July to carry out the task and stayed in the country only six weeks.”

The obvious question is, how could a man who knew nothing of the country and its people, divide a diverse subcontinent effectively in just 36 days? The answer is he could not, and the evidence is in the process and aftermath of Partition. The British also exacerbated the divide between Muslims and Hindus who had lived together more or less cohesively under Mughal rule. The tactics used here by the British are startlingly reminiscent of the divisive Brexit campaign.

I was touched by Yasmin’s very human approach of the deep suffering caused to all communities, regardless of religious or regional differences. Women especially were affected. A large number were kidnapped and trapped on the wrong side of the border, being forced to adopt a new identity and having to live the rest of their lives never to see their families again. They became known as the ‘abducted women’.

Ethnic cleansing was taking place between communities on a massive scale. The situation brought out the worst in some people. Yasmin states: “Sometimes this complicity was motivated by fear or by the pack mentality that emerges at times of acute danger.” The fervour of nationalism was disastrous at times. She adds that it was shocking to see that, “Committed nationalists could become complicit killers.”

Urdu poet Faiz Ahmad Faiz said that these two new nations had promised the moon, but had given their people a “leprous daybreak” instead.

However, when we focus on the violence, it is easy to forget how many people were actually protecting their neighbours and friends. “Against this bleak backdrop, many people carried out unusually brave, heroic and humanitarian acts. Some individuals saved the lives of neighbours, friends and strangers of different communities, even by risking their own lives,” says Yasmin.

Once the two separate nations started to settle down and establish themselves, the reality of the situation began to hit home. People found themselves often on the other side of the border from where they called ‘home’, or families had to make difficult choices to separate from each other, by picking India or Pakistan as their nation. Nobody realised at the time that they may never see their ‘home’ again, or even see family members. “The permanent separation of Indians and Pakistanis from each other, and their inability to cross the new border, was the most long-lasting and divisive aspect of Partition” states Yasmin. And this was a result of the entrenched hostilities and mistrust between the new nations of India and Pakistan.

My family was one of the ones separated in this way. My dad’s family stayed in India while he migrated to Pakistan. And now that we live in London, we still cannot get visas as British Pakistanis to visit my family in India due to this historic conflict.

Photograph from left to right: My maternal grandparents; My maternal grandmother with my mother, aunt and uncle

The hostilities between the two nations continue to be exacerbated by the way Partition is taught respectively in schools both in India and Pakistan. By focusing on the wrongdoings of the ‘other’, Yasmin argues that this limits the options for healing and moving forward. She strongly believes that if the nations focused on the devastation suffered by the people as a collective whole and commemorated the losses properly, both neighbours can start to move away from blaming each other.

All this suffering occurred, according to Yasmin, because people were duped into believing that Partition would mean freedom and a better life. In fact, many went through unbelievable tragedy to achieve this ‘liberation’, and continued to suffer afterwards. Sadly, the trauma consequently inflicted on a whole subcontinent’s people and their descendants is now embedded into their DNA. It could have all been avoided as Yasmin articulates, if this epic task was handled better by the British.

The British were colonisers and came to India for their own financial gain. They saw themselves as superior. The Indian people were collateral damage and paid a hefty price for British machinations. If the British had been more concerned for the people they ruled over for almost a hundred years, we may well have seen a different, less bloody, outcome.

Photograph: My family, now living in the diaspora