“I would rather have every village in India go up in flames than keep a single British soldier in India a moment longer than necessary,” said Jawaharlal Nehru to Louis Mountbatten’s suggestions. This was Nehru’s declaration at the time when India was about to get her freedom. Such was the depth of feelings. One’s future is determined by the things one picks. The first prime minister of the nation may have been more committed to seeing India free from the British even at the expense of witnessing every hamlet in the nation burn to the ground. Millions died as the country burned due to Partition, which saw one of the largest human migrations ever recorded, with millions of Muslims from India migrating to West and East Pakistan, and millions of Hindus and Sikhs migrating to India. The number of fatalities is unknown. Anyone’s choice of numbers reveals more about their political preferences than it does about the truth. Who was responsible for such a colossal loss of lives?
The extent of the Partition horrors has been widely attributed to Lord Mountbatten. However, is it possible to absolve Nehru, Jinnah, and even Gandhi of the blame? When Mountbatten was still working out the specifics of his strategy, Gandhi informed Mountbatten that he had two options: There would either be another period of British rule or a slaughter. “What ought to I do in that case?” Mountbatten had questioned. Gandhi’s response was: “You must face the bloodbath and accept it.”
Could Gandhi and Nehru avert the massacre? No one can be sure as things were different then. Considering that the Partition is one of the most horrific events that took place in the world at that time, is it not imperative that this tragedy of humanity be recorded, comprehended, and read in its entirety for the benefit of the next generation? The most prominent criticism of this suggestion is that it serves no purpose to remember such old injustices at this time; opening old wounds serves no purpose. The past has long gone and shall never return. But as Elie Wiesel, Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor, famously said: “To forget would be not only dangerous but offensive; to forget the dead would be akin to killing them a second time.”
The post-Partition generations of India, with the same rationale and indifference, have killed once again those people who died in the process of division.
There are many such tales surrounding Partition—like how amid the pogroms in Punjab and Bengal, Mountbatten was busy celebrating his 25th wedding anniversary, with all the major leaders of the Congress and Muslim League in attendance and happily raising their wine goblets. Another one goes that Radcliffe fled to London on August 17 after hastily drawing the lines of Partition and then burned all the Partition papers there.
But for the first time since India’s Independence, Partition was recalled, and the prime minister paid tribute to all those who suffered that dreadful period of time in Indian history, complimenting their tenacity and resilience. Partition Horrors Remembrance Day serves as a reminder that history should not be forgotten but rather learned from.
As time passes, the direct witnesses of Partition are dwindling. Remembering the horrors during Partition helps preserve this historical memory for future generations, ensuring that the lessons learned from this history continue to resonate for years to come.
There have been serious accusations that need to be examined in all contexts. Pushing the muck under the carpet has helped the altered narrative flourish and has deepened the communal chasm. It’s imperative that all parties speak up and explain the true significance of Partition Horrors Remembrance Day. Blood stains are not easy to remove for they remain etched forever in the psyche of those who have suffered.
The story of Partition and the transfer of power is incredibly thrilling, intriguing and full of conspiracies. When millions of people were sacrificed for the leaders’ gain, successive governments were unable to respond in a way that was proper. This may be why Partition has resulted in such a powerful corpus of fictional literature in India and Pakistan and such woefully inadequate historical narratives in films. The reason for this was probably because there was inadequate data due to the government’s fear of being unmasked. But remembering the horrors can contribute to the healing and reconciliation process for families and communities that were directly affected. It provides an opportunity for open dialogue and understanding.
India has stopped accepting the diversity of its own thoughts and has begun to put people in boxes based on their individual ideologies. This is because of the hangover of Partition, which still lingers. As a result, a profound sense of loss has set in. India’s diverse religious landscape has stories of interfaith harmony and coexistence that provide important examples of unity in diversity. If India wants to retain its cultural kaleidoscope, it must correct its historical inaccuracies first.
We all can learn from Nehru when he made three predictions to a journalist before Partition: One, India will never be a Dominion. Two, there will never be a Pakistan. And three, When the British go, there won’t be any communal trouble in India. When the same journalist came back to Delhi just after Partition to interview him again, Nehru brought it up himself, saying wistfully, “Wasn’t I wrong.”
Nehru had the guts to accept his being wrong. We hope his successors also have the guts to acknowledge their errors. If India wants to heal from her wounds of Partition, the best medicine is to accept the existence of the wound first. No doctor can heal a scar until the scar is acknowledged. It is high time as we cannot afford to go wrong now.
Anurag Punetha
Senior Journalist and Media Head, Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts