It is the year 1857. In a Bengali town called Barrackpore, a soldier named Mangal Pandey decides he has had enough of the British. One afternoon, he and his men go around town asking people to shoot down the first European they see. Around the same time, the soldiers learn another detail. To use a newly issued rifle, they had to bite the bullet cartridges. These cartridges, however, were greased with tallow and lard derived from beef and pork. They are enraged.
In the subsequent months, soldiers from both religions came together to fight the colonizers. Although the rebellion was ultimately unsuccessful, it merited a response from Queen Victoria. She promised better rights for Indians and dissolved the East India Company.
This unity between groups thought to be bitter enemies confused the British. After the dust from the mutiny settled, they realized that the only way to hold power over India is to sow discord. Charles Wood, the Secretary of State for India from 1859 to 1866, wrote, “We have maintained our power in India by playing off one part against the other and we must continue to do so. Do all you can, therefore to prevent all having a common feeling.”[1]
Hindu-Muslim animosity existed even before the Britishers set foot on India. Historians trace it back to riots in the 14th century and to the Maratha-Mughal wars of the late 17th century.[2][3] Still, most agree that the Britishers took advantage of the hate and amplified it to strengthen their hold over India. George Hamilton, another Secretary, says, “We should so plan educational text-books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened.” [1]
Hindus were fed exaggerations about Mughal atrocities. Muslims were scared into believing that “in a free India, they would lose their separate identity and be absorbed into the Hindu fold”. [4]
When they left, they partitioned the nation. Millions were displaced, and thousands died. Over the next seventy years, a very intense sense of hatred was cultivated in our hearts for each other. Wars were fought and won, without much change in the status quo. In a frantic arms race, both countries developed and stocked up on nukes. It became easy for politicians to blame some common enemy.
Both countries are more complicated than I could ever describe in a single essay. So, I'll focus on the main Hindu-Muslim conflict that once divided and continues to divide us. Pakistani historian Nasim Yousaf says, “Jinnah was misleading the Muslim community in order to go down in history as the saviour of the Muslims”. He points to the refusal of Muslims living in inner India to relocate as proof that most Muslims rejected partition.[5] Many Muslim leaders too were against partition, but Jinnah’s voice drowned them all out.
Initially, Jinnah was different. Sarojini Naidu famously called him an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. He was an unorthodox Muslim who rarely went to the mosque. He didn’t care for religious matters, but against him, the Congress Party led mostly by Hindus, grew in power and ignored what he deemed Muslim interests. He was booed off stage for calling Gandhi "Mr." instead of Mahatma.
He slowly began to lobby for separation, an idea he had opposed in his early years because he felt it was the only way to secure safety for Muslims. In his address to the first Pakistani assembly, Jinnah said, “You may belong to any religion, or caste, or creed—that has nothing to do with the business of the State.”[6] Soon after, he succumbed to tuberculosis. That state he promised was never built. In 1971, Pakistan split again and Bangladesh was born.
Shashi Tharoor argues that the idea of Pakistan itself relied on being “anti-India”. Pakistan spent most of its initial budgets developing a powerful military. Today, the state is a military puppet.[7] The ISI tries to undermine India by sponsoring proxies — terrorists who recruit, train and organize attacks. In that Islamic state, persecution and forced conversion of Hindus and other minorities became commonplace. Today, with almost nobody else left, the Sunnis fight the Shias.[8]
Although India fares better than Pakistan in these matters, we should only feel ashamed for comparing ourselves to Pakistan. Today, people who think India should’ve become a Hindu nation are in power. They are slowly working towards such a goal.
Violence against minorities is rising daily. Detention camps are being built for migrants. Kashmir has become a battleground where many factions fight for control, and civilians are treated as collateral damage. It has been a year since Kashmiris in India had access to high-speed internet. The valley has become an open-air prison. Even in major Indian cities, we see neighbourhoods populated exclusively by Muslims because they aren’t given houses elsewhere. Many hide their identities in public, for fear of reprisal. Consolidation of the Hindi-Hindu vote bank around BJP has made their votes irrelevant.
But despite the troubles they face, Indian Muslims still believe in the country. A survey done by C-Voter during the pandemic revealed Muslims still believe in most Indian institutions, even the armed forces. Their frustration is only towards the ruling party.[9] In 1948, Nehru said, “It is inevitable that India and Pakistan should draw closer to each other, or else they will come into conflict. There is no middle way, for we have known each other too long to be indifferent neighbours.”[10] Being indifferent to our neighbours is equal to being complicit in the sufferings of their peoples. Thus, as the most diverse of the three countries, the responsibility to take a step further and reconcile lies with India. One way to do that, many say, is by reunification.
The RSS wants Akhand Bharat. In contrast, Lashkar-e-Taiba and other terrorist outfits fight for Ghazwa-e-Hind, a holy conquest of the subcontinent. Indian reunification is neither of these things. Rather, it is the creation of a new secular state by uniting the territories of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. This idea has been advocated by thinkers on all sides since partition. Today, the only significant argument against reunification is that it’s not possible. There is no way politicians will agree to this. It is a pipe dream, many say. It is a pipe dream, but it isn’t undoable. The mere existence of India is proof that different peoples can come together. Many separatist movements that enjoyed local support in early India have since been driven obsolete by diplomacy and confidence-building measures. A man from Nagaland doesn’t speak the same language a Gujarati does. He doesn’t worship the same gods. What brings us together is the unique culture our ancestors have been a part of for millennia. It transcends religion, skin colour and language. Okay, say we can do it. Should we do it?
United, we can redirect resources that we spend fighting each other to dealing with other issues. Instead of breaking Kashmir apart, we can combine the occupied lands and make it a state in the new country where Hindus and Muslims can reside together. Lal Khan, a Pakistani activist and scholar, calls reunification a necessity as it would solve the Kashmir conflict.[11]
Combined, our growth towards becoming a developed nation will pick up speed. Instead of cosying up with imperial powers like the United States and China for help, we can ourselves become a dignified superpower and voice our concerns properly. A larger market means more trade and foreign investment. Terrorism will slowly die. Companies won’t be scared of investing in Kashmir anymore. Muslims would be represented better in government. The dwindling Hindu minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh would find security in their existence. It would be true unity in diversity.
Still not convinced? Imagine Indian batsmen and Pakistani bowlers in the same team. We would win every World Cup.
Before 1947, Sindh or Punjab were no different from, say, Bihar or UP. We ate similar foods, wore similar dresses and enjoyed similar movies and music. All northerners spoke the same language, and they still do. Lal Khan says our 5,000 years of shared history is too strong to be cleaved by partition.[12] The gods Hindus worship today were first consecrated somewhere along the Indus. Brahui, a language still spoken near the Iran-Pakistan border, has roots in ancient proto-Tamil. There are many Hindu teachings and legends that Muslims have incorporated into their beliefs and vice versa. Countless traditions that Indians follow irrespective of religion. I’ve seen Muslims in some South Indian temples. When I was a child and got scared, my mom took me to a dargah to get me blessed. Our culture is one of confluence. The arts and foods that we enjoy today would’ve never come into existence if not for this confluence.
Hate is loud. It’s easier to remember Aurangzeb than his brother Dara Shikoh, Shah Jahan's designated heir who spent most of his life trying to bring Islam and Hinduism together. However loud, the bigots are in the minority. It is up to us to ignore them. As of now, this idea remains a pipe dream. Markandey Katju, former Supreme Court judge and an advocate of reunification, says no concrete action can be taken until the idea becomes popular and warrants a referendum.[13] One can’t just open the borders and be done with it. Many compromises would have to be made, many needs accommodated. Many assessments have to be made in order to properly plan and design the new country. An ideal model to take inspiration from would be the EU, similar to the subcontinent in size and diversity. Total reunification is not the only way for us to achieve reconciliation. If we find a way, we would solve many crises at once. And even if we don’t, the process would lead us to discover we have much in common with our “enemies”. That itself is a huge step forward.
Jai Hind*.
References:
*According to Subash Chandra Bose's grand-nephew Sumantra Bose, a historian, the phrase is devoid of any religious tone.
Sumantra Bose (2018). Secular States, Religious Politics.
Syeda, Lubna Shireen (2014), Madani and Composite Nationalism, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University/Shodhganga, p. 207–211
Jawaharlal Nehru, Selected Speeches, Volume One, 1946–1949, p.334-338 Retrieved 08 August 2020
Image Credits:
A note about the author:
Chandrasekar is a final year student at SRM, Chennai. He likes to write about things he doesn't understand so he can learn more in the process.
Article 95 of Constitution of Pakistan & Vote of no-confidence against Prime