Tuesday, May 02, 2006javascript:; http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2006\05\02\story_2-5-2006_pg3_2
COMMENT: The partition of India and the Hindu Right —Ishtiaq Ahmed
Individual Hindus as well as Muslims had talked of separate nationhood since the late 19th century but the first notable demand for the division of India on a religious basis was made by Hindus in the Punjab in the 1920s. Among prominent Muslims the first to demand a separate Muslim state was Allama Iqbal
Historians and social scientists continue to debate the causes that led to the partition of India. Not surprisingly, the blame game has focused upon the two main antagonists — the Indian National Congress and the All-India Muslim League. A clash-of-personalities theory has also been offered by scholars emphasising the ambitions of Nehru and Jinnah coupled with Gandhi’s inability to take a clear stand on important issues as the core reasons for the subcontinent’s division. Some other writers identify the British imperial policy of divide-and-rule as the crucial factor behind the partition. In this article, I shall assess the role the Hindu Right played in deepening divisions between Hindus and Muslims, thus setting the stage for the partition drama.
It is impossible to fix a particular date when the Hindu Right made its political debut, but it surely began to organise in reaction to Gandhi’s support of the Khilafat Movement, which the Indian Muslims had launched to protest the dismemberment of the Ottoman Caliphate after World War I.
In 1923 the Hindu Mahasabha (founded 1915) leader Vinayak Damodar Sarvarkar threw up the idea of “Hindutva” — an ethno-cultural concept purporting to bring all Hindus into a “communitarian” fold. Non-Hindu Indians were urged to accept a Hindu cultural identity and declare that their prime loyalty was to India.
Individual Hindus as well as Muslims had talked of separate nationhood since the late 19th century but the first notable demand for the division of India on a religious basis was made by Hindus in the Punjab in the 1920s. Among prominent Muslims the first to demand a separate Muslim state was Allama Iqbal, who took up the issue at the annual session of the Muslim League in Allahabad in 1930. Only a year earlier, the Indian National Congress at Lahore had demanded independence for an undivided India.
It is important to point out that until the mid-1930s separatist ideas from both Hindu and Muslim sources remained marginal and nobody took much notice of them. The 1930 (Allahabad) session of the Muslim League, for example, was so poorly attended that the organisers had to run around town to bring people to meet the quorum requirement (75) to adopt the resolutions.
The stage for broad-based electoral politics was set by the Government of India Act of 1935. The 1936 elections resulted in a victory for Congress in six provinces and for regional parties elsewhere. The Muslim League did very poorly in the Muslim-majority provinces. The Congress then blundered by not extending a generous hand towards the Muslim League.
It was in these circumstances that Madhav Saashiv Gowalkar, the leader of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS, founded in 1925) made a most provocative statement in 1938: “The foreign races in Hindustan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language — [they] must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no ideas but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture... or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment not — even citizen’s rights (We. Our Nationhood Defined, Delhi, 1993, pp 55-56).
The RSS adopted a semi-military style of organisation to instil “martial arts” among Hindus. Both the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS looked upon Muslims as the main threat to Indian unity. Conversions to Islam — as well as Christianity — were viewed with dismay. The Hindu Right held in admiration Hilter’s Nazi ideology and particularly liked the idea of purging Germany of Jews. It wanted to similarly rid India of the Muslim and Christian menace. Gowalkar writes:
“To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races — the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by.” (Ibid, p 43)
Fascistic ideas gained ground among some Muslim groups too. Military drill and strict discipline were introduced by the militant Khaksar movement founded in the Punjab by Allama Inayatullah Khan Mashraqi in 1931. Ideologically, the Khaksars wanted to establish an Islamic state all over India. In practice, they remained anti-British rather than anti-Hindu or -Sikh.
Another radical Islamic movement, the Majlis-e-Ahrar, founded in 1929 in the Punjab was loudly anti-British and a close ally of the Congress. It had a fairly large membership throughout the Punjab. The Ahrar never supported the division of India. Also, the Deoband ulema remained loyal to the Congress.
The Muslim League’s demand for a separate state assumed a mass character only in 1940 when the Lahore resolution was passed in an open public meeting. Thereafter the march towards a separate state became the main goal of the Muslim League which till 1936 had been no more than a party of the Muslim gentry seeking protection of their interests in a decentralised but united India.
The only party that remained committed to a secular, democratic and united India was the Congress. When India did break up finally in mid-August 1947 the Hindu Right started blaming not only the Muslims but also Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru for the “vivisection of the motherland”. It wanted to drive all Muslims out of India. The near anarchy prevailing in those days made possible a genocide or ethnic cleansing of the Muslim minority in Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat and southern India where their presence was limited to very small numbers.
At that historical juncture, Gandhi, Nehru and other decent leaders of the Congress and the Communist Party became a bulwark against the Hindu fascists so that the latter’s wish to inflict on the Muslims of India the fate Hitler had imposed on the Jews did not materialise. During the partition riots the RSS was complicit in terrorism against Muslims all over India.
The author is an associate professor of political science at Stockholm University. He is the author of two books. His email address is Ishtiaq.Ahmed@statsvet.su.se
COMMENT: The partition of India and the Hindu Right —Ishtiaq Ahmed
Individual Hindus as well as Muslims had talked of separate nationhood since the late 19th century but the first notable demand for the division of India on a religious basis was made by Hindus in the Punjab in the 1920s. Among prominent Muslims the first to demand a separate Muslim state was Allama Iqbal
Historians and social scientists continue to debate the causes that led to the partition of India. Not surprisingly, the blame game has focused upon the two main antagonists — the Indian National Congress and the All-India Muslim League. A clash-of-personalities theory has also been offered by scholars emphasising the ambitions of Nehru and Jinnah coupled with Gandhi’s inability to take a clear stand on important issues as the core reasons for the subcontinent’s division. Some other writers identify the British imperial policy of divide-and-rule as the crucial factor behind the partition. In this article, I shall assess the role the Hindu Right played in deepening divisions between Hindus and Muslims, thus setting the stage for the partition drama.
It is impossible to fix a particular date when the Hindu Right made its political debut, but it surely began to organise in reaction to Gandhi’s support of the Khilafat Movement, which the Indian Muslims had launched to protest the dismemberment of the Ottoman Caliphate after World War I.
In 1923 the Hindu Mahasabha (founded 1915) leader Vinayak Damodar Sarvarkar threw up the idea of “Hindutva” — an ethno-cultural concept purporting to bring all Hindus into a “communitarian” fold. Non-Hindu Indians were urged to accept a Hindu cultural identity and declare that their prime loyalty was to India.
Individual Hindus as well as Muslims had talked of separate nationhood since the late 19th century but the first notable demand for the division of India on a religious basis was made by Hindus in the Punjab in the 1920s. Among prominent Muslims the first to demand a separate Muslim state was Allama Iqbal, who took up the issue at the annual session of the Muslim League in Allahabad in 1930. Only a year earlier, the Indian National Congress at Lahore had demanded independence for an undivided India.
It is important to point out that until the mid-1930s separatist ideas from both Hindu and Muslim sources remained marginal and nobody took much notice of them. The 1930 (Allahabad) session of the Muslim League, for example, was so poorly attended that the organisers had to run around town to bring people to meet the quorum requirement (75) to adopt the resolutions.
The stage for broad-based electoral politics was set by the Government of India Act of 1935. The 1936 elections resulted in a victory for Congress in six provinces and for regional parties elsewhere. The Muslim League did very poorly in the Muslim-majority provinces. The Congress then blundered by not extending a generous hand towards the Muslim League.
It was in these circumstances that Madhav Saashiv Gowalkar, the leader of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS, founded in 1925) made a most provocative statement in 1938: “The foreign races in Hindustan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language — [they] must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no ideas but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture... or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment not — even citizen’s rights (We. Our Nationhood Defined, Delhi, 1993, pp 55-56).
The RSS adopted a semi-military style of organisation to instil “martial arts” among Hindus. Both the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS looked upon Muslims as the main threat to Indian unity. Conversions to Islam — as well as Christianity — were viewed with dismay. The Hindu Right held in admiration Hilter’s Nazi ideology and particularly liked the idea of purging Germany of Jews. It wanted to similarly rid India of the Muslim and Christian menace. Gowalkar writes:
“To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races — the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by.” (Ibid, p 43)
Fascistic ideas gained ground among some Muslim groups too. Military drill and strict discipline were introduced by the militant Khaksar movement founded in the Punjab by Allama Inayatullah Khan Mashraqi in 1931. Ideologically, the Khaksars wanted to establish an Islamic state all over India. In practice, they remained anti-British rather than anti-Hindu or -Sikh.
Another radical Islamic movement, the Majlis-e-Ahrar, founded in 1929 in the Punjab was loudly anti-British and a close ally of the Congress. It had a fairly large membership throughout the Punjab. The Ahrar never supported the division of India. Also, the Deoband ulema remained loyal to the Congress.
The Muslim League’s demand for a separate state assumed a mass character only in 1940 when the Lahore resolution was passed in an open public meeting. Thereafter the march towards a separate state became the main goal of the Muslim League which till 1936 had been no more than a party of the Muslim gentry seeking protection of their interests in a decentralised but united India.
The only party that remained committed to a secular, democratic and united India was the Congress. When India did break up finally in mid-August 1947 the Hindu Right started blaming not only the Muslims but also Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru for the “vivisection of the motherland”. It wanted to drive all Muslims out of India. The near anarchy prevailing in those days made possible a genocide or ethnic cleansing of the Muslim minority in Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat and southern India where their presence was limited to very small numbers.
At that historical juncture, Gandhi, Nehru and other decent leaders of the Congress and the Communist Party became a bulwark against the Hindu fascists so that the latter’s wish to inflict on the Muslims of India the fate Hitler had imposed on the Jews did not materialise. During the partition riots the RSS was complicit in terrorism against Muslims all over India.
The author is an associate professor of political science at Stockholm University. He is the author of two books. His email address is Ishtiaq.Ahmed@statsvet.su.se
