Here is another view............from the Indian side...
One sentence i "liked" is about how KN wonders if there is a Agency or some group that wants perpetual hatred between Pak and India...he forgt to mention that there is one or two similar ones in Delhi too..he he he..and "distortion" of History also occurs regularly in Delhi...see how the Sikhs have to be on their toes to keep out such distortions from School Text Books...the GUILTY are on BOTH sides !!!
Read on..
Wagha border should not be a site of hatred.
I have returned from the Wagha-Amritsar border disheartened, not
because there is no lessening of martial posture of soldiers at the
sunset parade, but because of a new monstrosity that has come up
there. The Pakistan authorities have put up 10 reliefs, projecting
figures in carving on boards to show how Hindus and Sikhs had killed
and looted Muslims during partition. The reliefs have been displayed
in such a way that they are visible only from the Indian side. They
cannot be seen from the Pakistan side because the back of the reliefs
are just blank boards.
The scenes carved out are offensive in expression and deprave in
purport. They have been installed in the last two months, probably
because the voice of peace with India is gaining strength in Pakistan
and because nearly 50 people came to the border, the zero point, for
the first time last year to light the candles since independence six
decades ago.
I cannot make out why Islamabad -- there must be some agency in the
government -- has to devise ever-new ways to stoke fires of hatred.
True, there are mindset bureaucrats and vested interests to promote
hostility lest the candles of peace should ever dispel the darkness
of discord. But should the history be distorted? Already, the
official textbooks in Pakistan begin history from the advent of Islam
in India. Mohenjadaro or Taxila has no relevance. Some effort has
been initiated by a few intellectuals to correct the history but they
have met with little success.
Again, the reliefs put up at the border distort facts. Whatever has
been shown happened on both sides. Hindus and Sikhs were victims in
Pakistan and Muslims in India. It was the same sordid spectacle in
the newly-born countries, neither less in brutality nor more in
compassion. Women and children were the main targets.
If someone were to tell me that Hinduism is greater in generosity or
that Islam emits more love, I would beg to differ. I saw the
followers of the two religions killing in the name of faith. They
were raising slogans of Har Har Mahadav or Ya Ali while piercing
sword or spear into one another. Some incidents were captured in the
books which were published at that time. Aur insan mar gaya is the
famous book by Ramanand Sagar and Peshawar Express by the eminent
Urdu writer, Kishen Chander, to narrate events of how man dies when
the Satan in him awakes. Then there are Sadaat Hassan Manto's short
stories in Urdu that tell how the two communities touched the depth
of crime and callousness. Even the best of friends killed each other.
I myself travelled from my home town, Sialkot, to Delhi. I saw murder
and worse. There was no difference in cruelty or brutality. During
the journey, I saw the same pain-etched faces -- men and women with
their meagre belongings bundled on their heads and the fear-stricken
children following them. They had left behind their hearth, home,
friends and hopes.
The tragedy is too deep for words. But to convert it into a Hindu and
Muslim question is something pathetic. It was a heinous crime that
took the toll of 10 lakh people and uprooted two crore Hindus,
Muslims and Sikhs. For some biased members at Islamabad to plan and
depict in reliefs the tragedy of Muslims is meant to whip up hatred
against Hindus who were as much at the receiving end in Pakistan as
were Muslims in India.
I wish the reliefs had shown the examples of bravery and courage, how
Muslims in Pakistan saved thousands of Hindus as the Hindus did in
the case of Muslims in India. A study has been made under the
guidance of Ashish Nandy, a leading intellectual in India, and it
shows that 50 per cent of targeted victims were saved by the two
communities on either side.
Nothing could be more futile than an argument about who was
responsible for the partitioning of the subcontinent. With the
sequence of events stretching back for over six decades, such an
exercise can only be an academic distraction. But it is clear that
the differences between Hindus and Muslims had become so acute by the
beginning of the forties that something like the partition had become
inevitable. That Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations made
them increasingly distant to each other.
For those who still regret the division, I can only say that the
British could have probably kept the subcontinent united if they had
been willing to ladle out more power in 1942 when Sir Stafford Cripps
tried to reconcile the aspirations of the people of India with his
limited brief. The Congress Party could also have done it if it had
accepted in 1946 the Cabinet Mission proposals of a centre with three
subjects -- Foreign Affairs, Defence and Communications -- and zones
with provincial autonomy. The Muslim League could have stopped
relations from snapping if it had not resorted to Direct Action in
Calcutta on August 16, 1946. That led to what is known as Great
Killing when 5,000 people died.
But the history's ifs are at best hypothetical and at worst
subjective. Partition was like the Greek tragedy. All saw what was
happening. Still they could do nothing to check it. The climate in
the country had become too polluted to escape the carnage and the
migration that came in the wake of independence on the night of
August 14-15. The speech on August 11, 1947, by Quaide Azam Mohammad
Ali Jinnah, a title given by Mahatma Gandhi, that you were either
Pakistanis or Indians and that religion had nothing to do with
politics could not assuage the parochial feelings which had been
advanced to justify the constitution of Pakistan. The mood of
fanatics in that country can be judged from the fact that they
suppressed the speech.
Has partition served the purpose of the Muslims? I do not know.
During my trips to that country, I have heard people say that they
are happy that at least they have "some place" where they feel
secure, free of "Hindu domination" or "Hindu aggressiveness." Imagine
the influence that their numbers -- their votes -- could have
commanded in the undivided subcontinent! They would have been nearly
one-third of the total population.
The reliefs at the border only widen the gulf between the two
countries. Instead of apportioning the blame of partition, it would
be far better to deal with the enmity and hatred that has been the
fallout, keeping the two countries on tenterhooks.
Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.
