Dr. Manju Lalwani Pathak

Sindhis are the linguistic minority of Indo-Aryan group in free India. Every minority study has dominant political resonance. Sindhis too have this kind of concern; hence this article is grounded on the past political aspects of Sindhi community. Sindhis are known as migrant community and labeled refugee after partition of India while this community belong to the oldest civilization of the world. One should ask why Sindhis left their motherland; settled in new places of free India and were called refugees?

Sindh was the origin state of Sindhi community. In Sindh Muslim were in majority and Hindu (all Hindus were Sindhis) were in minority. Power politics forced them to migrate from Sindh to other parts of free India because entire Sindh was given to Muslim Community to form their new country due to Muslim majority. This research explains the series of incidence which became responsible for migration of Sindhis during independence struggle.

History is a grim reminder that till 1906 there was no animosity between Hindus and Muslims.

Both were united at social ground for their economic need. Sindhis were landlords. On one hand Muslims used to cultivate and Sindhi Hindus used to supervise and sell their grains. On other hand the artisan Muslims used to produce the artifacts and Sindhis used to trade these products in the markets. This symbiotic economy had made the cordial relation among them.

In 1906, Lord Minto, then Governor General of India, encouraged Muslims for communal representation. In this year Muslim Representative Committee met Lord Minto in Shimla, they asked for separate representation for Muslims in politics. In the same year a “Muslim Sammelan” was held in Dhaka with the help of British Govt. All India “Muslim League” was also founded in 1906. From that day to 1947 the history of Muslims of India became the history of Muslim League. During the same period, in 1906 Dr. Choithram, P. Gidwaani, Acharya Kriplani and Jairam, from Sindhi Community represented Sindh for Quit India Movement and Swadeshi movement in Sindh.

In 1908, Virumal Begraj as active Sindhi leader set up a Swadeshi store in Sukkur, a town of Sindh. For this audacity he was sent to the imprisonment for five years in 1909 mentioned in reported Malkani’s book. It shows the interest of Sindhis in the independence of their motherland.

In 1909, British Govt. gave a proposal for the rights of representatives of Muslims in politics on the basis of ratio of their population but when the proposal was passed as “1909 Act”, the ratio for Muslims was more than their population by the efforts of Muslim League. Hindus were surprised. Dr. D.N. Sen stated that with the foundation of Muslim League the cleavage between the Hindu and Muslims deepened.”

In 1910, Acharya J.B. Kriplani and Prof. N. R. Malkani, Sindhi writers, set up the Bramhchary Ashram in Hyderabad (Sindh). This Ashram became the center of patriotic activities during independence struggle.

In 1912, Dr. Choithram arranged money for Rashbehari (a revolutionary of freedom movement) and sent him to Amritsar on way to Japan via Afganistan as mentioned by Dr. Eugene D’sauza in his writing. It signifies that in Sindh, Sindhis had supported congress in independence struggle.

In 1913, Jinnah joined in the Muslim League and subsequently there was great change in direction of Muslim League. During this year, Lord Minto and Mr. Beck, Principal of M.A.O. College, Aligarh, incited the Muslims by their communal speech about their rights regarding transfer of political power by Congress leader to Hindus not Muslims.

In 1914, in line of British politics, publications of Mr. Beck aggravated the situation. Aligarh Institute Gazette, Central National Mohammedan Association and Mohammedan Foundation of encouraged Muslims for separation from Hindus.

In 1916, compromise made under Luna Act between Hindu and Muslims was the result of diplomacy of the British. Perhaps many Muslims and even Gandhiji could not understand this British policy.

In 1917, N.R. Malkani was professor in G.B.B. college of Muzaffarpur when Gandhi stayed with him in his home for a few days on way to Champaran. That day was the turning point in Malkani’s life. He resigned from his job, till independence he worked for Congress. The way of Malkani can be considered as the evidence that Sindhis used to believe in Gandhism way to get independence.

1918, Pandit Malviya visited Hyderabad (Sindh), K.R. Malkani and his group welcomed him in Sanskrit. Prof. Kripalani also resigned from G.B.B. college of Muzaffarpur in Bihar and he left a sum of Rs.2000 with Prof. N.R. Malkani for assistance to revolutionaries. This gesture shows keen interest to support in independence of own country.

In 1919, Sindh started publishing the daily newspaper ‘Hindu’, to mobilize patriotic public opinion.

In 1920, when Tilak visited Sindh, young Sindhis men pulled his carriage; women for the first time came out of their seclusion and offered aarti to him. Tilak observed the enthusiasm among Sindhis; he wrote in his paper ‘Kesary’ about Sindhis, “If every province had Sindhi men like Dr. Choithram, we could break the chains of bondage in no times.” The words of Tilak highlight the spirit among Sindhis for independence and their faith on Hindu leaders.

In 1923, “Hindu Mahsabha” was formed by pro-congress members in Sindh. Muslims were disturbed. They started believing that their religion, language and culture could not be safe in a united India where the Hindus were bound to possess a predominant position because of their large number written by R.N. Aggrawaal.

In 1924, Dr. Choithram, Sindhi Freedom Fighter, (1889-1957) was a life-long public worker who started serving the country. He sacrificed everything for the cause of the country. During this year, many Sindhi women leaders such as Ganga Behn (wife of Acharya Gidwani) Kiki (Behn, sister of Kripalani), Ambi Khilnani (daughter-in-law of Kauromal), Ambi Khilnani, Ganga Gidwaani and Kumari Jethi Sipahimalani played a significant role in the public life of Sindh socially to spread freedom spirit among women. Apart from this, Virumal Bejraj, Jairamdas, Hemu Kalani, A.T. Gidvani, Ghanshyam Sivdasani, Jamshedmal helped in making ground for the freedom movement.

In 1927, the Muslim League was fist headed by Sir Syed Ali Emam and then by Aga Khan, later joined by Jinnah which one cannot ignore in Indian politics. The Muslim League was divided into two groups after Jinnah took charge. Aga Khan Group and Congress wanted National

Independence with National Unity whereas Jinnah group wasted the National independence on the condition of separate country for Muslims. The two nourished diverse views.

In 1928, the policies framed by Motilal Nehru were the example of liberal attitude of Congress towards Muslim League. He gave a “Neharu Report” to secure the communal representation on the basis of minorities. Jinnah did not accept the proposal given by Hindu leaders.

In the same year, Jinnah built his “Fourteen Points” and cleared two points in his report: first 2/3 reservation of Muslims in all Mantri Madals and second Sindh should be separated from Bombay. Including these two points, there were many other point which did not match with the Congress principles. Only to save the country from communal problems, congress accepted his report. But many other congress leaders criticized the acceptance of Jinnah’s report.

Sindhis were Pro-Congress

They were also surprised as to why congress leaders accepted to separate Sindh from Bombay. They were worried about their safety because if Sindh is to be separated from Bombay Presidency, Sindhi identity would not be safe amidst Muslim majorities as Sindhis were religious minority with only 25 per cent of the total population in Sindh.

From 1930-1932, Satyagrah movement was made a huge success in Sindh by Sindhis. Also for first time women came out of the four walls of their homes to join processions. To see the independence spirit among Sindhis, Gandhiji stated in his prayer meeting, “I have not been to Sindh for many years… but at one time I used to call myself a Sindhi.”

In 1937, the effects of the elections gave a significant tern to Muslim League when congress achieved great success in these elections and congress refused to make Mantri Mandal with Muslim League.

In 1938, Jinnah became head of Muslim League and he created pro-Muslim fervor among young Muslims in India for separate country for Muslims.

In 1939, in the next step, Jinnah announced to celebrate Day of Deliverance on 22nd December 1939. The statements and activities of Muslim League brought the air of partition in united India and showed Jinnah’s wish.

One side Hindu political leaders were fighting with British leader for freedom and other side they were facing the problem of Jinnah’s repeated demand for a „separate state‟. At the same time they had to take care of Gandhiji’s wish to obtain Swaraj by non-violence with Hindu-Muslim unity. But there was differences of opinion between Hindu leaders too as Subhash

Chandra Bose had opined that Swaraj cannot only be obtained by non-violence.

In 1940, Jinnah successfully passed the proposal of demand of new country on March 23, 1940 during a session held at Lahore headed by Jinnah, he stated that According to geographical distribution, Muslim Majority states should be formed Pakistan mentioned by Dr. K.L. Muglani in his publication. Neharuji went to attend that meeting and gave his vote for partition of the country because he wanted to be free from British dependency at any cost.

Here it is necessary to note that congress supported of unity of all the communities with its liberalism. But Hindu extremists gave the place to Muslims for the demand of Pakistan. And statement given Indian political leader also encouraged Muslims for separation like Nehru said about Muslims that if they are forced to stay in India, no progress and planning will be possible mentioned by Dr. K.L. Muglani,

In 1942, and by the end of 1943, Muslim League formed their government in Assam, Sindh and Bengal. Muslim League members increased from 1330 in 1927 to more than 100000 in 1940.

In 1944 December, Shree Rajgopalachari prepared a plan as „C.R. Formula‟ which stated that Pakistan would be given to Muslims after independence on the basis of Muslims majority but before that Muslims would cooperate with congress for Quit India Movement. This plan had an idea of „population exchange‟ on the basis of wishes of both the communities. Either Hindus can stay with Muslim majority or Muslims and stay with Hindu majority in free India.

Muglani stated that Gandhiji accepted this plan in state of helplessness but after 14 discussions between Gandhji and Jinnah, even finally Jinnah could not be convinced and he refused it.

In 1945, in general elections, it was clear that no one could prevent the division of the country because congress won all seats except Muslim majority seats whereas the Muslim League won the entire constituencies they represented. It is important to mention here that Sindh seat was won by Muslim League as Muslims were in majority. The result of election was shaken to the Sindhis.

In 1946, Muslim League won only 73 seats out of 296 seats in the election of cabinet mission plan for constitution committee. Jinnah was very disappointed. On 16th August 1946 he declared that by „Direct Action‟ they would create Pakistan. There after communal riots erupted in many places especially in Karachi. In these riots about 7000 citizens were killed including 250 Muslims leaving the country in turmoil.

Since India and Pakistan were being divided on the basis of Hindu and Muslim religion and Sindh had majority of Muslims why then the Hindu leaders did not feel it necessary to involved Hindus of Sindh in taking their opinion whether they wanted to remain in Sindh or they like to come in free India because they actively participating in independence struggle at great extent.

Sindhi freedom fighters found themselves helpless. After C.R. Formula, Kriplani suggested to Nehru for a voluntary exchange of population of Hindus from Pakistan because he wanted to bring all Sindhis to free India as Sindh was decided to give to form Pakistan on the basis of Muslim majority and they were in minority.

Kripalani‟s plea for a voluntary exchange of population was brushed aside saying by Hindu political leaders that it will take long time. Atley declared that before June 1948, England will transfer the political power to Hindu and Muslims. Sindhis were shocked with this indifference of Hindu leaders‟ behavior towards them as they could not ever think after independence they could become outsiders and refugees within a night in their own country for which day night they are contributing.

In 1947, the then Governor General Mountbatten observed that there is no option but to resolve the problem of the country by partition. Very tactfully he convinced the leaders of both the religions.

On 3rd June 1947 under the “Mountbatten Plan” it was stated that the country would be divided into two states Bharat and Pakistan and Hindus and Muslims majority will decide whether to be a part of India or Pakistan. In Sindh, government policy of political discrimination came with the judicial decision against the Hindus. The post of city Magistrate in Karachi was abolished just because a Muslim could not be appointed published in Free Press Journal (14thJuly, 1947). Social discrimination also created tension among Sindhis.

India became free on 15th August, 1947

Sindhis were totally confused because many Sindhi never wanted to leave their birth land Sindh but riots, insecurity and discrimination policy forced them to migrate in one hand, on other had they accounted only 25 per cent of population of Sindh but 40 per cent of movable and non-movable property was possessed by Sindhis in Sindh mentioned by Dr. Subhadra Anand. But Pakistan was formed on the basis of Muslim majority, they were Hindus, on that basis they thought they should leave the place and long processes of migration started from both the borders of Pakistan and free India.

CONCLUSION:

Evidences provided in the paper the facts that from 1906 to 1947 Sindhis were contributing to independence struggle of India being a Hindu but their participation was ignored.

It would be not wrong to say that Lord Minto was a person who founded the plinth of Pakistan to accept the Muslim representation in politics and Mr. Beck constructed the walls of Pakistan by his contribution in Muslim League.

__________________

Courtesy: Sindh Welfare Society, a registered organization based out of Lucknow/India, working for Empowerment of Sindhi Community through motivating and assisting Sindhi Youth to appear for Civil Services Exams taking Sindhi Language as a medium. 

Dr. Manju Lalwani Pathak, Department of Economics, Smt. C.H.M. College, Ulhasnagar, University of Mumbai, Maharashtra.

The post Political background behind migration of Sindhi community first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Sifra Lentin

The approximately one million refugees who came by sea to Bombay, leaving behind home and property, carried with them memories of Sindh, its cities (Hyderabad, Shikarpur) and its vibrant capital, Karachi, once considered Bombay’s twin. The reasons for the strong similarity between Bombay and Karachi were many. Both cities were once joined by a common colonial history – Sindh was part of Bombay Presidency from 1847-1936 and governed from its island capital city – economy, trading communities and a cosmopolitan milieu.

Karachi, Sindh: a gateway to prosperity

Karachi city and its port were as much a colonial creation (though 200 years later) as the city of Bombay and its docks were. If Bombay was the gateway to India, Karachi port and harbor were, geopolitically, the gateway for the British to Central Asia and Afghanistan. The Talpur (Balochi) rulers of Sindh were willing collaborators in the Malwa opium trade that bypassed the tariffs of Bombay Presidency by being conducted via caravans from Malwa (in Central India) through the Thar desert into Sindh, and by sea from Karachi to the Portuguese ports of Diu, Daman and Goa, before proceeding to China. Malwa opium was cheaper and outsold British-controlled Bengal or Patna opium in the Chinese markets. Many of Bombay’s successful 19th-century merchants were actively engaged in the Malwa trade, transiting through Karachi to Portuguese ports, where their country ships lay anchored to load the precious cargo.

Karachi came under British rule in 1839, followed by the region of Sindh in 1842: by 1847, Sindh had become part of the Presidency of Bombay. It is from this period onwards that the fluencies between the two cities began, with one big difference: Karachi port soon turned into the preferred destination for the grain trade of Punjab, and, in fact, for trade in North India, in general.

This triggered the growth of financial institutions, markets, the establishment of a Royal Indian Navy base at Manora Island, south of and part of an archipelago sheltering the natural harbor of Karachi, and social institutions, such as clubs, all of which was almost parallel to Bombay’s own growth. Most importantly, Karachi too acquired a mix of trading communities. There were Parsis, Jews, Armenians, Christians, Bhatias, Banias, Marwaris, Memons, Bohras, Khojas, along with local Sindhi traders, like the Sindhi Lohanas – both Hindu and Muslim – who dominated its cotton trade.

In an article, ‘Sassoons and the Doongursees: a Relationship’, Pushpa D. Bhatia (nee Doongursee), recalls how her grandfather Seth Doongursee, broke away from the family business in Bombay to start something on his own in Karachi. The Doongursees in Bombay were the sole cotton brokers and mukaddams for the E.D. Sassoon Mills, whose personnel naturally appointed someone they knew – Seth Doongursee – to handle their import and export trade at Karachi in 1901. In much the same way, other companies, businesses, and banks, headquartered in Bombay, had also opened offices in Karachi because of its growing commercial importance

With the shadow of Partition looming large – it was to be reality after Lord Mountbatten’s announcement on 3 June 1947 – many immigrant trading communities from Bombay Province who had made Karachi and Hyderabad (Sindh) their home, began sending their families back. What was moved out too, by early July the same year, was an estimated sum of Rs.200 to 300 million to banks in Bombay and Delhi. According to one study on Partition, “Muslim politicians were anxious to stem this flood (of capital) and to ensure that the wealthy Hindu elite retained their role in the city’s and province’s economic life, but reports of violence in Punjab in the weeks after Partition unnerved many; and by mid-September around 1,000 persons a day were departing by boat for Bombay and the Kathiawar.”

The Sindh Legislature was the first to vote to join Pakistan, largely on the understanding that the Muslim League’s 1940 resolution spoke of a federal set-up that would give a great degree of autonomy for its provinces, and hence secure their ethnic identity. But this expectation was belied: the emerging political and security concerns regarding the India-Pakistan border led to the eventual imposition of the policy of One Unit (a strong central government), in 1956.

Contrary to popular perception, not all Hindu Sindhis fled to India: there still exists a presence in Sindh of 1.98 million, according to a Pakistan census of 1998. However, what triggered the bulk of the community to leave was the eruption of riots in Quetta (August 1947), followed by communal disturbances in the cities of Nawabshah (November), Hyderabad-Sindh (December), and finally in Karachi, in January 1948.

Making Bombay home

The Hindu Sindhis from the former British Province of Sindh were the largest community of refugees to make Bombay their new home. It was only natural that they should take the sea route from Karachi, a mere 589 nautical miles away, and the safest way across the Radcliffe Line, which carved up the subcontinent into two nation-states.

For the more affluent, who had business and family in Bombay, the transition was easier. Most, though, had it tough. Yet, the community is today known for its spirit of enterprise and contribution to the building of modern Bombay. Where they once strained the limited housing and infrastructure of the city, Sindhi builders, like the Hiranandanis, have constructed huge townships. Sindhi colleges under the umbrella of the Hyderabad (Sindh) National Collegiate Board are considered among the most progressive in the city for their introduction of globally relevant academic courses.

Alongside the Sindhi influx into the city, were Punjabis, Sikhs and refugees from the North West Frontier Province, who constituted about 5% of the total number, those who had chosen to travel via the Sindh and Karachi route rather than cross the dangerous land border.

Refugees in Bombay were housed in camps on Queens Road (on the Japanese Gymkhana grounds, located between PVM Gymkhana and the Nariman buildings opposite Cooperage Gardens); along Frere Road (today’s Shahid Bhagat Singh or Dockyard Road behind the General Post Office); at Sion-Koliwada, where mostly refugees from Punjab and the North West Frontier Province stayed; and at a sprawling camp called Ridley’s Siding (lit. a railway siding), just beyond Kalyan Station, which, because of its Sindhi population and the river on whose banks the camps were built, was called Ulhasnagar (or ‘city of joy’).

The Bombay government’s funds were stretched, resulting in difficult living conditions in the camps in Bombay as also those across Bombay State (Poona, Thana, Ahmedabad), but it ensured that there was peace in the financial capital by appointing an old Sindh hand, Jamshed Darabshaw Nagarvala (Indian Police), as head of the Special Branch CID, Bombay. J.D., as he was popularly known, spoke and wrote Sindhi fluently, a mastery he had gained during his postings in Upper Sindh, and later, as district superintendent of police in Karachi, and his presence was vital to maintaining peace between the host population and the newcomers. The Annual Report of the Greater Bombay Police (1948, 1949, 1950) lists everything from minor skirmishes (unpaid bills at restaurants) to mini riots that took place during the peak years of the refugee influx.

Viewed in hindsight, these now seem like inevitable rites of passage for a community that enriched Bombay variously. Bombay lost its twin, Karachi, whose demographics and socio-cultural ethos changed irretrievably, but gained much through the people who came to its shores.

_______________________

Sifra Lentin is Bombay History Fellow at Gateway House.

Courtesy: Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations

The post Bombay, Karachi linked by sea and refuge first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Nandita Bhavnani

 [When India was partitioned in 1947, the province of Sindh went in its entirety to the newly-formed state of Pakistan. The bulk of the Hindus (and Sikhs) of Sindh migrated to India in the months that followed. Given that there was no part of Sindh in India, and given the harsh visa regime shared by the two countries, Sindhi Hindus have had little or no contact with their original homeland for the last seven decades. Some among the generations of Sindhi Hindus that migrated to India (and subsequently formed the diaspora) have shared their recollections with their children and grandchildren. There has been a corresponding move among a section of Sindhi Hindus to distance themselves from memories of a culture shared with Muslims, and a history that was largely dominated by Muslims. Yet, as is the case with many communities, Sindhi Hindus too feel the need for a community history. Consequently, when Sindhis recall Sindh, they often refer to a ‘sanitized’ Sindh, which they have supposedly ‘inherited’]

A Selective ‘Remembering’ of Sindh

The selective ‘remembering’ of the Sindh portrayed in this particular song is a symptom of the Sindhi Hindu community’s ‘remembering’ of Sindh in general, which has been borne out in the community’s popular writings on Sindh and its history. A few salient tropes stand out.

a. An ‘Aryan’ Moenjodaro

Firstly, a salient feature of this Sindh ‘remembered’ by Sindhi Hindus is that of Moenjodaro and the Harappa, or the Indus Valley, civilization. Notwithstanding archaeological research and academic findings that state that it is not yet possible to conclusively prove the identity of the inhabitants of this civilization, numerous Sindhi Hindus choose to believe that the denizens of this ancient culture were Aryans, who were also the authors of the Vedas, and therefore the founders of Hinduism (and also the ultimate ancestors of the Sindhis of today).

A prominent example of this ‘belief’ is the popular work of fiction ‘The Return of the Aryans’, by *Bhagwan S. Gidwani and its subsequent adaptation, The March of the Aryans.

Forgoing any archaeological evidence or other historical proofs, Gidwani holds up Sindh as the birthplace and cradle of Hinduism. In his own words, “This novel tells the story of the Aryans […] I must present this as a work of fiction. But fiction is not falsehood. Nor a dream – Nor guesswork – Ideally it should be seen as a fictionalized alternative history that our mainstream historians have not attempted to write” (Gidwani 1994: xi). In the same vein, he holds that “… the imperishable remembrance of the Aryan movement and migration from India; and the message in these songs is clear —that the Aryans originated from India and nowhere else”. He also maintains, “The Aryans of 5000 BC were born, grew up and died as Hindus. They were anchored in the timeless foundation of the Hindu tradition”.

While Gidwani’s writings are clearly fiction, and as yet are unsupported by any hard proof, they are often assumed as facts by some Sindhis. For example, Gidwani posits that the Aryans originated in “the land of the Sindhu,” but dispersed in different directions in 5000 BCE and returned to India centuries later. This has been stated as fact (citing Gidwani’s work) by Prem Matlani in The Indus Empire: History of Sindh. Again, during a Sindhi seminar-cum-cultural festival titled ‘Hojamalo’ hosted by Jai Hind College, Mumbai, on 24-25 January 2018, placards were placed around the campus with information on Sindhi history and culture.

One such placard quoted Gidwani, and suggested that Hinduism took birth in Sindh prior to 8000 BCE, and that a Sindhi person was the first to chant ‘Om’, a mantra held sacred by Hindus.

Other Sindhi Hindus have also voiced similar beliefs, and maintain that they are the heirs to the Indus Valley civilization —even though Sindhis, along with the modern world, became aware of this civilization only in the early 1920s. For example:

With Sindhi culture being a synthesis of the Indus Valley and Vedic civilizations, its language also inevitably showed the influence of these cultures (Buxani, 39).The society of Sindhis […] is more Aryan and undiluted than the Hindu society in the rest of India.

The origins of the Sindhi community can be traced back to the period of MohanJo-Daro civilization, the oldest in the world. As such Sindhi culture with its deep roots has been a source of inspiration to the community.

b. The ‘oppressor Muslim’

Secondly, Muslims in general are recalled, or ‘reconstructed,’ in a negative light, and portrayed as oppressors of Hindus. These generally include Muhammad bin Qasim’s invasion of Sindh and the concomitant slaying of Hindus; as well as the reign of the Talpurs (the last indigenous rulers of Sindh, who were ethnic Baloch Muslims), and their occasional oppression of Hindus. See the following examples:

… I am the dancer of Mohen jo Daro …

… I am the first and foremost civilization of the world – the epitome of culture

The Sindhu Valley civilization in this depleted condition! …

… Greeks, Turks, Persians, Arabs, all had crossed my land…

… I remember everything, the foreign invaders, the horses of the savage riders galloping away…

… I remember everything. They came raising dust storms causing havoc and devastation and crossed my border

From Alexander to Muhammad bin Qasim, from Ghaznavi to Ghori, from Changez Khan to Babar, they played Holi of blood coloring my dust red.

(Quoted in K.N. Vaswani, 82-83)

… but the Arab invasion […] brought in wave after wave of foreign hordes. The Tartars, the Arghuns and the Tarkhans, the Moguls, and the Baloch as if the whole world fell upon the country from the west or through the Punjab. And the subsequent history of the Sind Hindus is therefore nothing but a tale of woe of their degradation, conversion and surveillance. (Thakur, 15-16).

The Sindhis ruled Sind till they were defeated and conquered by the Arabs in the seventh century. And from that time onwards they have played the role of refugees. (Bharadwaj, 15)

This ‘narrative’ of Muslims as only ‘foreign invaders’ and ‘oppressors’ is at odds with historical facts. Minorities – Hindus, Buddhists and Jains – continued to live in Sindh for centuries after the Arab conquest of Sindh in 711-713 CE. Buddhism declined in Sindh around the 10th century CE, as it did in the rest of India, and Jains remained a numerically small community, who nevertheless lived in Sindh till 1947. Hindus too continued to live, and prosper, in Sindh, and while there may have been migrations eastwards at various points in history, there were also inflows of Hindus from the subcontinent. Different sub-communities of Hindus dominated various Sindhi cities at different points in time, and further, were primarily responsible for the prosperity of these cities. Hindu merchants and traders flourished in the southern Sindh capital of Thatta from the 15th through the 17th centuries.

Similarly, Hindu merchants and administrators were actively encouraged to come to Shikarpur by the Durranis, as well as to first Khudabad and later Hyderabad by the Kalhoras, all in the 18th century. These Hindus wielded considerable power and prestige and were patronized and protected (to a large extent) by the Muslim rulers of their cities (Markovits, passim; Allen, 40).

There are also two important exceptions to this anti-Muslim stance: the two eminent Sufi poet-saints, Shah Abdul Latif and Sachal Sarmast. To begin with, their Sufi poetry and their philosophy of humanism eschew a rigid practice of Islam on the one hand, and on the other, they also embrace Hindus; both these naturally do not antagonize the latter. Consequently, Sindhi Hindus are able to appreciate the heights of excellence reached by the poetry of these two Sufi saints, and are happy to acknowledge them as fellow Sindhis.

Sufism and Sufi practices were widespread in Sindh, among Muslims as well as Hindus, and if the latter visited Sufi dargahs, or became followers of Sufi pirs, these practices were quite socially acceptable in Sindhi Hindu society, and were not frowned upon. Similarly, it was common for Sindhi Hindus to exclaim “Ai Allah!” when surprised or startled. As in Deepak Asha’s song, we can see that Sindhi Muslims are remembered, but only as Sufis, tolerant of, and acceptable to, Hindus.

c. The ‘disappearance’ of Sindh

Sindhi Hindus, especially those that migrated during Partition, generally refer to themselves as ‘Sindhis’, while referring to Sindhi Muslims as jat, the name of a tribe of camel herders, but used derogatorily to denote a crude and illiterate country bumpkin, the Hindu stereotype for all Sindhi Muslims. In turn, Sindhi Muslims refer to themselves as ‘Sindhis’, while referring to Sindhi Hindus as diwan (meaning minister with reference to older practice of Hindus acting as ministers to the Muslim rulers of Sindh) or vaaniya (meaning merchant or trader). Clearly, prior to 1947, there was little or no sense of an overarching Sindhi provincial identity that transcended religious differences.

At the time of Partition, there was negligible communal violence in Sindh between Sindhi Hindus and Sindhi Muslims. Two anti-Hindu and anti-Sikh pogroms —the first in Hyderabad on 17 December 1947 and the second in Karachi on 6 January 1948— were perpetrated, largely by Muhajirs who sought property belonging to Sindhi Hindus that became available to them after the latter migrated.

These two pogroms were largely responsible for the exodus of Hindus and Sikhs from Sindh. As a result, Sindhi Hindus came to perceive Sindh (and concomitantly Pakistan as well) as a land dominated by Muslims, here they as Hindus had no place and were no longer welcome —and indeed from where they had been forcibly ejected. Consequently, there has been a turning away from Sindh, especially among the younger generation that migrated in 1947-48, and Sindh has been relegated to the past in some ways, at least at a subconscious level. Perhaps this has been a coping mechanism on the part of the Sindhi Hindus, as a means to deal with the trauma of being ejected from their homeland.

This has been reflected in popular writing among and about Sindhis as well. For instance, the writer Kavita Daswani, while describing Sindh, refers to it almost completely in the past tense, as though it ceased to exist after 1947 (Daswani, 5-6).

In a similar vein, another writer, Saaz Aggarwal, titled her book Sindh: Stories from a Vanished Homeland; one section in this book is subtitled ‘Sindh, the lost homeland: undivided, it vanished’ (Aggarwal, 66). However, it must also be said that Aggarwal’s book does cover Sindhi history briefly, and also touches upon modern Sindh.

This ‘erasure’ of Sindh is further aided and accentuated by a statement occasionally made publicly at Sindhi gatherings: Jite Sindhi, hute Sindh , meaning, “Where there are Sindhis, there is Sindh.” This is a ‘reconstruction’ of a new, mobile Sindh (which is composed of only Sindhi Hindus in this context) and the spirit of this statement implies that ‘Sindh’ —here possibly used as shorthand for a transportable homeland, a place of belonging— exists wherever Sindhi Hindus are to be found, whether in India or in the diaspora.

In tandem with this viewpoint, most Sindhi Hindus are not interested or perhaps even aware of the sociopolitical, cultural or environmental realities of present- day Sindh, a land with which they find it difficult to identify today. Further, there is little knowledge or acknowledgement of the relatively small number of Sindhi Hindus that remain in Sindh and the various issues that they face. (Continues)

_________________

*Gidwani was the son of Shamdas Gidwani, the pre-Partition head of the right-wing Hindu Mahasabha in Sindh. However, Sindhi Hindu identity can be complex. Gidwani dedicated his book to his two sons, the elder named Manu, possibly after the Hindu lawgiver, and the younger named Sachal, after the Sufi saint.

A research paper ‘Remembering Sindh, Reconstructing Sindh’ – The Politics of Memory among Sindhi Hindus in India’ written by the author in 2017.

Nandita Bhavnani, an independent scholar, who was raised as a typical south Mumbai elitist kid and couldn’t read, write or fluently speak in her mother tongue, became a Sindhi historian by choice. She learnt the Persian script and worked with social anthropologist Ashis Nandy for research on “Partition Psychosis”. She has travelled many times to Pakistan to explore Sindhi culture there and her research from both sides of the border has been documented in books and articles.

Click here for Part-I 

The post Remembering Sindh, Reconstructing Sindh – Part-II first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Nandita Bhavnani

 [When India was partitioned in 1947, the province of Sindh went in its entirety to the newly-formed state of Pakistan. The bulk of the Hindus (and Sikhs) of Sindh migrated to India in the months that followed. Given that there was no part of Sindh in India, and given the harsh visa regime shared by the two countries, Sindhi Hindus have had little or no contact with their original homeland for the last seven decades. Some among the generations of Sindhi Hindus that migrated to India (and subsequently formed the diaspora) have shared their recollections with their children and grandchildren. There has been a corresponding move among a section of Sindhi Hindus to distance themselves from memories of a culture shared with Muslims, and a history that was largely dominated by Muslims. Yet, as is the case with many communities, Sindhi Hindus too feel the need for a community history. Consequently, when Sindhis recall Sindh, they often refer to a ‘sanitized’ Sindh, which they have supposedly ‘inherited’]

Jiye munhinji Sind – Long live my Sindh

Maan ta ghoriyaan penhinji jind- I would gladly give my life

Penhinje abaarne vatan taan! – For my ancestral land!

Abaarne vatan taan – For my ancestral land,

Sindh je chaman taan – For the garden that is Sindh

Jiye munhinji Sindh…  Long live my Sindh…

Kiyan visaryaan Sindh ja nazaara- How can I forget the sights of Sindh

Sadhbele Manorhe vaara – Those of Sadhbela and Manora1

Chand jyun raatyun ain behraarna- New moon nights and ritual offerings to the river god

Lal ja panjda gayindar muhaarna – Muhanas singing praises of [Jhule] Lal Jiye munhinji Sindh… Long live my Sindh…

Sufiyan santan ji aahe Sindhri- My beloved Sindh is [the land] of Sufi saints

Mast faqiran ji aahe Sindhri – My beloved Sindh is [the land] of ascetics lost in a trance

Shah Sachal Sami-a jo dero – The home of Shah, Sachal and Sami

Shaal vanya ute aaun hik bhero – May I go there once again

Jiye munhinji Sindh… Long live my Sindh…

Mohan jo daro jehinji nishaani- Its symbol is Mohan jo daro

Jeko na samjhe kare tho naadaani – Whoever doesn’t understand this, errs

Jeko bi Sindh visaararn chaahe- Whoever wants to forget Sindh

Sacho sapoot so Sindh jo naahe- Is not a true son of Sindh

Jiye munhinji Sindh… Long live my Sindh…

Marui-a vaaangur piyo baadaayaan- I lament like Marui

Ajhaa abaarna shaal vasaayaan- May I settle down again

Jhularn Asha kando hia poori – Jhulan will fulfil this hope of mine8

Jhumariyun payindas umar samoori-  I will dance [his praises] all my life

Jiye munhinji Sindh… Long live my Sindh…

The Context for the Song

This Sindhi song was written by the late Sindhi film director, actor and writer, Dharam Kumar Tolani (1919-1993),whose pen name was ‘Deepak Asha’. Its intended audience was probably Sindhi Hindus in India or in the diaspora, who had migrated from Sindh after the Partition of India in 1947. The song seeks to not only memorialize, but also celebrate, Sindh, the poet’s ‘ancestral land’.

After the Partition of India in 1947, when Sindh became a part of Pakistan, the bulk of its minorities chose to migrate to India. While it is not possible to arrive at the exact number of the Hindus and Sikhs who migrated from Sindh in 1947-48, it has been estimated at approximately 1 million people.

In India, these Sindhi Hindus were scattered mostly across western India. During the colonial period, some Sindhi Hindu traders and merchants were living abroad for business purposes, and in the years after Partition, this diaspora not only became cemented, but also grew exponentially, both in numbers as well as in distribution.

In the early years after Partition, Sindhi Congress leaders, such as Dr. Choithram Gidwani and Jairamdas Doulatram, had strongly advocated that Sindhi Hindu refugees should learn local languages and adapt to local cultures and assimilate in local populations, wherever they resettled. This was bolstered by the then-prevalent Nehruvian ideology of Indian citizens rising above their ethnic affiliations and religions to unite as ‘Indians’.

However, there were also some Sindhis like the professor, writer and community leader, Ram Panjwani, Deepak Asha and others, who battled these trends to dilute Sindhi identity by exhorting Sindhis to keep their language and cultural identity alive. According to the writer Bhagwan Bhagchandani, ‘Deepak Asha’ (like Ram Panjwani) toured Sindhi Hindu refugee camps and resettlement colonies in those early years after Partition. They entertained Sindhi Hindus with music, while encouraging them not to forget their Sindhi culture and identity. It is likely that this song was written during this early period of resettlement, and with such a purpose.

While Deepak Asha’s hopes for a robust sense of ethnic identity among Sindhis in India may have had limited success, his song became highly popular at Sindhi gatherings. Over the intervening decades, it has been sung or played at numerous Sindhi events. However, it is a highly selective representation of, or ‘remembering’ of, Sindh.

The song portrays a somewhat ‘Hindu-ized’ Sindh. It refers to only Hindu places of worship, such as Sadhbelo and Manora, and also the ritual offering of the bahraana on days of the new moon. What is interesting is that although Sindh had a predominantly Muslim population and history, these have been largely ignored in the song. Muslims formed a majority of 76% of Sindh’s population according to the 1941 census. Further, Sindh had been under continuous Muslim rule for roughly eleven centuries, from the invasion of Muhammad bin Qasim in 711-713 CE until the British conquest in 1843. Consequently, most of the antique architectural remains found in Sindh are Muslim in style and origin. Traditionally, Sindhi handicrafts and textiles have also been produced mostly by Muslim artisans. However, the song clearly underplays the considerable Muslim presence in Sindh. It mentions Sindhi Muslims in a highly selective manner, and highlights only those elements of Sindhi history and culture that Hindus can easily identify with. The song refers to Muhanas, the marginalized Sindhi Muslim community of fishermen and ferrymen, but only in the context of their singing praises of Jhule Lal, the god of the river Indus. It also refers to Marui, the Muslim heroine of a Sindhi legend, famous for her loyalty to her homeland while in forced exile (here Marui is invoked as an ideal or as an allegory, for those Sindhi Hindus who still yearn for their homeland.) The only other Sindhi Muslims mentioned in the song are the famous Sufi poet-saints, Shah Abdul Latif Bhitai (1689-1752) and Sachal Sarmast (1739-1829). Finally the poet invokes Moenjodaro as the ultimate symbol of Sindh.

The poet also makes two ironic claims. Firstly, he asserts that anyone who wants to forget Sindh is not a true son of Sindh, despite himself disregarding the not-inconsiderable Muslim aspects of Sindh in this very song. And secondly, he repeatedly claims that he would gladly give his life for Sindh, but actually the opposite appears to be true, since he himself migrated to India. Using this song as a springboard, this essay proposes to delineate motifs that recur in this selective ‘remembering’ of Sindhi history. It further examines possible causal factors in pre-1947 Sindhi society as well as post-Partition developments that possibly contributed to this reconstruction of Sindhi history. (Continues)

_______________________

A research paper ‘Remembering Sindh, Reconstructing Sindh’ – The Politics of Memory among Sindhi Hindus in India’ by Nandita Bhavnani author in 2017.

Nandita Bhavnani, an independent scholar, who was raised as a typical south Mumbai elitist kid and couldn’t read, write or fluently speak in her mother tongue, became a Sindhi historian by choice. She learnt the Persian script and worked with social anthropologist Ashis Nandy for research on “Partition Psychosis”. She has travelled many times to Pakistan to explore Sindhi culture there and her research from both sides of the border has been documented in books and articles.

The post Remembering Sindh, Reconstructing Sindh – Part-I first appeared on Sindh Courier.

The partition of subcontinent in 1947 was one of the catastrophic and darkest incidents of history, which not only shed the blood of hundreds of thousand humans, uprooted millions of people making them to leave their ancestral abodes, but also planted a seed of never-ending enmity between the two newly created state-nations. And, it was the seed of enmity that brought two countries – India and Pakistan to the wars, during which most of the soldiers had to fight against the country of their origin – their motherland, as a result of the cruelty of history.

Prem Ramchandani was one of those who had migrated from Sindh to India along with his parents, joined Indian Airforce and during the September War of 1965 between India and Pakistan, had to drop bombs on his own motherland Sindh. He became the Martyr of History’s Cruelty, as after raining the bombs on Karachi, his plane was hit by retaliatory fires from Pakistan’s ground forces.

Prem Ramchandani was born in Sindh on 19th October in the year 1941 and was just seven year to suffer the pains of partition and transaction as the family shifted to Bombay [Mumbai] in the year 1948. During the college education at Jai Hind College he decided to join Air force of India.

He passed the entrance and after completing the college education was sent to famous Jodhpur Airforce College for training and completed his training at Hyderabad [Andhra Pradesh] and joined Indian Air force as the fighter pilot.

Prem was commissioned as the flying officer on the 22nd June 1963 and got posting with the 3 squadron “Cobras” which had motto “Lakshya Vedh” [destroy the target with precision]. He was given service No. 7442 and charge of air craft “Mystere”. His courage, brave action and intelligence soon made him popular and trust worthy with fellow pilots and officials.

In the 1965 war with Pakistan he was assigned task of keeping the Karachi under the air raids of Indian force. Amritsar was the base airport for his activities. In the four days – from 18 to 22 September he completed nine attacks and returned back to base camp. Unfortunately after the tenth attacked his plane trapped in the rage of firing by ground forces of Pakistan and as a result his plane got damaged and encircled with flames of fire. Prem was with option of pressing the eject button to save the life but as this brave Sindhi son was not willing to respire last on ‘enemy land’ so kept on flying and jumped only after the plane was about to reach on Amritsar airport.

He was taken to Amritsar Military Hospital in precarious condition. Doctors tried hard for saving the physical life for this great fighting soul but on the 26th September 1965 death emerged as the winner. His body was taken to Mumbai and on 27th September Agani sanskar was done in the traditional Hindu way with due national honor.

___________________________

Source: Bharat Rakshak, Quora and Wikipedia

The post Prem Ramchandani – Martyr of History’s Cruelty first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Saaz Aggarwal

For more than 60 years, we shied away from discussions about Partition. The memories of blood and gore overshadowed everything else, and it was, unsurprisingly, intolerable to confront them.

In August 2011, I made my first Facebook post musing about the difficult time my grandparents must have faced as the nation was celebrating Independence, when they had to flee with their five children (ranging in age from six to 19 with another on the way), to an unfamiliar place to start life anew.

“Oh don’t start that again” said several responses. They implied that to honor the memory of my grandparents’ bravery and calm acceptance would be to provoke trains to fill up with slaughtered people once again, and women to be forced to jump into wells or have their heads chopped off by family members wielding swords.

However, by then there was a rising swell of people who had begun looking at Partition more objectively. By 2017, Partition had begun properly coming out of the closet. It was the 70th anniversary of Indian Independence, and a slew of mainstream Indian publications asked me to write about the insights I’d gained over the course of hundreds of interviews with Sindhis who had experienced Partition, followed by the heroic rebuilding of their lives.

A joyous event

I had understood by then that horror was only a small part of the story. Horror made the topic difficult to view objectively. It obscured the many other aspects of the period. And in fact, it was the relatively lower degree of horror in Sindh that had stood in the way of the Sindh story of Partition, a rich and complex research topic, from being addressed, and it was only now being taken up tentatively from various corners of the world where the diaspora has a presence.

It was a great step forward in the slow unfolding of the truth of Partition when, on August 15, 2021, the glorious occasion of India’s 75th Independence Day, the nation awoke to the news that August 14 had been declared by Prime Minister Narendra Modi as Partition Horrors Remembrance Day.

An uneasy feeling came over me. My first reaction was, “The memory of Partition should certainly be kept alive. But to rename August 14 as Partition Horrors Remembrance Day is to retain Independence Day as a pristinely joyous event. It adds insult to the injury of those who experienced its catastrophe and trauma”.

I passed this around to a largish group of people I’ve interviewed. Many replied, expressing pain and confusion at the announcement of Partition Horrors Remembrance Day. “Why should we include horror in our remembrance?” seemed to be the general feeling.

As the thought began to settle in my mind, new implications of a Partition Horrors Remembrance Day emerged. To select Pakistan’s Independence Day as a day of commemorating horrors against Indians seemed like a step towards more conflict, the instigation of an entire nation against its next-door neighbor?

Did we really want to perpetuate a conflict that can only benefit those who deal in arms and ammunition? I personally think it’s time to stop doing it, and the large positive response to my first message encouraged me to start a petition to request our prime minister to revoke the naming of August 14 as Partition Horrors Remembrance Day.

I then moved the discussion to Facebook. “Saaz, you got it absolutely right in this para,” veteran journalist Abhay Vaidya commented, quoting the last part of my petition:

“Finally, we wish to acknowledge that people of every community suffered, in both India and Pakistan.

14 August was declared Pakistan’s Independence Day by the departing colonial rulers. To name it as Partition Horrors Remembrance Day is to deeply dishonor every Indian of Undivided India who suffered the catastrophic trauma of Partition.

‘While we are grateful to you for creating a national platform to recognize and honor those who suffered Partition, we most humbly petition you to revoke the naming of 14 August as Partition Horrors Day.”

There were many other – varied – responses. One of my most beautiful, erudite, and articulate friends posted this response: “Memories of the Holocaust were kept alive so that families could get closure. It is very important that Partition is seen in the same way. It was genocide and 15 million people were displaced and the rapes and sexual violence have never been acknowledged on either side.”

People from both communities committed the atrocities. So while we must acknowledge the horrors and suffering, continuing to blame the other community, even when it’s clearly visible that both were to blame, cannot result in peace and stability.

The problem with this line of thinking is that Partition was very different from the Holocaust in two very important ways. First: in the Holocaust, there can be no question about who the bad guys were and who were the victims? But during Partition, both communities suffered. People from both communities committed the atrocities. So while we must acknowledge the horrors and suffering, continuing to blame the other community, even when it’s clearly visible that both were to blame, cannot result in peace and stability.

Second: in the Holocaust, the unbelievable horrors were almost the whole story. However, while Partition had unbelievable horrors too, there were so many more layers. These are only gradually beginning to emerge and be understood. I believe that the more we talk about the intricacies of Partition, the more we represent it in writing with a capital letter (and not requiring a preceding article), the more we understand its different shades, the word itself will come to acquire all the baggage it actually represents and the word “horror” need never be specified separately. Horror is an intrinsic element of Partition, but Partition needs a much larger, complex representation.

This includes aspects such as the migration of large communities, their rehabilitation, the loss of not just their ancestral homeland and material possessions but also the loss of their language and culture, the distortion of their history, the suppression of their cultural and ethnic identity. There was the tremendous effort of starting life anew, working hard, using enterprise and skill, growing gradually to great heights of success – a process during which the past was discarded and material success was claimed wholeheartedly.

One of the least reported aspects of this period of our history, during which people robbed, raped, killed and mutilated people of the other community, was the support people got from people of the other community. Every person I’ve interviewed, without exception, has spoken of help received by members of the other community.

Yes, many spoke of ill-treatment, some even of horrors. Many retained vestiges of ill-feeling towards the other community. My own mother, a well-educated, thinking person carried traces of the trauma and one of its most poignant manifestations was that the sound of azaan always made her uneasy, perhaps taking her back to a time when she was 13 years old and knew that her parents were fearful about the future.

However she and her cousins also had stories of being protected, being helped, or being saved by someone of the other community, sometimes at risk to their own lives and families. Is it possible that when we commemorate Partition and honor its survivors, we can include the sacrifices made by these brave people too?

Saaz Aggarwal

Saaz Aggarwal is an independent researcher, writer and artist based in Pune, India. Her body of writing includes biographies, translations, critical reviews and humour columns. Her books are in university libraries around the world, and much of her research contribution in the field of Sindh studies is easily accessible online.

Courtesy: Saaz Aggarwal/Scroll 

The post Petition for revoking Partition Horrors Day first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Guneeta Singh Bhalla

“I still don’t know what happened,” remarks Ranjit Kaur toward the end of our interview.

“Why did we have to move?” she softly asks, staring at me, then through me, as her voice trailed off. Her gaze turned down toward her folded hands and she paused. She is genuinely perplexed, I can tell.

More than 70 years have passed and she hasn’t been able to reconcile Partition in her mind. Her family was attacked by a mob in their ancestral village in Narowal district, West Punjab, when they fled. She looked up at me again and her gaze hit me like a bolt. A lump began to swell in my throat but I fought it back. So many thoughts streamed through my mind: How unfair was this history? How could she live her full life in exile still wondering, seven decades later?

But this isn’t Kaur’s story alone. As she reminds me, “The only consolation was that millions of us were in this together.”

When asked about her attackers, she says, “I don’t know who the killers were. We had never seen them before. We didn’t recognize them. They weren’t our Muslim brothers and sisters in the village.”

I’ve spoken to hundreds of individuals while the project I work on has preserved the life stories of more than 8,000 Partition witnesses since 2010. For us, a new picture of violence and what truly went wrong at the time of Partition is emerging. It is helping us put to rest many myths surrounding this history and misconstrued narratives that are often used to serve vested interests in the public sphere.

As newly kindled flames of communal violence today begin to flare across India and Pakistan, it is time we take another look at this history with access to a brand-new data set of oral histories and modern analytic tools. Much of the remembrance today about Partition is limited to artistic depictions, literature, and our emotional reactions. This was necessary and is wholly understandable as it helps us relate to what our ancestors have experienced. However, it is time now to intellectualize this history and look at it from an objective lens, learn to identify the triggers and spread this knowledge, lest we repeat the same mistakes.

What happened then and how is it increasingly more relevant today?

This month marks 73 years since India and Pakistan’s birth, and the subcontinent’s freedom from British imperial rule. In 1947 some 563 native kingdoms were merged with Britain’s South Asian territories, collectively known as “British India.” They were then reorganized into two new countries on the basis of religion: India and Pakistan. India took the name of the former British territories in the region and maintained much of British India’s original legal infrastructure.

The provinces of Punjab and Bengal were divided between India and Pakistan and the public polarized along religious lines. Mass communal violence broke out during the transition to democracy and the resulting power grab.

A common narrative many of us grew up hearing is that Hindus and Muslims began killing each other in a mad frenzy, leading to such a horrifying bloodbath that it is impossible to understand what truly took place. “Our people went mad,” I have heard often.

Yet, after gathering thousands of oral histories, we are finding today that most people did not participate in the violence and were largely innocent victims. In addition, a vast majority surprisingly do not harbor ill feelings toward the “other” religion. Importantly, in a significant finding, for the vast majority of the cases, like Kaur’s, victims did not recognize their attackers. And so, contrary to popular understanding, friends and neighbors didn’t kill each other indiscriminately. People didn’t turn on each other suddenly, in the name of religion, but rather offered protection to each other.

Perhaps less than 5 percent of the population participated in criminal activity at that time. Yet, between 1946 and 1948, some 15 million individuals were driven out of their homes and as many as 3 million killed in rioting that went out of control.

So how did this violence begin and how did it spread?

Up until the mid-1940s, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, Parsis, Jews, and others had been coexisting peacefully for at least a couple centuries or more in regions across South Asia. “Before Partition, we didn’t identify each other by religion,” says Hidayatullah Khoso from Sindh province whose interview we recently archived, alluding to a more cosmopolitan make up of pre-Partition populations. Religion it seems was largely “practiced at home,” as many witnesses tell us, save for the big festivals like Diwali, Eid, and Christmas, which were more universally celebrated. For a vast majority of the people, religion was not a means for identifying one another.

But things began to change around 1945. As World War II wound down and the British departure from its Indian territories became apparent, different political groups of ideological nationhood — such as a Muslim-majority Pakistan, a Sikh Khalistan, a secular vs Hindu India, among other ideas — were gaining momentum. These ideas entered local politics. Isolated shootings, stabbings, and massacres based on religion began making the news, spreading fear, distrust, and anger. From the oral histories we hear, the culprits of those initial events were almost always fanatical individuals or groups aligned with right-wing religious ideologies.

With time, the lack of separation between religion and politics led to religious ideologues having representation in local political parties. We hear reports of local political leaders igniting violence through proxies like gangsters and dacoits for economic gain – the chance to grab land, businesses, homes, or family jewels (a sort of savings account in those days) belonging to religious minorities in their constituencies. As news of British departure and the formation of India and Pakistan spread, the violence had spread beyond fringe groups and gangsters to groups of young men across villages and towns. In West Punjab and Sindh alone, wealthy Hindu and Sikh landlords were driven out in a land grab by individuals looking to gain local economic and political power. Similarly, Nawabs and large estate Muslim landowners in what is now north and central India were also attacked. Young men committing the violence back then tell us today that they did so to gain loot or to kidnap women (and gain a wife). They were guided by local leaders and lured by tangible personal gains. And so, through our oral histories we find that most of the violence occurred due to top-down political rhetoric and material incentives.

The violence went out of control with tit-for-tat crimes largely because members of the armed forces had also become radicalized. Should a policeman from a Punjabi Muslim family protect the Punjabi Muslim gangster attacking a Punjabi Hindu family — or should he protect the Hindu family? At a time of mass anxiety, distrust, and public radicalization, these lines were blurred. The violence in northern India and Pakistan came to an end when ethnically unrelated militaries were brought in, such as the Gorkhas of Nepal and the Madras regiments from southern India.

An important implication of these findings is that the violence and separation of Muslims from non-Muslims was not an inevitable outcome. It is not that “Hindus and Muslims could not live with each other,” as I often hear younger generations lament, or as Winston Churchill famously proclaimed. It is that fringe elements were aroused by political rhetoric and their criminal acts victimized all of humanity in those regions. Disarray in the armed forces and a temporary lull in governance sparked the massacres which, it appears, could have been prevented.

To make sense of communal violence, behavioral economists have developed a number of models. A cursory look at analysis of communal violence in Rwanda and Sierra Leone reveals that certain universal conditions can lead to mass violence breaking out, such as 1) a recent return of armed forces fighting on behalf of colonial powers, 2) economic disparities between two groups defined by religion or ethnicity, and 3) disparities in political representations of the same two groups. With soldiers returning from World War II and the economically motivated nature of much of the Partition violence, at a surface level it appears Partition violence can be understood within existing models — and in fact, given the conditions of that time, seems quite inevitable in hindsight. Further research is required, and oral histories can help shine a light in that regard.

Today, with each new mob lynching in India, I see history starting to repeat itself. Each incident, like in 1947, breaks trust between groups, be they defined by religion or race. Each incident spreads anxiety and fear while inspiring other fringe groups to commit copycat crimes.

As they did during Partition, radical sentiments could easily infect the minds of those in the armed forces today. Will a radicalized Hindu police officer protect the Hindu criminal or the person belonging to a minority group being attacked?

Partition led to massive loss of life and livelihoods and was a big hit to education and economies in South Asia in ways that, our work shows, we are still impacted by today. Though many of these aspects have not been thoroughly studied yet, we cannot deny the impacts. Mass trauma from that period still lingers amongst millions in the modern generation as we are now learning from new findings on post-traumatic stress disorder science and epigenetic inheritance.

Despite the violent times they endured, we find that the vast majority of the 8,000 individuals we have interviewed do not hold grudges against those belonging to religious groups that were hostile toward them in 1947. However, the next generations seem to have stronger and more jingoistic feelings toward “the other side,” which they did not experience growing up with. We posit that this is due to Partition witnesses having pre-Partition memories of pleasant coexistence with “the other” while only memories of violence and regret associated with Partition, which are more pronounced, are selectively passed down to the next generation. Those memories, combined with the nationalistic rhetoric that was a part of India and Pakistan’s nation building exercise and one-sided knowledge of ongoing wars between India and Pakistan, created a greater degree of bias in the next few generations.

Having a deeper and clearer understanding on the origins of Partition violence will play a positive role in resolving many modern social issues rooted in one-sided histories of interfaith relationships from that time period.

It is time to learn from Partition-era communal violence and radicalization before it gets out of control once again and we descend into chaos. It has happened before. We must learn from that history. We can choose between teaching tolerance, acceptance, and understanding, or promoting intolerance and hate toward those different from ourselves. As the human population grows, our children and grandchildren will come into contact with more diversity. We can start teaching them how to respond in more productive ways now.

________________________

Guneeta Singh Bhalla, Ph.D., is founder of The 1947 Partition Archive, which has documented more than 8,000 oral histories of Partition witnesses internationally. She is formerly a physicist.

Courtesy: The Diplomat (Published on August 28, 2019)

The post What Really Caused the Violence of Partition? first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Anand Krishna

After a Long, Long Wait of more than 45 years, my father finally breathed his last with his unfulfilled dream of going back to Sindh, of kissing the earth of Jeejal or Mother Sindh. He lamented in one of his poems written in Sindhi: “Alas, I may die uprooted from my motherland… all hopes gone, my dream unfulfilled… I may not have a glimpse of Jeejal, Mother Sindh again… no, not in this life, it seems…”

He came to Indonesia in the 1930s, when he was in his twenties. As a Sindhworki, an Overseas Sindhi, as they were then called, he cherished the dream of “making money overseas, and going back to Sindh to settle down.”

During the 1930s and early 1940s he may have made two trips back to Kotri, his hometown, or, rather home village in those days. He had decided for the third trip as his last one, “vari bhi pahinjo mulq pahinjo, pardes mein kaitro waqt guzaarbo?!” – How long can one live overseas, one must finally go back to where his roots are?

During the Second World War, he could not make any trip back to Sindh. There was no communication with the family back home. And, yet, the hope lived on. So, when finally the war was over in the year of 1945, and it was possible to communicate again, he quickly began to wrap up his business in Indonesia to go back to start some business in Sindh.

In the meantime, there were confirmed reports about the impending “amputation of Hindustan”, as he would refer to the partition of the Indian Subcontinent, the Independence of India, and the Birth of Pakistan.

But, it did not really matter, “Sindh is still my motherland. How does it matter if she is part of Pakistan? I am Sindhi, and I shall go back to Sindh” – was his conviction.

And, with such Conviction, in the year of 1947 as the subcontinent was burning and bleeding, he was on the way back to his Motherland, Jeejal Sindh, Mother Sindh.

He carried all his earnings in the form of precious metals, as both the regular as well as “private banks” – quite common then – were still not functioning. He was not alone, there were other Sindhwarkis as well – all unprepared for what they would be facing.

Whatever they carried was confiscated, “We were so shocked we did not even know whether they were authorized to do any such thing, whether they were authorities, officials, or hooligans. Stepping out of the seaport and into the streets of Karachi, we realized we had lost Sindh…”

Back in Kotri, one of his very close friends, a Muslim, let us call him Abdullah, lamented, “Tolaram, why have you come back? We could have helped your family to board a ship to Bombay.”

Abdullah was very much concerned about Baba, my father’s safety. Indeed, he had been waiting for some news. He was not expecting him to come back while the subcontinent was burning.

Years later, Baba would recollect: “It was not making any sense to me. I was unable to understand the situation. I could not believe that one could be uprooted from his motherland. It was all so very absurd.”

“And, why Bombay – Why India? Why did my family and I have to migrate? It was a shock. I could not believe in what I was hearing, or what I was seeing. I was hoping against hopes that it was just a dream and I would soon wake up. I thought it was a passing madness, and that the frenzy and insanity would soon be over.”

Within Two Weeks, however, he finally realized that one person’s gain was another person’s loss. His friend Abdullah, shared his feelings, but added, “Toli,” that was Baba’s pet name, “in this frenzy, no person, no community gains anything. We all are losers. Those who played this trick upon us will one day realize. Alas, Toli, we have to part. I want to believe that we shall meet again, yet, deep inside I also feel that that may not happen.”

Baba’s siblings, his two sisters and their families left for India, independent India, where they would be welcomed as sharanarthi or refugees, while Baba opted for Indonesia.

“Abdullah Literally Carried Us on his shoulders, it would not have been possible for us to make it to the Karachi Port and take any available steamship, if he was not with us.

“He protected us, and bade us farewell with tears in his eyes. It was so hard for me, for us, to even say good bye,” Baba would often recount.

He was torn by what he saw. One of my mother’s first cousins – a well-known socialist, I would rather not mention his name here, would not go anywhere, “how can I leave this place, this is where Sindhu Daryah (the Majestic River Sindhu) is, this is where Moen jo Daro is, bearing witness to our ancient civilization, this is my Sindh.”

In spite of all the hardships, challenges, and even atrocities, he remained in Sindh – true to his faith. In one of his last letters to Baba, “Seth (a term of respect like Sir, literally meaning “Boss”) Tolaram, I shall not be around to witness the Sindh to come. But, I shall die with my dream of a Glorious Sindh to come, where peoples of all faiths, all denominations, live in peace, in harmony, in the spirit of comradeship.” Most of my Sindhi readers, especially those living in Sindh, will know who I am referring to!

Baba Died a Broken Man. There was not a single day when he did not reminisce about Sindh, about Bhittai Shah, Sarmast Sachal, and Kanwar Ram – the great souls who blessed Sindh with their presence.

He died with a dream, “But, you,” he told me many times, “do fulfil my dream. Whenever you get the opportunity to visit Sindh, do kiss the mitti, the sacred earth of Sindh, and remember me……”

I am still waiting for the day to fulfill his unfinished dream, I would not say “unfulfilled”, for don’t we all live on hope? Jiye Sindh – Long Live Sindh!

Anand Krishna

A Spiritual Humanist born in Indonesia, Anand Krishna is the author of more than 180 books in Indonesian and English. He is also the founder of Anand Ashram. He is proud of his Sindhi-Indian ancestry rooted in the Glorious Sindhu Civilization and Culture, also referred to as Shintu, Hindu, Indus, and Hindia – of which Nusantara or the Indonesian Archipelago has been a part since ancient times.- Anand Krishna was born in Solo (Central Java), which, as predicted by the Śukā Nādi (thousands of years old oracle), is his Karma Bhumi, his work field.

Courtesy: eSamskriti

The post Sindh Gained – Sindh Lost first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Dr. Manju Lalwani Pathak

Every minority study is dominant by political resonance, and almost all studies have been affected by the political affairs of the surroundings. Sindhis too have this kind of concern. Sindh was the origin state of Sindhi community. In Sindh Muslim were in majority and Hindu (all Hindus were Sindhis) were in minority. Power politics forced them to migrate from Sindh to other parts of free India. This research explains the series of incidence which became responsible for migration of Sindhis.

History is a grim reminder that till 1906 there was no animosity between Hindus and Muslims in Sindh. Both were united at social ground for their economic need. Sindhis were landlords. Muslims used to cultivate and Sindhi Hindus used to supervise and sell their grains. The artisan Muslims used to produce the artifacts and Sindhi Hindus used to trade these products in the markets. This symbiotic economy had made the cordial relation among them.

The British strategy was very clear. They had no inclination to transfer the power to Indians. For Hindus, independence was the first priority at any cost. So they created enmity between Hindhu and Muslims so that they would be busy solving their problems and may forget about the independence. So they adopted divide and rule policy to break the unity between Hindu and Muslim. The detail about the participation and migration of Sindhis is provided in this paper

Chronology of Incidents

In 1906, Lord Minto encouraged Muslims for communal representation. In this year Muslim Representative Committee met Lord Minto in Shimla, they asked for separate representation for Muslims in politics. In the same year a “Muslim Sammelan‟ was held in Dhaka with the help of British Govt. All India Muslim League was also founded in 1906. From that day to 1947 the history of Muslims of India became the history of Muslim League. During the same period, in 1906 Dr. Choithram, P. Gidwaani, Acharya Kriplani and Jairam, from Sindhi Community represented Sindh for Quit India Movement and Swadeshi movement in Sindh.

In 1908, Virumal Begraj as active Sindhi leader set up a Swedeshi store in Sukker, a town of Sindh. For this audacity he was sent to the imprisonment for five years in 1909 mentioned in reported Malkani‟s book. It shows the interest of Sindhis in the independence of their motherland.

In 1909, British Govt. gave a proposal for the rights of representatives of Muslims in politics on the basis of ratio of their population but when the proposal was passed as “1909 Act”, the ratio for Muslims was more than their population by the efforts of Muslim League. Hindus were surprised. Dr. D.N. Sen stated that with the foundation of Muslim League the cleavage between the Hindu and Muslims deepened.”

In 1910, Acharya J.B. Kriplani and prof. N.R. Malkani, Sindhi writers, set up the Bramhchary Ashram in Hyderabad (Sindh). This Ashram became the center of patriotic activities during independence struggle.

In 1912, Dr. Choithram arranged money for Rashbehari (a revolutionary of freedom movement) and sent him to Amritsar on way to Japan via Afghanistan as mentioned by Dr. Eugene D‟sauza in his writing. It signifies in Sindh the Sindhis had supported congress in independence struggle.

In 1913, Jinnah joined in the Muslim League and subsequently there was great change in direction of Muslim League. During this year, Lord Minto and Mr. Beck, Principal of M.A.O. College, Aligarh, incited the Muslims by their communal speech about their rights regarding transfer of political power by Congress leader to Hindus not Muslims.

In 1914, in line of British politics, publications of Mr. Beck aggravated the situation. Aligarh Institute Gazette, Central National Mohammedan Association and Mohammedan Foundation of encouraged Muslims for separation from Hindus.

In 1916, compromise made under Luna Act between Hindu and Muslims was the result of diplomacy of the British. Perhaps many Muslims and even Gandhiji could not understand this British policy.

In 1917, N.R. Malkani was professor in G.B.B. college of Muzaffarpur when Gandhi stayed with him in his home for a few days on way to Champaran. That day was the turning point in Malkani’s life. He resigned from his job, till independence he worked for Congress. The way of Malkani can be considered as the evidence that Sindhis used to believe in Gandhism way to get independence.

In 1918, Pandit Malviya visited Hyderabad (Sindh). K.R. Malkani and his group welcomed him in Sanskrit. Prof. Kripalani also resigned from G.B.B. college of Muzaffarpur in Bihar and he left a sum of Rs.2000 with Prof. N.R. Malkani for assistance to revolutionaries. This gesture shows keen interest to support in independence of own country.

In 1919, Sindh started publishing the daily newspaper “Hindu”, to mobilize patriotic public opinion.

In 1920, when Tilak visited Sindh, young Sindhis men pulled his carriage; women for the first time came out of their seclusion and offered aarti to him. Tilak observed the enthusiasm among Sindhis; he wrote in his paper “Kesary” about Sindhis, “If every province had Sindhi men like Dr. Choithram, we could break the chains of bondage in no times.” The words of Tilak highlight the spirit among Sindhis for independence and their faith on Hindu leaders.

In 1923, “Hindu Mahsabha” was formed by pro-congress members in Sindh. Muslims were disturbed. They started believing that their religion, language and culture could not be safe in a united India where the Hindus were bound to possess a predominant position because of their large number written by R.N. Aggrawaal.

In 1924, Dr. Choithram, Sindhi Freedom Fighter, (1889-1957) was a life-long public worker who started serving the country. He sacrificed everything for the cause of the country. During this year, many Sindhi women leaders such as Ganga Behn (wife of Acharya Gidwani) Kiki (Behn, sister of Kripalani), Ambi Khilnani (daughter-in-law of Kauromal), Ambi Khilnani, Ganga Gidwaani and Kumari Jethi Sipahimalani played a significant role in the public life of Sindh socially to spread freedom spirit among women. Apart from this, Virumal Bejraj, Jairamdas, Hemu Kalani, A.T.Gidvani, Ghanshyam Sivdasani, Jamshedmal helped in making ground for the freedom movement.

In 1927, the Muslim League was fist headed by Sir Syed Ali Emam and then by Aga Khan, later joined by Jinnah which one cannot ignore in Indian politics. The Muslim League was divided into two groups after Jinnah took charge. Aga Khan Group and Congress wanted National Independence with National Unity whereas Jinnah group wasted the National independence on the condition of separate country for Muslims. The two nourished diverse views.

In 1928, the policies framed by Motilal Nehru were the example of liberal attitude of Congress towards Muslim League. He gave “Neharu Report‟ to secure the communal representation on the basis of minorities. Jinnah did not accept the proposal given by Hindu leaders.

In the same year, Jinnah built his „Fourteen Points‟ and cleared two points in his report: first 2/3 reservation of Muslims in all Mantri Madals and second Sindh should be separated from Bombay. Including these two points, there were many other points which did not match with the Congress principles. Only to save the country from communal problems, congress accepted his report. But many other congress leaders criticized the acceptance of Jinnah’s report.

From 1930-1932, Satyagrah movement was made a huge success in Sindh by Sindhis. Also for first time women came out of the four walls of their homes to join processions. To see the independence spirit among Sindhis, Gandhiji stated in his prayer meeting, “I have not been to Sindh for many years… but at one time I used to call myself a Sindhi.”

In 1937, the effects of the elections gave a significant tern to Muslim League when congress achieved great success in these elections and congress refused to make Mantri Mandal with Muslim League.

In 1938, Jinnah became head of Muslim League and he created pro-Muslim fervor among young Muslims in India for separate country for Muslims.

In 1939, in the next step, Jinnah announced to celebrate Day of Deliverance on 22nd December 1939. The statements and activities of Muslim League brought the air of partition in united India and showed Jinnah’s wish.

One side Hindu political leaders were fighting with British leader for freedom and other side they were facing the problem of Jinnah’s repeated demand for a „separate state‟. At the same time they had to take care of Gandhiji’s wish to obtain Swarj by non-violence with Hindu-Muslim unity. But there was differences of opinion between Hindu leaders too as Subhash Chandra Bose had opined that Swaraj cannot only be obtained by non-violence.

In 1940, Jinnah successfully passed the proposal of demand of new country on March 23, 1940 during a session held at Lahore headed by Jinnah. He stated that according to geographical distribution, Muslim Majority states should be formed Pakistan mentioned by Dr. K.L. Muglani in his publication. Neharuji went to attend that meeting and gave his vote for partition of the country because he wanted to be free from British dependency at any cost.

The congress supported of unity of all the communities with its liberalism. But Hindu extremists gave the place to Muslims for the demand of Pakistan. And statement given Indian political leader also encouraged Muslims for separation like Nehru said about Muslims that if they are forced to stay in India, no progress and planning will be possible mentioned by Dr. K.L. Muglani,

In 1942, and by the end of 1943, Muslim League formed their government in Assam, Sindh and Bengal. Muslim League members increased from 1330 in 1927 to more than 100000 in 1940.

In 1944 December, Shree Raj Gopalachari prepared a plan as ‘C.R. Formula’ which stated that Pakistan would be given to Muslims after independence on the basis of Muslims majority but before that Muslims would cooperate with congress for Quit India Movement. This plan had an idea of „population exchange‟ on the basis of wishes of both the communities. Either Hindus can stay with Muslim majority or Muslims and stay with Hindu majority in free India.

Muglani stated that Gandhiji accepted this plan in state of helplessness but after 14 discussions between Gandhji and Jinnah, even finally Jinnah could not be convinced and he refused it.

In 1945, in general elections, it was clear that no one could prevent the division of the country because congress won all seats except Muslim majority seats whereas the Muslim League won the entire constituencies they represented. It is important to mention here that Sindh seat was won by Muslim League as Muslims were in majority. The result of election was shaken to the Sindhis.

In 1946, Muslim League won only 73 seats out of 296 seats in the election of cabinet mission plan for constitution committee. Jinnah was very disappointed. On 16th August 1946 he declared that by ‘Direct Action’ they would create Pakistan. There after communal riots erupted in many places especially in Karachi. In these riots about 7000 citizens were killed including 250 Muslims leaving the country in turmoil.

Sindhi freedom fighters found themselves helpless. After C.R. Formula, Kriplani suggested to Nehru for a voluntary exchange of population of Hindus from Pakistan because he wanted to bring all Sindhis to free India as Sindh was decided to give to form Pakistan on the basis of Muslim majority and they were in minority.

Kripalani’s plea for a voluntary exchange of population was brushed aside saying by Hindu political leaders that it will take long time. Atley declared that before June 1948, England will transfer the political power to Hindu and Muslims. Sindhis were shocked with this indifference of Hindu leaders‟ behavior towards them as they could not ever think after independence they could become outsiders and refugees within a night in their own country for which day night they are contributing.

In 1947, the then Governor General Mountbatten observed that there is no option but to resolve the problem of the country by partition. Very tactfully he convinced the leaders of both the religions.

On 3rd June 1947 under the “Mountbatten Plan” it was stated that the country would be divided into two states Bharat and Pakistan and Hindus and Muslims majority will decide whether to be a part of India or Pakistan. In Sindh, government policy of political discrimination came with the judicial decision against the Hindus. The post of city Magistrate in Karachi was abolished just because a Muslim could not be appointed (Published in Free Press Journal – 14^th July, 1947). Social discrimination also created tension among Sindhis.

After the Independence, Sindhis were totally confused because many Sindhi never wanted to leave their birth land Sindh but riots, insecurity and discrimination policy forced them to migrate in one hand, on other had they accounted only 25 per cent of population of Sindh but 40 per cent of movable and non-movable property was possessed by Sindhis in Sindh mentioned by Dr. Subhadra Anand. But Pakistan was formed on the basis of Muslim majority, they were Hindus, on that basis they thought they should leave the place and long processes of migration started from both the borders of Pakistan and free India.

CONCLUSION

Evidences provided in the paper prove that from 1906 to 1947 Sindhis were contributing to independence struggle of India but their participation was ignored.

It would not be wrong to say that Lord Minto was a person who founded the plinth of Pakistan to accept the Muslim representation in politics and Mr. Beck constructed the walls of Pakistan by his contribution in Muslim League.

_____________________

Dr. Manju Lalwani Pathak – Department of Economics, Smt. C.H.M. College, Ulhasnagar, University of Mumbai, Maharashtra.

Courtesy: Sindh Welfare Society India

The post Political Background of Sindhi Community’s Migration first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Raza Naqvi

The partition of India is one of the 10 greatest tragedies in human history. Thousands of lives were lost in the process of migrating from India to Pakistan and vice-versa. It is believed that the British policy of Divide and Rule in colonial India culminated in the form of Partition of India.

While many assumed that Muslim leaders of that time wanted another nation and didn’t want to stay in India, very few know that there were many leaders from the minority community, who completely opposed the idea of partition.

In the mid-1940s, as the Muslim League began to realize its vision of a separate nation state for the subcontinent’s Muslim population under Muhammad Ali Jinnah, it met with resistance from Muslims, including the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JUH), a political organization that was founded in 1919 and Jamia Millia Islamia.

The Jamia Millia Islamia was also born out of the fact that the people in Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) were supporting the two-nation theory. A group of nationalist teachers and students quit Aligarh Muslim University, protesting against its pro-British inclinations and established JMI to oppose the partition of India.

Here’s a list of people who opposed the two-nation theory:

Abdul Quaiyum Khan

Belonging to the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), Khan was educated at Aligarh Muslim University and the London School of Economics. He became a barrister and was one of the eminent lawyers of NWFP. Dr. Shamsul Islam in his book – ‘Muslims Against Partition’, says that he had declared that his province would resist Partition of the country with its blood.

He began his political career in 1934 and joined the Indian National Congress. In 1937, he got elected to the Central Legislative Assembly and became the deputy leader of the INC in the assembly.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad

He was an Indian scholar and a senior Muslim leader of the INC before independence. He strongly opposed Jinnah’s demand of another nation. After independence, he became the first Minister of Education of the country.

“I am proud of being an Indian. I am part of the indivisible unity that is Indian nationality. I am indispensable to this noble edifice and without me this splendid structure is incomplete. I am an essential element, which has gone to build India. I can never surrender this claim,” Azad had said.

His contribution to establishing the education foundation in India is recognized by celebrating his birthday as “National Education Day” across India.

Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah

Sir Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah hailed from Sindh. He held several offices in Sindh including first chief minister in 1937–1938 and being re-elected as fifth CM from 1942–1947. He too had rejected the idea of Partition.

Hidayatullah received the title of Khan Bahadur from the British government, which also knighted him in the 1926 New Year Honours and further appointed him a Knight Commander of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India (KCSI) in the 1933 Birthday Honours.

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan

Nicknamed as Bacha Khan, he was a Pashtun independence activist against the rule of the British Raj. Over the years, he became a close friend of Mahatma Gandhi and it was then that Bacha Khan got nicknamed as “Frontier Gandhi”.

He strongly opposed the All-India Muslim League’s demand for the partition of India. “You have thrown us to the wolves,” Khan had said after the INC declared its acceptance of the partition plan.

Hasrat Mohani

Born as Syed Fazl-ul-Hasan, Hasrat Mohani was an Indian activist in the Indian Independence Movement, and a noted poet of the Urdu language. ‘Inquilab Zindabad’ was coined by the Maulana Hasarat Mohani in 1921.

Speaking to InUth, historian S Irfan Habib said that Mohani too was against the idea of two nations and participated in the struggle for Indian Independence (end of British Raj).

He was the first person in Indian History who demanded ‘Complete Independence’ (Azadi-e-Kaamil) in 1921 as he presided over an annual session of All India Muslim League.

Dr. Zakir Hussain

He was the third president of independent India. He was a stern follower of Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violence policies and was against the idea of partition. Hussain believed that education was essential to make the Indian youth capable of fighting against the British and thus focused on empowering the education system.

He served as the Vice Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia for 22 years (1926-48) and made it one of the finest educational institutes of India. Later, he also served as the VC of Aligarh Muslim University, as it was facing huge crisis after partition.

Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni

In 1892, at the age of thirteen, he went to the Darul Uloom Deoband. After completing the esoteric sciences, he became a disciple of Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi, who later authorized him to initiate others in the Sufi path. He migrated to Medina with his family after completing his course in Deoband. Teaching became his profession and he taught Arabic grammar there for many years.

After returning to India, he got actively involved in India’s freedom struggle. He had considerable influence over a section of the Muslims, more prominently those belonging to Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

He was one of the founder members of Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. Madani, too was against the inception of Pakistan and was of the view that nations are not formed on basis of ethnicity and religion, but on geographic bases. He had even debated with Allama Iqbal, a known pan-Islamist and a leading pro-Pakistan figure of the time.

Syed Mohammad Sharfuddin Quadri

A forgotten hero of India’s freedom struggle, Quadri joined India’s freedom struggle during the Salt Satyagraha movement in 1930. He supported Mahatma Gandhi in every struggle and was imprisoned in the same cell as Mahatma Gandhi.

At a time when many Muslim leaders wanted another country, Quadri bravely opposed the two-nation theory. Even after independence. He died on 30 December 2015, at the age of 114, 8 years after getting awarded with a Padma Bhushan.

Mohammad Abdur Rahiman

Born in Kerala’s Thrissur district in 1898, Mohammad Abdur Rahiman was known for his heroics in restoring peace in the riot affected areas of 1921. He was jailed for two years for the same. He was a follower of Mahatma Gandhi and mobilized the Muslim masses against the two-nation theory of Muslim League.

____________________

Courtesy: InUth

The post Muslim freedom fighters who strongly opposed the Partition of India first appeared on Sindh Courier.