Inevitable Partition?

In much of the popular scholarly and intellectual circles, it is believed that the partition of the India in 1947 was inevitable; at least this is what the two-nation theory suggests. The pre-partition narratives, a significant proportion of them indeed, stress on the disharmony present between Hindus and Muslims in even matters like domestic interactions. Thus, partition was seen as a Messiah for fancy dreams of peace, prosperity, Islamic Fort and what not. But we need to flip the coin!

The bitterness holds a reason. As I am writing this post, Islamic Republic of Pakistan celebrates the brutal killing of 84 innocent Christians who became the victim of twin blasts in Peshawar. Unfortunately, we have a brief history of conflicts, tensions and disputes and this incident is just one example.

Much has been discussed about the partition literature and the focus has remained on the themes of separation, associations, homelessness etc. Nonetheless, the pangs of partition expanded to the post-partition period and this is what I want to emphasize upon. Partition was indeed a major blow for Manṭo but this was not restricted to the fact that he had to leave Bombay or he Shayam Singh, his buddy from Bombay Talkies, started treating him like an enemy. He had probably realized the conflictual post-partition Pakistan where the confused ideologies of community and religion were going to set a premise for a permanent disharmony and conflict. These aftermaths of partition are symbolized through the death scream of Bashan Singh, right at the division line.   

A similar realization is present in Bāstī, though it is a bit subtle. The narrative of Zakir, the protagonist of Intizar Sahib’s novel, is filled with wounds of partition and events that followed, mainly the Dhaka Fall of 1971. The overshadowed approach on Bāstī talks about Zakir’s permanent displacement, psychological at times, yet the novel refers to certain post-partition issues which seem more relevant if seen in recent times.

This brings me back to the point that I raised. For the sake of argument, we accept that the partition of 1947 was inevitable but does this hold true for atrocities and conflicts at the same time? I believe that the literates like Manṭo or Intizar Hussain realized the ideological confusions present in our socio-political realm of matters where a never ending, conflictual state structure prevails to date.