Regret for Partition at Oxford Debate

Here are excerpts from his speech:

We do not regret Independence

In March 1945, four months before he would lose office, Prime Minister Winston Churchill instructed Archibald Wavell, India’s viceroy at the time, to ensure that India was divided into ‘Hindustan, Pakistan, Princestan, etc’.

Four months later, in August 1945, shortly after Hitler’s defeat in Berlin, and just after Churchill’s defeat in England, Vallabhbhai Patel of Gujarat, who fought the British alongside Gandhi and Nehru, said in Bombay: The British talk of Hindu-Muslim quarrels but who has thrust this burden on their shoulders? .... Give me just a week’s rule over Britain, I will create such disagreements that England, Wales and Scotland will fight one another for ever.

In supporting the motion, I express sorrow at Partition’s pain, and dismay at Partition’s brutal cost. But I do not desire the undoing of Partition. For centuries, Indian rules had imposed a total ban on the mingling of castes. But human nature being human nature even in India, the country ended up, so scientists tell us, with the world’s most mixed population. The demand for Partition was linked to India’s diversity.

Can one celebrate Partition?

To welcome Partition is to imply that people with different backgrounds and different blood-lines cannot live together in one nation. A regressive suggestion. The corollary -- that those possessing a common religion or race enjoy blissful companionship in their homes, nations or regions – is, well, hilarious.

I am curious about possible arguments for opposing this motion. Perhaps it will be said, ‘We do not regret the partition, we denounce it!’ ‘Or, we atone for it.’ It may also be urged that small is manageable. Pre-1947 India was too large. Look how easy it is to manage Pakistan. And what a lark it is to govern today’s India!

In that case, why stop with Radcliffe’s lines? Why not continue the process until we have a hundred nations, each still larger than many a European country? It may also be argued that majorities tyrannize. But the 1947 Partition did not reduce the majority’s power to oppress. In both halves that resulted, majorities became preponderant majorities. In some places, they became cruel majorities in both India and Pakistan.

Muslim majorities who got Pakistan did not need it; Muslim minorities remaining in India who needed security became more insecure. Perhaps it will be claimed that there would have been no Independence without Partition, that Partition was merely the other side of the shiny coin of Independence. But there were doors other than Partition to reach Independence. The coin of Independence could have had on its reverse, instead of Partition, the insignia of statesmanship, of honourable compromise.

I regret more than Partition: I deeply regret the fact that the people and the leaders of the India prior to 1947, and the people and leaders of the UK at that time, could not retain unity while ushering in liberty. I regret the failure in ingenuity and statesmanship, I do not regret Independence, whether of Pakistan or of India. Partition, on the other hand, caused pain and continues to cause pain.

A pure Islamic society?

There was another argument for Partition 70-plus years ago: ‘In a Muslim-majority Pakistan, freed of the weight of idol-worshipping Hindus, we will create an ideal Islamic society, a pure society of justice and brotherhood.’ We may recall that sisterhood was not mentioned.

In reality, this ‘pure Islamic society’ was not an argument. It was a fantasy. Day-dreams were turned into slogans, and slogans were sold to gullible millions. The world knows that there are many Islams. To ask for an Islamic state even in an overwhelmingly Muslim nation is to invite fierce and continual debate, and clash.

There was, I will concede, one noble impulse behind the Partition demand – the impulse of human freedom. Why should people be forced to live together? Why should one set of people dominate over another? If incompatibility is proved, and oppression is established, commonsense might call for separation, an amicable one if feasible.

But what would you say of a separation that places vulnerable children under the permanent rule of a cruel man who is not their father, or of a cruel woman who is not their mother? This in effect is what Partition did in both divided halves.

Who celebrates Partition? Those on the subcontinent who find that suppressing minorities is easier because of it.

Champions of a purely Hindu India, champions of a purely Muslim Pakistan, those with a seemingly unquenchable thirst to put minorities in their proper place - of servitude - such interests have rejoiced over Partition.

And also perhaps those beyond the subcontinent, including diehard imperialists here in this beautiful land, who did not want a united subcontinent to play a prominent part in the peace and prosperity of the world. I concede that among those in India who opposed Partition, and who now claim to regret it, are many who wanted those lands but not the people. They wanted a single India but not an India of equal rights; they wanted domination of minorities under a harsh unitary state.

In three short lines, a poet in Telugu, one of the great languages of southern India, captured the difference between a nation as a physical tract and a nation as a people: Said Gurujada Apparao:

Never does land

Mean clay and sand

The people, the people, they are the land

If tyranny had ended with Partition, I would have welcomed division. In fact, however, tyranny was multiplied by Partition.

Are we proposing a partition of Nigeria? Of Ghana? Of Kenya? Of every country in the world with a significant religious minority? And why only a ‘religious minority’? What about racial, tribal or linguistic minorities?

To oppose the motion is to be pessimistic, it is to be regressive. To partition the Tower of Babel is to begin to demolish it. Evolution moves towards understanding and tolerance and acceptance and mixture, not towards apartheid or hostility.

Partition, meanwhile, has led to the possibility, the spectre, of Nuclear war.

No, we do not regret Independence. We deeply regret the fact that the people and the leaders of the India at that time, and the people and leaders of the UK at that time, could not retain India’s unity while ushering in liberty. We regret the failure in ingenuity and statesmanship, we do not regret Independence.

We regret Partition, we do not seek to undo it. We lament, but we also learn. We see the greatness that might have been, and for a moment feel deeply sad, but it is the future that holds our attention, and for that future we are resolved to know and befriend our neighbours, if possible to reach an agreement of partnership for the future.

We know that the finest defence for a nation is the friendship of its neighbour.

Despite many weaknesses, India may have a message for the world. It is the message of friendship, of forgiveness, of reconciliation, of understanding. The message was and is spelt out by the famous and the unknown.

By the Buddha, Ashoka, and Akbar. By some sons and daughters of this land, Great Britain, who contributed to Indian unity.

By Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Maulana Azad and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan.

I am sure this house will want - on the streets of Planet Earth - Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Buddhists to walk side by side for peace.

Once upon a time, our tribe was our world. Today the planet is our village.