Reunification of India and Pakistan by Vinod Kumar

Most Hindus view the partition of India in 1947 as something terrible for the Hindus and India. Actually, sad and bloody as it was, partition was the single best thing that happened for the Hindus in this millennium. Otherwise the bloody religious riots, which were a common occurrence before the partition, would have enervated the country and today India would have been just another Afghanistan, if not worse. Partition gave the Hindus an opportunity to develop free of Islamic hindrance. Once reunited, the things in India will be worse than what they were before the partition.

Hindus should give up their dream of Akhand Bharat. To the contrary, they should fight tooth and nail any attempt to reunify.

No, I don't think reunification of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh is a good idea -- neither from the point of view of Hindus or those who love democracy, and freedom of speech, thought, expression and religion, and secularism nor does this have any similarity with the two Germanys. Let the Hindus and the Muslims live peacefully and amicably in their own houses and realize their dreams and fulfill their aspirations in their own ways according to their own beliefs.


Ever since the reunification of East and West Germany, it has been a common refrain among people and politicians in India and abroad "if the two Germanys can reunite, why can't India and Pakistan (and Bangladesh) do the same." Some believe "Pakistan like east Germany is a product of the Cold War. It will eventually be integrated with India." Others say: "Political barriers are coming down in the world, why shouldn't we lower our barriers too."

It is true that the idea of Akhand Bharat is very attractive and has great emotional appeal to most Hindus. But just because the two Germanys reunited, India and Pakistan should reunite too is no argument. Instead of being emotional, we should look analytically at the causes of partition and the long term ramifications of re-unification.

Are "political barriers really coming down?" While the two Germanys reunited many countries like Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union fell apart. Twenty-five years ago Bangladesh separated from Pakistan. The two Koreas are still separate. The Arabian peninsula even with 'monolithic' Islam as the sole religion is still divided into many countries. And also the disintegration process is in full swing once again in Pakistan and also in Afghanistan. Then there are Chechnya and Ireland, and, now Kosovo. A quick count of the countries today and fifty years ago would confirm that the "political barriers" are not really coming down.

Now let us look at the case of two Germanys and compare them with India.

The two Germanys were separated as a result of the second World War when the Soviet Union took control of the eastern part and the Allied forces of the western. The Soviets imposed communist regime and the West free market democracy. What separated the two Germanys were the two different political ideologies and the forces of the Soviet Union and the West. Now what reunited the two Germanys? After the collapse of the Soviet Union, communism lay dead. The ideology and the military force that had separated the two were no longer there. The Germans had always been one people -- racially, ethnically, religiously, linguistically and politically. They were reunited when the ideology and the force that separated them was dead and gone. They were bound together by a common bond and it is no wonder that they came together again.

Why was India partitioned? Why was the nation split? Many put the blame on the British for their "divide and rule" policy. That is misguided version at best. Long before the British there were already two separate Indias living side by side - Hindu India and Muslim India. It is true that the British used the divide to facilitate their rule but to say they caused the divide is far from the truth. If anything, by their secular rules they tried to bridge the divide.

The causes of India's partition run much deeper. Muslims after having ruled India for over five centuries were loathe to be reduced to a minority status in a democratic secular India. And Hindus after having tasted the lack of abject subjugation, under the British, which they had been subjected to under the Muslims rulers were not willing to be relegated to that status again. The British rule had brought a rejuvenation among the Hindus. Their ancient culture which had almost been obliterated by the Muslim subjugation and their hatred for anything un-Islamic has been rediscovered during the British rule. And the Hindus felt proud of it.

On the political level, the rejuvenated and democratically inclined Hindus were willing to forget the past and share the powers on the basis of equality with the Muslims as Indians but on a psychological level the anguish lingered. Muslims on the other hand were not willing to forget their past glory, their rule over the infidels, and psychologically they could not accept to share power with the Hindus they had ruled for centuries, as equals.

Hindus wanted the British to leave India. Muslims loathe to see Hindus come to power wanted the British to stay.

Moreover, ideologically too they were poles apart. Hindus are idol worshipers; for a Muslim "idolatry is worse than carnage". The two religions stand at opposite ends of the spectrum.

No one could have put it better than Mr. Jinnah did in his interview with Beverly Nichols in 1943: "You must remember that Islam is not merely a religious doctrine but a realistic and practical code of conduct. I am thinking in terms of life, of everything important in life. I am thinking in terms of our history, our heroes, our art, our architecture, our music, our laws, our jurisprudence....... In all things our outlook is not only fundamentally different but often radically antagonistic to the Hindus. We are different beings. There is nothing in life which links us together. Our names, our clothes, our foods -- they are all different; our economic life, our educational ideas, our treatment of women, our attitude to animals... .... we challenge each other at every point of the compass." He went on to say: "To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state." (Italics mine)

Jinnah is not unique in this observation. Even thousand years ago, Alberuni, a Muslim scholar who came to India with Mahmud and stayed on to study Sanskrit, Hinduism, its literature, sciences, mythology and wrote twenty books on India including translations observed: "First, they (the Hindus) differ from us in everything which other nations have in common." Starting with citing the differences in construction sounds of languages, differences in grammar and rhetoric, he went on to write "secondly they totally differ from us in religion, as we believe in nothing in which they believe, and vice versa." And in this one of the main differences he observed was: "On the whole there is little disputing about theological topics among themselves; at the utmost, they fight with words, but they will never stake their soul or body or their property on religious controversy." This sounded quite strange to Alberuni, being a Muslim he could not understand why one not die for the sake of religion.

"Thirdly," he went on to write, "in all manners and usage they differ from us to such a degree as to frighten their children with us, with our dress, and our ways and customs, and as to declare us the devil's breed, and our doings as the very opposite of all that is good and proper." Fourth reason he goes on to cite is "Buddhists, though they cordially hate the Brahmans, still are nearer akin to them than others" and Buddhists aversion towards the West whence they had been expelled from countries Islam took roots in is shared by the Hindus.

"In the fifth place" he wrote, "the Hindus believe that there is no other country on the earth but theirs, no nation like theirs, no kings like theirs, no science like theirs."

If you go into the history of the two people, the differences separating the two communities, even after thousand years of living together, if anything only deepened. An analysis of the reasons of their increasing antagonism are beyond the scope of this article. Jinnah's words reflect the situation quite accurately.

It is clear that the partition was not imposed on India by outside forces like it was on Germany. It happened because of the heartfelt desire and commitment of the Muslims of India not to live with the Hindus. As poet Iqbal, spiritual founder of Pakistan had said, for Muslims "The Only Fatherland is Islam." Deny as one might, but the truth is that no two societies, nations or cultures are more antagonistic and diagonally opposite to each other than the Hindus and the Muslims -- not even the capitalists and the communists. The differences and antagonism between the two are more deeply rooted than what are evident on the surface or commonly accepted. Jinnah, initially an ardent supporter of Hindu Muslim unity, had realized that any rapprochement between the two was an exercise in futility unless one gave in completely to other's ways.

There is no parallel with the two Germanys; neither in their separation nor in the causes for their reunification. Separation was forced upon Germany and reunification happened only after one of the ideologies that separated the two had been removed. In the case of India and Pakistan, the separation was ingrained in the basic ideology of the two parties and fought for -- not imposed. As long as the two ideologies are healthy and alive, any talk of reunification is like burying one's head in sand. Not only Islam -- the raison d'être of Pakistan (and Bangladesh) -- is alive, it is ever more aggressive, uncompromising and fundamentalist.

Instead of reunification like Germany, India should be looking at the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia.

Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate? The seventeen republics that formed the Soviet Union were kept together by the force of the Soviet Union. When communism died and that force weakened, the constituent republics fell apart. There was nothing else to keep them together. They were different -- racially, ethnically, religiously, linguistically and politically. The same holds true for Yugoslavia.

Like these, India even today is divided by language, ethnicity, castes and regions, and of course, and sadly, still by religion also, -- more so now than fifty years ago. From admission in schools and colleges to the post of President everything is decided on the basis of ethnicity, caste and region, and of course, religion. The secessionist movements in Kashmir, Punjab and the North East -- all non-Hindu majority states -- are religiously motivated and sustained despite the denial by the government of their being so. They believe denial of reality and wishful thinking will solve the problem. Why aren't there separatist movements in Bihar or Maharashtra -- Hindu majority states? Or Tamilnadu for that matter which has not much in common with the north except the common link of Hinduism? If Kerala was a Muslim majority state it would be no different from Kashmir as its only Muslim majority district has shown time and again. Despite all the attempts of the GOI in projecting India as a secular state, the World at large still regards India as a Hindu country. And for good reason, Hinduism is the only bond, the only link, that is keeping India together. Otherwise India is divided -- racially, ethnically, religiously, linguistically and politically. The day this bond of Hinduism weakens, not only will India and Pakistan not reunite, India will fall apart like the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia. Secularism was not able to hold India together in 1947 and it is not able to prevent the secessionist movement in non-Hindu majority states today. And if there is secularism in India it is only because India is still a Hindu majority state. Secularism and Hinduism are synonymous. The day India become a Hindu minority state it will not be a secular state but an Islamic state like Pakistan and Bangladesh. Secularism, according to Muslim scholars, is un-Islamic and hence immoral.

And that is another reason why India, Pakistan and Bangladesh should not reunite. The reunification will mean that Hindu population will be reduced from the current level of 82% to about 60%. With the accepted higher rate of growth of Muslim population, the Hindus will become a minority in United India in less than fifty years. (Muslim population in the geographical area of pre-partitioned India has grown from 13% in 1800 to 20% in the 1890s to 25% in 1947 to about 35% now). With Muslim majority, it will be an Islamic state where minorities and non-Muslims will have no rights like in other Islamic countries -- Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.... or pre-British Islamic India. Whatever of India is still there for the Hindus will be gone too. All non-Muslims will be reduced to the level of Dhimmies and second class citizens that is if they do not meet the fate of the non-Muslims in Pakistan in 1947. There will not much freedom of thought or religion either.

Most Hindus view the partition of India in 1947 as something terrible for the Hindus and India. Actually, sad and bloody as it was, partition was the single best thing that happened for the Hindus in this millennium. Otherwise the bloody religious riots, which were a common occurrence before the partition, would have enervated the country and today India would have been just another Afghanistan, if not worse. Partition gave the Hindus an opportunity to develop free of Islamic hindrance. Once reunited, the things in India will be worse than what they were before the partition.

Hindus should give up their dream of Akhand Bharat. To the contrary, they should fight tooth and nail any attempt to reunify.

No, I don't think reunification of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh is a good idea -- neither from the point of view of Hindus or those who love democracy, and freedom of speech, thought, expression and religion, and secularism nor does this have any similarity with the two Germanys. Let the Hindus and the Muslims live peacefully and amicably in their own houses and realize their dreams and fulfill their aspirations in their own ways according to their own beliefs.

Vinod Kumar | Your comments | Forward it to a friend
Printer Friendly Page
© Sword of Truth, 1999 All rights reserved.

http://www.hinduunity.org