by AJAZ ASHRAF
Historian Irfan Habib PHOTO/The Hindu
The renowned historian recalls the nightmare of Partition and says the Emergency and Modi coming to power are, for him, the most traumatic events in India post – Independence
What is your memory of the Partition and its impact on you and Aligarh?
I was 16 years old when Independence came. It was preceded by, as you know, the Muslim League’s domination of the Muslim constituency, including that of Aligarh. I inherited nationalistic feelings from my father (famous historian Mohammad Habib, 1895-1971), who belonged to the Congress. Because of the Muslim League I encountered considerable difficulties. For instance, I was pushed around when walking to and back from the school, which I ultimately left. But such incidents were minor in nature.
In comparison to the Partition riots, I suppose?
Yes. We were greatly worried as Aligarh used to border what is now Haryana, and the slaughter of Muslims had come up to the Yamuna. It was touch and go. In December 1947, we couldn’t even travel because it was unsafe for Muslims, many of whom were killed on trains.
Suddenly, Gandhiji’s fast in January (1948) in Delhi turned the situation upside down. Then, of course, in the same month, Gandhi was murdered. A massive demonstration was held in Aligarh the day after his assassination. It was my first experience of participating in a large demonstration, in which both the communists and socialists took part. It also happened to be my first communist demonstration.
Do you remember the slogans that were being chanted?
The Congress crowds were saying, Ishwar, Allah Tere hi naam, sabko sanmati de Bhagwan. (Ishwar and Allah are both Your names, please give everyone good sense). The communists and socialists and others were saying, Gandhi ke hathyaron ko, phaansi do, phaansi do. Mahasabha walon ko, phaansi do, phaansi do. (Hang the killers of Gandhi, Hang the Hindu Mahasabha people.) The houses of Hindu Mahasabha leaders had been attacked all over UP, in Aligarh as well. Everyone went around saying they (Mahasabha leaders) had distributed sweets; it fanned rumours. The distribution of sweets happened, of course. (Sardar) Patel records it, though he said someone’s nephew or niece had got married and the person was therefore distributing sweets.
Indeed, January 1948 was a great turning point for this area of India.
Is this why, in a lecture in Delhi earlier this year, you said, “If we want to truly understand Gandhi’s contribution to the building of modern India, then we should critically examine the events connected to the last four weeks before his assassination”?
Gandhi, unlike Nehru, was not a consistent thinker. In fact, Gandhi himself said that consistency wasn’t his strong point as he was after Truth. I hadn’t read Gandhi then. But you could see he was defending what is now called secular India, the term which Nehru and people like my father were already using. In fact, (the other day) I was reading my father’s address in December 1947 to the Indian History Congress in Bombay. He used the word secular, and said that Gandhiji was giving us a picture of secular India.
His fast was not only against the communal riotings, but also against India’s refusal to pay Rs 55 crore to Pakistan (under the terms and conditions pertaining to the division of assets and liabilities between the two countries). His was a remarkable action – he showed India would remain secular regardless of whatever happened in or with Pakistan.
But the Hindu Right criticises Gandhi for allowing the Partition and pandering to Muslims sentiments. He has been also called the mascot of the bourgeoisie. You now have the Ambedkarites criticising Gandhi for upholding the caste system.
As a historian, to understand Gandhi you have to understand what India was like in his times. We often forget that he came from a caste-ridden society. Since he has been extremely frank in his autobiography and expresses his feelings, even belittles himself all the time, it has become easy to criticise him, as [writer] Arundhati Roy and others are doing.
Gandhi was very honest in noting down what his feelings or opinions were at a particular point in time. But the fact is that he recognises it was a wrong thing. For instance, he talks of his initial repugnance of the Africans. He was honest, but he wasn’t a racist. Caste feelings were very strong in India then. You can’t be organising a mass movement against the British and yet say you will first abolish the caste system [before fighting the colonialism].
Gandhi can be easily accused of pandering to Muslim sentiments by his support to the Khilafat movement. But if Turkey hadn’t been supported, then British and French imperialism would have had the entire Asia in its tight grip. Lenin’s Russia, too, supported Turkey. If you look at the international scene then, the Khilafat movement was important, as was the non-cooperation movement with the British.
Scroll India for more
(Thanks to Mukul Dube)