Hindu-Muslim Divisions within Indian Society between 1947 and 1991 - Essay Example

Name: Instructor: Course: Date Hindu/Muslim Divisions within Indian Society between 1947 And 1991 Introduction The British-India cleft in 1947 resulted into the creation of two self-governed states of Pakistan and India[Kan01]. This was followed by ethnic sweeping and bloodiest migration in history. Blair and Bloom (2011) posited that the partition of Britain-India was prepared out in the 1947 Indian independence act. As a result, the British Indian Empire was dissolved marking the end of the British Raj. The religious wrath and violence unleashed after the partitioning led to 2 million deaths of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims[Var83]. In addition, more than 13 million people were vigorously conveyed betwixt the 2 states and 75000 women raped. According to Varshney (1983), the violent disposition of the cleft created a mutual hostility atmosphere and obloquy between the two states, which harasses their relation to present day. Consequently, ethnic quarrel currently pervades the local politics of the two countries and distribute in their protection foundations has been inviting the shots to a certain extent. The public riots, which predated freedom and the mistrust between the leaders of two main political parties that d correspondingly was ruled by the members of the both Hindu and Muslim communities, offered a favourable reason for their obloquy[Sri11]. This made the Indian Muslims felt like strangers in a hostile land and observed evil design behind secular assertions in India. Pre Hindu/Muslim Division After the 1947 partitioning, Pakistan a sovereign state was born but despite the dreadful communal violence in India, most Muslims remained in India as compared to Pakistan[Has97]. Freedom of movement had its tangible start long before India was partitioned. Allan Hume an Englishman (1885) assisted a group of Indians to start Indian national congress, a lobby group that was not in a position to question the governance of the British[Sch71]. However, Bal Gangadhar in 1990s radically overturned the agreed mandate of the group, and started aiming for independence. In 1906, the group split into two whereby the few Muslims in the Indian National Congress formed their own group called Muslim League. The emergence of this movement came because of the western culture influence exposed to the Muslims and alienation brought about by the heightened Hindu nationalism in hand with radicalization in India[Kan01]. In addition, Kant (2001) posits that the formation of the movement was catalysed by 1905-1911 disputes in Bengal, whereby the British restructured the district borders in a way that Muslims were given a huge portion one area, causing the Hindus to protest leading to reversal of the decision in 1911. Consequently, both parties (Muslim league and Indian national congress) were working for self-rule. The struggle continued until the end of World War II, when the lord Mountbatten a British Viceroy negotiated a successful deal between the Muslim and the Hindus[Dha04]. In the deal, the Muslims were offered north western and Far East sections (Pakistan), while the remaining territory was offered to the Hindus (India). Post Hindu/Muslim Division This conclusive action to separate the two religious tossed the area into tumult[Aji00]. In this regard, millions of Hindus and Muslims who lived in the opposite side of the declared states had to flee their homes. Violence fuelled by the radical nationalists from the both sides was ferocious taking thousands of innocent lives. The only l light for peace was turned off, [Kan01] when Mohandas Ganghi a peace and reconciliation campaigner was shot dead by his fellow Hindu militant (1948). Jain (2000) asserts that, after separating Pakistan and India, the British failed to decide the future of Kashmir, which led to escalation of violence between the Muslims and Hindus two months after the partition. Typically, Kashmir mostly referred as ‘paradise on earth’ due to its beautiful valleys; mountains and lakes had a predominant Muslim population under the rule of the Hindu. The natural paradise is surrounded by India to the south; Pakistan to the west; Afghanistan to the north and china to east[Roy03]. Both states applied pressure to rule Kashmir government. In its view, Pakistan felt that population in Kashmir had majority Muslims, therefore, they wanted to accede to it rather than India. Unfortunately, majority of Kashmir people opted to join India rather than Pakistan, resulting to tension between Pakistan and Kashmir government[Roy03]. Maharaja community a minority in Kashmir were undecided on which state to join, their indecision frustrated the pro-Pakistani discord within Kashmir. This fuelled a conflict between Pakistan and Kashmir government leading to an outbreak of war. On the fear that Kashmir will be overpowered by the Pakistan India troops intervened, creating more divisions and conflict between the Christians and the Hindus[Bla11]. Ethnic-Political Mobilization and Conflict According to Blair and Bloom (2011), the Muslims who preferred remaining in India proportionately were suppressed after partition. During the division violence, there was an immense deal of communal riots, which made the Muslims feel insecure[Dev04]. As a result, the Muslims kept low throughout 1950s amid the Kashmir war between India and Pakistani. However, devraj (2004) asserts that they gained confidence after a decade of self-rule; hence, they began to regroup themselves. This occurred through democratic institutions, which stimulated Hindu communalism[Has97]. Jain (2000) posits that, in democracy completion between religious groups result into a communal quarrel. Basically, communalism is a political phenomenon. In this regard, the communal forces, shoved by the Hindus became more hostile from 1960s, resulting into communal riots in several cities within India[Dha04]. The first major post independence riot in India occurred in Jabalpur (1962). The Jabalpur violence was not quite savage; however, it shook Jawaharlal the Indian Independence Movement leader. Who was in a view that communal riots would not occur in the modern secular India[Aji00]. Nevertheless, communal sensation was exacerbated further by the war in Pakistan (1965). The Hindu communalism ideologies doubted the Muslims loyalty toward India. Consequently, conflict between India and Pakistan created tension between Hindus and Muslims, which often resulted to communal riots[Kan01]. The Hindu communalism becomes more hostile in the late 1960s after Indira Gandhi was appointed to be India prime minister; she had divided the congress party to fortify her authority causing communal riots. The more she declared her secularism, the more aggressive the communal forces grew against the Muslims. According to Dharmalingam and Morgan (2004), Gandhi had lured the minority Muslims, citing she was a champion of secularism, just like her father Nehru. Indians were not happy about her secular leadership style. Therefore, they engineered a major communal riot in Ahmadabad in Gujarat (1969). In the riots, more than 1,100 people were killed with the majority being the Muslims[Var83]. The violence was pursued by another catastrophic eruption of communal riots in Bhivandi located 40 kilometres from Bombay. Institutional Decay and Political Deception Varshney (1983) posited that, Shiv Sena the newly formed local chauvinistic political outfit in India spearheaded the violence; the communal party was opposed to Nehruvian advanced secular policies. The storm troopers were not only violence champions but also hate speech mongers, who spread hatred against the Muslims especially who had migrated from the south to work in Bombay[Has97]. This resulted into both communal and regional extreme nationalism. Vaitla (2011) argues that, the main reason behind the formation of Shiv Sena was to twofold the congress party. One hand was for intermission of Nahruvian ideologies and the other hand was to break the controlled trade unions. The Bhivandi-Jalgoan violence agitated India this riots made Shiv Sena gain political moorings in Maharashtra[Bla11]. This led to the creation of a strong communal climate in Maharashtra, which used abusive languages against the minority Muslims. According to Blair and Bloom (2011), the political massacre that occurred in both Jalgoan and Bhivandi had left the Muslims terribly insecure. However, the period between 1970 and 1976 was marked by less communal violence; the riots in India major cities were minimal for various reasons. In 1970, Bangladesh emancipation war kicked off, with much involvement from India[Dev04]. Bangladeshi state was born in 1971 after Pakistan was defeated; this made India Prime Minister Gandhi emerge as a prestigious leader. In this regard, a socialist leader Jay Prakash Narayan formed a political movement in 1972[Sch71], a movement that threatened her position as India prime minister. This prompted her to proclaim a state of emergency (1975), where all opposition leaders were arrested, leaving no room for further unrests. Political factors According to Roy and Rowland (2003), during the 1977 elections, Gandhi lost to Jan sangh of Janata party. During Janata party reign, enormous communal riots occurred between 1977 and 1979, whereby several hundreds of Muslims were killed. In 1979, Jan Sangh left Janata party for his newly launched Bharitiya Janata party (BJP) whereby he swore he was a secular. However, the more the Indians leader swore to be secular the more aggressive Muslims/Hindus violence became. A number of reasons fuelled the violence. First, on fear of losing the Muslims votes, Gandhi began to call for Hindus voters, especially who had previously voted for Jan Sangh who was now the BJP. As a result, RSS the most militant Hindu organisation, observed Gandhi as Hindu saviour[Sri11]. Fearing to lose, the BJP leaders, were forced to apply a more militant communal grimace to contest with Gandhi. Therefore, they convinced the RSS that they have not displaced their Hindu moorings by adapting the secular politics[Sri11]. Secondly, in early 1980s India democracy had by then become deeper with established strong roots, resulting to bargaining of powers between the Muslims and Hindus[Dev04]. In turn, the upper castle Hindus protested violently on fear that they will share a great degree of power with the Muslims. Therefore, the upper castle rallied behind BJP, since they saw the party as their interest saviour. The final and the third factor is the implementation of Mandal commission report (1990), which recommended that the minority population (Muslims) be reserved official positions in the government of India[Has97]. Impact of Hindu/Muslim divisions on the Indian community In Roy and Rowland observation, there is near complete spatial cognitive and social separation of Muslims and Hindus in most parts of urban towns in India. The divisions, has led to discrimination in various parts of the country. For instance, wide spread usage of Hindu symbols and mythologies in school textbooks and the continued argument over the leading Muslims educational institutions, such as Aligarh University, have done much than enough to provoke the fears of the Muslim[Has97]. In addition, administrative and police machinery, has been siding with the violent Hindus deepening the feeling of isolation. Hassan (1997) asserts that, characterisation of electoral politics has worsened the matter, whereby the communal Hindu parties, since independence has always portrayed a dualistic character. For instance, the congress secular strain represented by Nehru was also presented in the form of Patel, which were pronounced frequently at the provincial level. Nehru ensured that the secular stain was kept on the check, but early in the seventies after new leaders took power, they became less concerned about the secularism and economic programs. Instead, they exploited religious and caste divisions at the local level. Kant (2001) posited that, people-to-people relationships are the foundation of actual peace. On this regard, persisting peace continues to avoid the Muslim/Hindu region, which is influenced by severe political-religion quarrels. Presently, India is among top five most populated countries in the world[Aji00], with the number of Muslims coming second after the Hindus. However, Devraj (2004) observes that the Muslim/Hindu division has closely related to the strained relationship between India and Pakistan. For instance in 2002 the two countries, which are nuclear states, came close to full-scale war. Jain (2000) observes that, grassroots experience exposed the barriers that oppose poor Muslims in their expedition for a better life. In his view, Jain (2000) observed that the majority of Muslims endure a severe social-economic c deficiency and lack authorization. In addition, the Muslim conditions in the slums in Calcutta metropolitan are an elucidation and results of the deep institutional and relational barriers staring at Muslims in India to connection with social-economic mainstream[Bla11]. According to Hassan (1997), the building of a tolerant society should be through large-scale effective community action by both civil organisations and the citizens of the land. This must be founded upon both the past and present initiatives something that has failed in India. The protrusion of Hindu/Muslim divisions, achieved by Muslim invaders and the suppression by the Hindus has been a key facial structure of colonial historiography[Sri11]. The outcome has been a profound Hindu/Muslim division that has existed up to date. In this regard, the state has acted as both a positive and negative forces, whose action has affected the relationship between the two communities. Moreover, intolerance has resided outside the reach of the Indian state. This has occurred between individuals, families, and community groups. In his observation, Jain (2000) posits that Intolerance has resulted into negated socialisation, which stems from the un-well mind of the people. Failure in Assay to Resolve the Division The division between the two communities continues to dominate great part of India. Despite, the effort made by the two communities’ leaders to foster peace between the communities[Bla11]. For instance in 1992, some Hindus burnt a 16th century mosque in Ayodhya. Their main reason was to construct a Hindu temple on the site, which was holy to both religion followers. The incident has remained a frequent outbreak of violence almost yearly[Roy03]. In 1993, the Bombay riots between the Hindus and Muslims resulted to deaths of 800 people. In 2002, 58 passengers on a train in Gujarat perished with most being Hindu pilgrims. The Hindus retaliated blaming the Muslims for attacking the train, this prompted to escalation of a deadliest attacks that left 499 people dead within 2 days. After two months of violence, 100,000 people fled their homes with the death toll rising to 900. In vengeance, the Muslims attacked Swaminarayan temple located in Gandhinagar killing 23 Hindus[Sri11]. The above examples prove that the tension between the communities has never been solved, the government attempts have bear no fruit instead the hostility keeps heightening every day. India has tried is level best to cool the tension, this began in 1984 when militants Sikhs were ordered out of the temples by the military, and then killed. Others attempts include formulation of several peace accords, which tried to protect the ethnic minorities but unfortunately it failed[Sch71]. Conclusion The need for positive peace should be addressed purposefully, because it goes beyond endurance to hold tight the ongoing dialogues, mutual respect and joint effort to formulate a bright future for all citizens irrespective of ethnicity and religion. In addition, the government must work to infuse harmony in the present generation. To achieve this government will have to provide action education, for children, youth and students to enhance a democratic and pluralist society. Moreover, voluntary action and social movement should be enhanced, to strengthen the weak bridges between the two communities, by renewing a culture and practice of common ‘strategic social’ actions. Equally, the sympathetic loving, and kind facets of every disposition provide a root to a positive relationship between the Hindu and Muslim, through which positive socialization can be nurtured. In this regard, explicit role models of disposition and policy should be instilled in young people consciousness. Ethically, suffering and grief unites. In this regard, poor women, whether Muslims or Hindu have experienced the same level of suffering and their culture for long have been misogynistic and dominated by men. Therefore, women can be used as a powerful force in reconciliation and peace keeping in the grassroots. Ultimately, transformations must occur in a cognitive and existential plane. The hurdle is to implement this transformation, from sensitivity to compassion. Works Cited Kan01: , (Kant 47), Var83: , (Varshney 11), Sri11: , (Vaitla 273), Has97: , (Hasan 14), Sch71: , (Schermerhorn 37-47), Kan01: , (Kant 45), Dha04: , (Dharmalingam and Morgan 529-45), Aji00: , (Jain 12), Kan01: , (Kant 46), Roy03: , (Roy and Rowland 225-48), Roy03: , (Roy and Rowland 240), Bla11: , (Blair and Bloom 109), Dev04: , (Devraj 1), Has97: , (Hasan 13), Dha04: , (Dharmalingam and Morgan 536), Aji00: , (Jain 11), Kan01: , (Kant), Has97: , (Hasan), Bla11: , (Blair and Bloom), Sch71: , (Schermerhorn 41), Sri11: , (Vaitla 271), Sri11: , (Vaitla), Has97: , (Hasan 23), Roy03: , (Roy and Rowland), Sch71: , (Schermerhorn 44), Read More