What's new

How it felt to be Pakistani in India during the triumph of Hindu nationalism

hassamun

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Messages
771
Reaction score
1
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Arab Emirates
Seventy years ago this month, my grandfather fled India to join millions of refugees in a new country to be known as Pakistan. He survived the ordeal across the still-unmarked border, but he lost family and friends in the killings, expulsions and unimaginable acts of vengeance that accompanied the making of India and Pakistan. These episodes still haunt the subcontinent. My grandfather died four decades later at his home in Lahore. He never returned to his village 20 miles away in what became a different country.

I thought often about his journey as I packed up two years of life in Delhi in preparation for my own, very different, Indian departure. My partner’s job had brought us there, and we returned to Washington this month. But despite the privilege of my U.S. passport, I lived in Delhi with the painful echoes of my grandfather’s partition. For almost two years, I lived as a Pakistani-born Muslim in Narendra Modi’s Hindu-nationalist India. I knew that the experience would be disorienting, but nothing could have prepared me for how vast, toxic and enduring partition had become.

When I first landed in Delhi, the city seemed eerily familiar and welcoming. I beheld the same faces, music, spices and noisy alleyways from my childhood in Lahore. The city’s colonial avenues blended with its red sandstone Mughal monuments, just as they do in my home city. But then in the middle of introductions that first day, my driver revealed his great hope for war. He hated Pakistanis. “They’re a nation of terrorists,” he said. He wanted the new prime minister to consider using nuclear weapons against them. My instinct was to pass this off as the ramblings of an uneducated man. But I soon discovered how normalized, among all kinds of people, these views had become.

One example is a new intolerance for India’s history of religious coexistence. A month after I arrived, students at Delhi’s leading public university were arrested and charged with sedition for criticizing the government. They were eventually released and suspended, but the term “anti-national,” which implied pro-Pakistan (and thus pro-Muslim), entered the lexicon soon after as a powerful epithet. Trolls took to Twitter and the streets to police anyone who dared to speak out against the state. One day I opened the newspaper to find an image of two bodies — one a 35-year-old man, the other a 12-year-old boy — dangling from a tree. They were Muslim cattle traders who had been lynched by Hindu cow-protection vigilantes. Their corpses were meant to send a warning to those suspected of eating, transporting or selling beef. As similar attacks on Muslims grew in frequency and brutality, the leadership’s silence spoke volumes. Although I was privileged by Indian standards, with a gated apartment and a driver, I became depressed and increasingly nervous about leaving home.

A yoga teacher concluded a much-needed meditation practice with an unexpected tirade against Muslims. According to him, they’d ruined the city with their filth and multiplying population. He told me I needed to accept my community’s culpability in its subservient condition. I stayed silent during political dinner conversations that turned to the question of my nebulous heritage. “I’m American” never sufficed, so I evaded the subject. Everywhere I went, I was simply mistaken for an Indian Muslim and treated with neither the reverence nor the hustle reserved for Western tourists. I passed. But I was definitely elsewhere on the inside.

After a skirmish over the conflict in Kashmir, Pakistani actors and musicians were banned from Bollywood films, and it became mandatory to stand for the Indian national anthem before each movie. A disabled man was slapped and berated in one cinema for not standing up, in a case of mistaken anti-nationalism. I always obligingly mouthed the words of the anthem I didn’t recognize. I adapted my parents’ Urdu to sound like Delhi’s colloquial Hindi. (The languages that once played together had also become partitioned.) I raised my hands to say “ram ram” to the saffron-robed walkers in Lodi Gardens when “salaam” had once been my default setting. I was a closeted Pakistani, and only my very closest friends knew. I often wondered when and where I would be found out.

I never went to Pakistan from India, and nobody from my family ever came to visit. Since the Pakistani terrorist attacks on Mumbai in 2008, it has become almost impossible to get visas to travel across the divide. There is only one weekly flight between Lahore and Delhi. The closest I came to my Pakistani family was at the daily border ceremony at the crossing between the two countries near the city of Amritsar in Punjab. Every night at sunset, crowds gather on each side to watch Indian and Pakistani troops march toward each other as the gates are briefly flung open, then immediately shut. With soldiers in full regalia, soundtracked to military pomp and circumstance, the Indian ceremony is meant to stir audiences into a frenzy of nationalism. I had my first truly out-of-body experience sitting at the edge of the Indian stands looking at the Pakistanis beyond. They were seated behind rows of barbed wire, past the patch of no-man’s land and an arsenal of armed guards. They dressed as my Lahori relatives did, and they were playing pop songs I grew up with, remixed with the call to prayer. On India’s side, the speakers blared Bollywood anthems at full blast as men and women rushed to join the soldiers in bhangra dances. India was adding seating space to answer bursting demand. Performances were increasingly sold out, thanks to resurgent nationalism.

This was the region where my grandfather was born and where blood, rape and massacre were unleashed on an undocumented and unspeakable scale in 1947. The way that painful legacy was turned into a carnivalesque celebration of enmity made it the ugliest place I had seen in South Asia. It was the performance of familial hatred for cheap titillation and political affirmation. At some point, I stopped watching and looked up at the beautiful sunset. As the ceremony concluded, the crowds in the risers walked as close to one another as they could get. The occasional person on each side waved, with utmost curiosity, at the other next door, who looked, sounded and seemed the same but lived in a country so far out of reach.

On many days, I felt like I was being metaphorically ejected from India. I was living on the wrong side. The Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party’s extraordinary electoral victories across the country made secular liberals and minority communities feel unwelcome and unsafe. In March, the prime minister appointed a fervently anti-Muslim cleric as the chief minister of the country’s largest state. Hindu mobs harassed Muslim families to “go back” to a country they never came from: Pakistan.

Then one day, spring arrived, and Delhi suddenly looked just like Lahore: lush, floral and filled with what seemed like every species of bird that’s ever existed. Peacocks landed on balconies, and trees exploded with blossoms and fragrances. I stopped reading the news and started spending more time talking to neighbors and friends. We tuned into other frequencies. We discussed books, music, our melodramatic Punjabi families and the daily ordeals of the city’s horrendous traffic. It was a welcome reprieve from the rhetoric of difference. Even I began forgetting my secret.

One fundamental question that haunts the relationship between Indians and Pakistanis is whether partition should have happened. Wouldn’t we be better off together? I don’t know the answer, and I find it increasingly pointless to imagine the hypothetical possibilities. The tragedy of borders is that they eventually become real. India and Pakistan have turned into two very different societies. They have had different traumas and triumphs since 1947.

But they also share a much longer history and a familial bond. After living in India, I feel that the tragedy of partition is a more personal, unknowable one. What relationships, friendships and conversations never began? What ideas were unformed and unsaid that could have changed lives? For Pakistanis, only a sliver of the subcontinent’s extraordinary history and geography is accessible. For India’s Hindus and Sikhs, who were expelled from their former Pakistani villages and cities, homes, lives and stories have been erased by the Islamic republic.

Archiving the loss and suffering of that dying generation is so important. But in my life in India 70 years later, I was fortunate eventually to discover friends, mentors and family I never knew I had. Our ties were not based on bloodlines or nationalities, but on our shared language, geography and cultural references that felt deeper and more human. India’s Sufi poets always sang that the greatest journeys bring you home — and to yourself. As I traveled across the country, I thought of all the people who were not and will not be allowed to make that journey. I thought of my father’s relatives, who have never been able to go back to their homes next door to see what remains of the world that made them.

As I left Delhi, a series of panels to mark partition began, and the city’s beggars walked barefoot through traffic selling cheap flags and tricolored trinkets. I returned to America on Aug. 14, Pakistan’s independence day. India’s monumental celebrations followed the next day. In my own small way, was this a Pakistani partition from India once more? On our last Friday there, friends gathered in our Delhi home for an evening of farewells, and I realized that I no longer saw India as an abstraction filtered through the painful lens of partition. The other side had become my home. The choice to make a life there for two years despite the unwelcoming mood was a small, personal act of rebellion against the logic, brutality and irreversibility of partition. I’ll have these friendships forever, and I’ll always be grateful that I had the chance to make the return my grandfather never could. Partition is permanent, but I hope parting doesn’t have to be.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...5a3617c767b_story.html?utm_term=.28d22f986395
 
.
LOL...... after his long rants against Hindus and India, this is how he end his article :lol:


"On our last Friday there, friends gathered in our Delhi home for an evening of farewells, and I realized that I no longer saw India as an abstraction filtered through the painful lens of partition. The other side had become my home. The choice to make a life there for two years despite the unwelcoming mood was a small, personal act of rebellion against the logic, brutality and irreversibility of partition."


He still refuses to call pakistan "Home" :lol: ......... still calls India "home".
 
.
From the commentry section :

A Sandhu
8/26/2017 7:19 AM GMT+0530

As someone from a minority religion in India, Sikhism, and having lived in different regions of India, I am forced to comment on the extremely exaggerated, at times fabricated presentation of India by this author... such lies... wow.. just wow! Your obsessive anti-Hindu bigotry, which way too many Pakistanis have, is evident in this article, Mr Bilal Qureshi. Shame on you!
 
. .
One can feel the pain which author is going through.

All he could narrate were the pieces of news which he was intentionally looking for.

BTW the author has forgot to mention whether he had met even a single Indian Muslim who regretted not migrating to Pakistan during partition :p:

My grandfather died four decades later at his home in Lahore. He never returned to his village 20 miles away in what became a different country.
I adapted my parents’ Urdu to sound like Delhi’s colloquial Hindi

When you lie, it will be detected

Which town in India 20 miles away from lahore speak URDU.

Once born in Punjab, you cannot help but speak Punjabi or avoid drinking Lassi :partay:
 
.
August 26, 2017 19:28 IST
Updated: August 26, 2017 20:55 IST
http://www.thehindu.com/books/books-reviews/fractured-realities/article19553711.ece?homepage=true

A historian argues why in deeply divided India a mere awareness of other languages and religion is not enough
Nations do not emerge from the sea like the Goddess Aphrodite. The transformation of a plural but fragmented society into a nation that demands the right to self-determination, involves interlocking processes that logically predate nationalism. Arguably the interrogation of, and engagement with Hinduism by agents of colonialism, as well as Indian intellectuals, fostered consciousness and awareness of the collective self. In the main, Indian nationalism was constructed around a ‘Hindu identity’, and the harnessing of this identity to the nation-state project, in short a set of processes that were oriented around religious symbols.

Sugata Bose concentrates in the defining chapter of this volume — containing an assortment of essays that sit rather uneasily with each other — on what Bipin Chandra Pal called the sacred biography of the Mother. The Mother figure inspired creativity in Bengali philosophy, arts, poetry, painting, music, drama and, architecture. Worship of the Mother escalated in the first decade of the 20th century, even as people struggled to deal with the partition of Bengal in 1905. It was only when the Mother revealed herself that patriotism worked and saved a doomed nation, wrote Aurobindo.

When Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay authored Bande Mataram, continued Aurobindo, it was a sudden moment of awakening from delusions: the mantra had been given.

Bose details the heavy symbolism of the mother figure to engage with the literature on mimetic and elite nationalism, and suggests that the narrative left a small opening for the poor and obscure to enter the story. Indisputably however, the worship of the Mother sent frissons of tension among the Muslim community, even if some individuals from the community joined the general acclaim for this symbol of India.

Contested figure

Yet the figure of the mother was also deeply contested and subjected to scepticism. When it was suggested that Bande Mataram should be sung in Congress gatherings, argues Bose, Nehru pointed out that the song was likely to irritate Muslims. And Tagore wrote that a song which adored the Mother, was inappropriate for a national organisation which was a meeting place for different religious communities.

In our national quest, Tagore remarked, we need peace, unity and good sense, not rivalry just because one side refuses to yield. A symbol that could arouse so much political passions could also, writes Bose, be sacrificed by those prepared to die and defiled by those who were prepared to kill. In the end, what was at one point the ‘partitioner’s axe’, has been wielded repeatedly by her own sons to dismember the mother figure. This is a tragic replay of the mythology of Parshuram. The first essay of the volume carries a powerful message for the Hindutva brigade that openly intends to imprint the soul of India with supreme indifference towards religious minorities.

Sugata Bose’s arguments in related essays evokes a sense of a time when imaginations were fertile but troubling. In 1928, the philosopher Krishna Chandra Bhattacharya (1875-1949) who held the King George V Chair at Calcutta University (now the B.N Seal Chair) focussed on the problem of recovering Swaraj in ideas. Genius, he said, can unveil the soul of India in art, but it is through philosophy that we can methodologically attempt to discover it. By that time, intellectuals had realised that the Indian soul was deeply fractured. Within the space of Hinduism, it was fractured along caste hierarchies. Within the political community, the collective self was fractured along religion. Overt Hindu symbolism and imaginaries, collapse of religious ceremonies into political rallies, and hate-filled attacks of the aggressive right-wing Hindu faction, aroused a great deal of apprehension among Muslims. The community was to, consequently, mobilise itself around Islamic identity and the two-nation theory. Our intellectuals problematised colonialism, but they could never problematise Hinduism, though they sought strenuously to reform it.

Chauvinistic nationalism

Sugata Bose deals with some of these issues in this volume. He suggests that the Mahatma’s reason needs to be rescued from the mystical haze created by latter day cultural critics who fly the banner of indigenous authenticity. Also of interest are pieces on Aurobindo, who insisted that despite some dark ages India still lives with cosmopolitanism.

Bose speaks of the strong strain of universalism in Gandhian thought and in Vivekananda. Sadly, this universalism fell prey to the lowly calculations of identity politics. Tagore’s philosophy is painted in vivid strokes throughout Bose’s canvas, and he reminds us repeatedly of Tagore’s warnings against chauvinistic nationalism.

Finally, an important point had been made by Bose in a speech to the Lok Sabha in December 2015. He reminded the House that it is the duty of the majority not to discriminate against the minorities. He concludes that we should cultivate cultural intimacy, a notion taken from Subhas Chandra Bose’s philosophy.

Certainly, cultural intimacy or awareness of, and deep appreciation of other cultures, languages, religion, music, poetry and literature is an essential part of being human. But we must ultimately rely on political/legal norms that ensure that people who speak different languages, and hold different visions of the good should be treated as equal by a democratic state.

When it comes to inter-personal relations, a prime civic virtue — which Bose seems to have misread — is that of tolerance. Tolerance or toleration in political theory is not paternalistic, it is based upon the supreme philosophical value of doubt in our own capacity to know the truth. We have to be conscious of the imperfectability of our own truth, only then can we respect other cultures as repositories of the truth, howsoever partial those truths may be. To learn to respect other ways of life introduces moral restraint on our conduct, teaches us to be receptive to other versions of the truth, and fosters non-violence. This is the Gandhian way.
 
.
How common is to greet any one with "Ram Ram" in Delhi.?? I`ve never heard anyone greeting that way during my stay. Is that even a greeting ?
 
. . .
How common is to greet any one with "Ram Ram" in Delhi.?? I`ve never heard anyone greeting that way during my stay. Is that even a greeting ?

Most pakistanis do since they instinctively know the next person standing to them is a haryanvi jat Delhi cop . :lol:
 
.
LOL...... after his long rants against Hindus and India, this is how he end his article :lol:


"On our last Friday there, friends gathered in our Delhi home for an evening of farewells, and I realized that I no longer saw India as an abstraction filtered through the painful lens of partition. The other side had become my home. The choice to make a life there for two years despite the unwelcoming mood was a small, personal act of rebellion against the logic, brutality and irreversibility of partition."


He still refuses to call pakistan "Home" :lol: ......... still calls India "home".
America is his home because it has a better standard of living than both countries.
What rants? He is telling a story about his experience.

Once a pakistani, always a pakistani. That is why India do not give Visa's to American citizens with pakistani parents.

I am surprised he got a Visa. Must be a Journalist visa.
No it's because they are xenophobic and afraid.
 
.
America is his home because it has a better standard of living than both countries.
What rants? He is telling a story about his experience.
No it's because they are xenophobic and afraid.

Can you read english and understand it ?

In his article he calls India "Home". I have quoted the relevant section so that idiots like you do not have to work too hard. He even calls it a protest against partition.

No it's because they are xenophobic and afraid.

Its sensible to be afraid of terrorists , terrorist sympathizers and terrorist supporters. Next logical step is to refuse them visa.

Rest of the world is free to come.
 
.
Can you read english and understand it ?

In his article he calls India "Home". I have quoted the relevant section so that idiots like you do not have to work too hard. He even calls it a protest against partition.



Its sensible to be afraid of terrorists , terrorist sympathizers and terrorist supporters. Next logical step is to refuse them visa.

Rest of the world is free to come.
india the most racist and xenophobic country on this planet can never be his home.:lol:

Hypocrite take a look at what forum you are on don't you have any shame or self respect?

Rest of the world LOL you mean like richard gere? Africans who were assaulted by mobs? White girls who get raped? The list goes on you piece of shit
 
.
india the most racist and xenophobic country on this planet can never be his home.:lol:

Hypocrite take a look at what forum you are on don't you have any shame or self respect?

LOL....why are you telling me that you fool. Tell that to the retarded author who wrote in his article that India was "home".

We sure has hell don't want him and would like to tell him that this is NOT "home".

Ask that pakistani american to have some self respect and quit calling India "home". :lol:
 
.
LOL....why are you telling me that you fool. Tell that to the retarded author who wrote in his article that India was "home".

We sure has hell don't want him and would like to tell him that this is NOT "home".

Ask that pakistani american to have some self respect and quit calling India "home". :lol:
You are retarded not the author. You can't handle any sort of criticism which speaks the truth.

We sure as hell don't want peter scully's indian kids here but they have no shame. :lol:
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom