Muslim good Hindu bad

In response to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uttorshuri/message/1858

I'd like to thank all the people who have responded with their thoughts to date and who have shared reading references on 1947. Let me quickly confirm what many will have already guessed: I am not a professional historian and therefore apologize up front if some parts, or all, of my original message came across as banal or obvious, or both.

That said, what I found disappointing amongst all the reactions was the attitude taken by Professor Hashmi in his lengthy and detailed message. I agree with the reasons he has given to explain the polarized views many people have today and, indeed, for the basic lack of awareness on matters relating to Partition. Moreover, I enjoyed much of the detail he offered in his message. But for all this effort, Professor Hashmi seemed determined to undermine his professional credentials by mixing his "purely academic" note with bursts of exaggeration and caricature that left me wondering if he was being ironic or guileless.

Professor Hashmi repeatedly urged the reader to embrace major Muslim political leaders, warts-and-all, and recognize them for their worth. They were, to follow his argument, fallible human beings but nonetheless great public figures. On the face of it, this position appears to be much more enlightened and easy to accept than the one-sided hallucinations of the past created by today's factional politics. Until, that is, you consider what he uses to back up his case. To appreciate the sincerity, honesty, patriotism and selflessness of Southasia's Muslim leaders, we must apparently acknowledge that their Hindu counterparts were inconsiderate, devious and arbitrary individuals who occasionally patronized terrorist thuggery in east Bengal and elsewhere. So, Muslims one and all, put aside your differences and recognize the valour of your leaders (but don't forget to transfer your approbrium to the Hindus...)

This dumbed-down and unexplained version of contemporary political reality reminds me of Richard Attenborough's Netaji- and Gurudev-free film 'Gandhi'. Rather than portray Gandhi as he was—a hard-boiled and exceptionally shrewd political customer, Attenborough painted him as a mild-mannered hippie (a soft-focus characterization that lent itself to a liberal, western, cinema-going public). To round off this impression, Attenborough created an equally comical counterpoint out of the Muslim League leadership, wherein Jinnah (played by Hammer House of Horror veteran Christopher Lee) was reduced to a sneer, set on undoing Gandhi's mission. Professor Hashmi's embrace of key Muslim leaders mirrors Attenborough's portrayal of the Congress top brass, not because they both acknowledge imperfection in their heroes of choice, but because they are both achieved at singular expense of political adversaries.

So, what makes these lop-sided renditions any different from the partisan views of conservative Muslims or conservative Hindus today? Let us recall what Professor Hashmi himself has to say of such degraded historicizing: "Glorifying someone as the hero at the cost of other heroes is a totally uncivilized behaviour."

Clearly Professor Hashmi has the means to interpret the past in a balanced way that does not reduce one or the other political faction, or community, into a cardboard cut-out. That is why, presumably, he was requested to "shed some light" on "this over-debated issue" to an educated-but-uninformed readership. One should ideally look to experts to provide a well-rounded appreciation of people and events, with the necessary caveats. Experts should themselves demonstrate not only domain knowledge but also a capacity to rise above the fray. Professor Hashmi has not offered this in his intervention. In fact, he has not just failed to shed light, his basic argument and intemperate manner have combined to lower the tone.