Abstract
Understanding of the holocaust event, ‘Partition of Indian Subcontinent’(1947) still appears a problematic chapter to deal with even after more than seven decades of the holocaust event not only for millions of Indians and Pakistanis but for many in abroad too. The momentous event still continues to tantalize many historians, writers, researchers and scholars at present day context even. Reading history is not enough to understand this event of great vastness. Literary representation of Partition also plays a significant role in this regard. The cataclysmic event has been documented in a wide range of literary genres -fictions, non-fictions, poetry, memoirs, oral history etc., published in multiple languages in many countries. All the writers try to capture the most harrowing scenes of the turbulent period of history as per their immensity of experiences and meticulous observation. Besides many reasons responsible for the Partition, the underlying ‘anachronistic’ approach to ‘religion’ is noticed as the most prominent one in resulting the thought-provoking disaster of 1947. The present paper seeks to explore ‘the’ least attended aspect but ‘the’ most important reason of the holocaust i.e. the prevailing anachronistic approach to “religion” instead of “modern” with special reference to Brent Nonbri’s idea of “modern concept” of an “ancient( traditional)” notion of “religion.”
Highlights
The vastness of the cataclysmic Partition of Indian Subcontinent (1947) and its legacies still need an expanded framework for its assessment
The magnitude of the event has far-reaching consequences in constructing memory for generations that gives rise to form a new literary paradigm called Partition Literature and an archive in the name of 1947 Partition Archive( founded by Guneeta Singh Bhalla), a nonprofitable organization that is working into digging various details of Partition of the Indian subcontinent through recording and compiling of oral stories of the victims and witnesses of Partition
Far as Partition of India was concerned on the basis of religion it was happened in a context when approach to religion was not “modern” but still “anachronistic”
Summary
The vastness of the cataclysmic Partition of Indian Subcontinent (1947) and its legacies still need an expanded framework for its assessment. Gandhi’s religious bent of mind was not communal as it was in the part of other leaders like Savarkar, Patel (the ardent believers of Hindutva ideology) He was a believer of Hinduism but not of Hindutva for which he had to pay with his life by the assassin, Nathuram Godse( a strong supporter of Hindutva ideology) because he was targeted to be killed many times by Godse before the final attempt. Quoting Abid Hussain’s idea on the prevailing communal atmosphere in pre-partitioned India, Anup Chand Kapur writes, “We should remember that in the period of political transition, the struggle for political transition, the struggle for political, economic, and cultural domination among followers of various religions had become a powerful separating force . The dispute was not among the Hindus and Muslims only but amongst the three communities - Hindus, Muslims and Christianity, while the earlier two were the subjects and the later one was the ruler
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
