This Independence Day we need to look back and reflect on the volatile history of our freedom through literature. The cost that people of undivided India payed for their respective liberation.

fazā tabassum-e-sub.h-e-bahār thī lekin pahuñch ke manzil-e-jānāñ pe aañkh bhar aa.ī

Few months ago, before we were hit by a global pandemic, I had found myself at the gates of the 

 with two friends, mainly out of curiosity. This was during the time when the anti-CAA protests were at their height across the country. We looked around, paid our respects, received a helping of the kada prasad and were sitting on the steps of the gurudwara, when I began paying attention to the words of the Sikh preacher, who was addressing the holy congregation 

From what I picked up of the religious discourse, I realized that the preacher was talking of Aurangzeb and praising the traits that had earned him the label of 

 His words were along these lines: ‘Aurangzeb was a good god-fearing Muslim who followed the tenets of Islam and lived by the rules of his religion, however, his only fallacy was his intolerance.’

The words of the Sikh preacher made an instant impression on me, not because he had spoken of Aurangzeb in soft terms, and not because I was questioning the historical accuracy of Aurangzeb’s portrayal in the Sikh tradition, but for the underlying message that he delivered through the usage of his words which was: ‘

 was undesirable in the practice of religion. The message delivered was important with respect to the charged political atmosphere of the nation at that time.

Every year, I expose myself to literature on Independence & Partition, leading up to the 15th of August. Two years ago, I read 

 which not only introduced me to the charismatic leader of Nationalist Muslims, 

, but was also an important text in the sense that it demolishes the claim of the Muslim League being the sole representatives of the Muslim population of undivided India, which it does by shifting its focus to the prominent Muslim leadership outside of the League and is possibly the most comprehensive text in its niche.

 an account comprising partition voices which tells us how the marginalised have always been the worst sufferers of partition. Women who were raped, abducted and often forced to settle down with strangers due to state-imposed exile, were then ‘rehabilitated’ through efforts carried out by the governments, on both sides of the border. However, these abducted women were sent back to their old families, without being consulted. Women were thus forced to relive the trauma of partition and displacement twice. This went on for about a decade. In fact, a joint India-Pakistan passport was issued by the Republic of India to migrants enabling them to visit family, friends and ancestral homes located on the other side of the border and was functional till the mid-sixties.

The book I have been visiting this year is ‘

‘. The story of India’s most crucial years begins in 1939 with the beginning of the War in Europe and unfolds over the next eight years, being narrated from the perspective of the Congress President 

 I have personal reasons for revisiting this particular text, however, the personal in present-day India is always influenced by the socio-political. Azad seems to be the only sane voice amidst the chaos of partition, which is a reassuring tone even in present times.

Azad’s role as Congress President during the Indian freedom struggle’s most crucial years, as well as his proximity to other leaders who played a substantial role in the Independence movement, allows us to observe Indian history from the eyes of a spectator who saw everything from close quarters. Azad and Nehru’s mutual admiration for one another can be read by anyone, even in their most brief mentions of each other in their written works.

 both recall in their respective memoirs. They formed a friendship that they had both come to cherish, which is evident when Jawaharlal Nehru specially mentions Azad at the beginning of the 

— thanking him, saying Azad’s vast erudition would often delight and sometimes overwhelm him, while Azad dedicates India Wins Freedom to his dear friend and comrade, Nehru.

Maulana Azad and Pandit Nehru often saw eye to eye, but they also had their vast share of differences, their respective stances on the question of partition is where we can highlight such differences. When Vallabhai Patel, Pt. Nehru and even Mahatma Gandhi had given into the inevitability of partition and had begun viewing partition as the necessary collateral damage for Indian Independence; without inserting any unnecessary hyperboles, Azad stood firmly like a falcon against the idea of Partition which would clip the golden bird’s (India’s) wings.

However, Partition did occur and it occurred on the fateful night of 

. Jawaharlal Nehru in his Discovery writes “

”, whereas Maulana Azad in India Wins Freedom calls the finalizing of Partition, with the Congress. Working Committee passed a Resolution in its favor on June 1947 as “The End of a Dream”. Although, the dream of Indian Independence was not realized in full measure, it was felt very substantially.

The zero hour between the night of August 14 & August 15, 1947 proved to be the most significant moment in the history of the Indian subcontinent. The transfer of power to the independent dominions of 

 was set to occur on the midnight of August 14 and August 15, which also coincided with the 27th day of 

However, because it was physically implausible for 

 to be in India and Pakistan at once for the transfer of power, Mountbatten was in 

 on the 14th of August delivering the King’s message of Independence to Pakistan, before he left for India. He attended the Independence day celebrations in India at the 

 on the morning of August 15, as the first governor-general of Independent India.

Therefore, as the constituent assembly of India met for its fifth session at 11pm on the night of 14th of August in the Constitution Hall in New Delhi; with 

 to brace itself in order to welcome the dawn of freedom, Jawaharlal Nehru in what is now recognized as one of the best speeches of the 20th century, delivered his address ‘

 the president of the constituent assembly read out the oath, which the members read with him, and millions in India took to the streets to partake in celebrations. Subsequently, across the border at 11:59 pm, 14th August, millions were glued to their radio sets, when an announcement was made in the voice of 

Even though the oath in Pakistan was administered on 14th August, technically the Indian Independence Act, 1947, was to be effective from the midnight of 14th & 15th August, as the act states: “

As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan.”

 inaugurated the Pakistan Broadcasting Service by delivering the following address to the people of Pakistan: “

It is with feelings of greatest happiness and emotion that I send you my greetings. August 15, is the birthday of the independent and sovereign State of Pakistan

Successive revisions in history have time and again made it difficult for us to locate the real dates of events, but 

Quaid-i-Azam Rahmatullah Alaih: Akhri Do Saal

’, says that M.A. Jinnah’s speech went on air after 12 am on the night between 14th and 15th August. Controversies aside, the celebrations for Independence on both sides of the border barely lasted for two days before they gave way to communal violence. Neighbour turned against neighbour, friend turned against friend and the most sane and pragmatic headed people changed. Families were torn apart in the midst of inexplicable horrors.

 assassination on 30 January, 1948, communal riots in the country stopped, as the news of his death sent shockwaves through India and Pakistan. Barring a riot or two in Bombay, partition related anger and violence magically evaporated. The Government of India cracked down on the organizations that were spreading communal hatred and communalism lost its appeal for the next three decades.

“For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

While it is for the readers of ‘India wins Freedom’ to decide who the real villain of Indian Independence is, it is certain that a common enemy between the present & the past is ‘communal sentiment’ failing to defeat which we landed ourselves in the mess of partition. But from 

The emotional trauma of exposing oneself to partition literature never gets easy, especially when we know what awaits us in these pages of history. South Asia as a region is so divided by its politics that we often forget the aspects of history and culture that unify the subcontinent— the beating heart of Asia. I am often reminded of these similarities when I read the writings of 

, that surpasses boundaries drawn on paper.

India’s own history cannot be studied in a vacuum and has to be presented in the backdrop of South Asian history. Any attempt to understand it in a vacuum is a half-hearted attempt which ends in a feeling of incompleteness, hollowness, of not knowing; which allows one to wonder about what might have happened to homes and descendants that are separated from them by borders. The History of this region flirts and flows into one another and as long as we do not learn to study the history of the subcontinent in its vast fullness, we shall always experience a feeling of 

 whilst encountering it. Partition for a moment erased words like “choice” and “self-determination’’ on both sides of the border. Your religious identity came to the fore as your political identity. It did not matter if you were an atheist or not, whether you were practicing your religion or not. My reading of the ‘Other side of Silence’ and my own experience from interacting with a partition survivor has taught me that Silence can sometimes speak volumes. In the case of a partition survivor, Silence speaks for the trauma, loss, longing, loneliness and carnage one has experienced.

We have recently witnessed on several occasions how fatal communalism, the belief that interests of different religious groups are mutually exclusive, can be, and the inevitability of partition was a result of this very belief. While it is tough to revisit partition literature again and again, one must learn to visit it. Now more than ever, as the country stands sharply divided, we must learn from history.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of The Jamia Review or its members.

Exposing Oneself to Partition Literature: The generational trauma of a continent divided

Two weeks ago, we were coached in “Aatmanirbharta (self-reliance)” by the head of a government, which ironically places disinvestment high on its economic agenda and believes in opening up the country to hundred percent foreign direct investment. This could either be lip service or it might be because nations show a general tendency of leaning towards Socialism, when faced with a crisis. The

has propelled us all to re-evaluate what our priorities are, reopening the debate between wealth and welfare. It has made us reconsider if the sole existence of wealth in an Economy directly translates to welfare, development and social reform for all of its citizens or if it is the contrary.

The pandemic, like any other crisis before it has been able to reveal the cracks and the faults within the capitalist order. As of now, countries like 

 seem to fare better against the corona virus, than countries which follow pure capitalism. Closer home, the success of the state of 

 with its firm roots in democratic socialism does make us wonder if what 

, we make an attempt to look at the influence Socialism has had on 

’s life is by analysing the legacy of intellect, left behind by him via his writings. In his historical account of 

, is enshrined his vision for it— he writes

is a myth and an idea, a dream and a vision”

 and at the same time he lets his reader know that he dislikes thinking about the 

 masses in terms of a theoretical abstraction as telling his reader: 

 to him, is the discovery of its people— undertaken through the rediscovery of 

’s past, substituted by the understanding gained during his travels.

The election campaign of 1936-37, sprang upon him the chance to travel from 

 masses who came to him with his troubles of poverty, debt, taxes and police harassment. While recollecting the election campaign of 1936-37, he makes a conclusive mark about his travels in 

was no longer an intellectual conception for me, it was an emotional experience which overpowered me.”

 is evident in his books and letters. Although, 

 was no mere critic, his writings are full of ideas and solutions; which is why his writings can be looked at as prescriptive texts: as through his writings, he continues to speak to 

, generations-after, passing on his vision from one generation to the next.

The 1920s and the 1930s represent the rise of 

 to participate in the tenth anniversary celebrations of the 

 came to form a group of young radical leaders who were 

, but operated from within it, creating an integration between 

 appealed, however he was never unquestioning neither of 

’s doctrine who was almost a mentor to him, he counted on ‘scientific inquiry’ and ‘scientific temper’— something he tried inculcating in the nation and the people he governed; so while 

 accepted the fundamentals of the socialist doctrine, he was convinced that life was too short to lose in an ideology. 

 plenty and drew him into the doctrines of 

 because socialism was considered to be the direct contender of 

 according to him, did not need to follow expansionist policies as Socialist economies could be made self-sufficient and lack the initial impetus that causes empires to start expanding, as surplus wealth does not build up into a few hands. 

’s natural aversion to capitalism came from the understanding that 

 would use the revenue collected through taxes from Indians to buy raw material for cheap from peasants, for the purpose of export to 

, which would be used up in their infant textile industries.

 industrialised on the wealth of its colonies and while it imposed protective barriers on 

 textiles in order to protect its newly growing industries, choking the demand for 

 was forced to do away with its protective tariffs on 

 cottage industries were nipped in the bud and 

 would be disabled from industrialising. As homespun cloth could not compete with the low prices of machine-spun cloth in the markets, 

 was reduced to being an exporter of raw material for its colonial master.

Therefore, when in 1929 capitalism faced its first major rough patch and 

 became the hardest hit nations by the economic crisis, 

 was certain, that though capitalism survived through continuing exploitation in the colonies, he described what he was witnessing, as the last moments of the capitalistic order— which he commented was 

 with hardly any chances of recovery. He wrote: 

“a social order only disappears after it has run its course and grown to its fullest extent”.

 In accordance with this was his belief that, the capitalist world which worked on the credit system and at the center of which were finance capitalists— bankers & industrialists, involved in a process of amalgamating their wealth together and creating monopolies to capture markets; had failed to pull through the crisis and could not go on in the same way after 1929, without at least a few serious amends. It was ultimately state intervention in the economy via 

 and its people bound together and reconciled the doctrine of 

 were 182 nationalities that were allowed to retain cultural autonomy and attain education in their vernacular language, this introduction of considerable freedom and lack of uniformity, non-imposition of a particular kind of culture, curbed separatist tendencies within the 

— working successfully to an extent as after the disintegration of the 

 found it the hardest to let go, even though they had little in common in terms of culture with the rest of the satellite states in 

 but had benefited economically and socially due to ties with 

 felt that he could locate answers to the “minority problem” and uniting a nation as diversified as 

Having said all that, the most admirable trait in his personality remained his habit of reinventing himself. He did it throughout the early years of his political career and even while functioning as 

, as is reflected in his inability to identify with the writings of his past self. His intense commitment to democracy and social justice and his aversion to opportunist leaders who betray their masses, is evident as he reflects upon the membership of the 

 which constituted past leaders who all went on to occupy high positions in governments and became head of states by exploiting their positions and later abandoned their creed of 

 is empathetic in his approach and blames failed leadership that climbs to the top on the ideals and the sacrifices of the suffering millions.

Although a radical socialist during the days of his youth, he matured throughout his political career to become an accommodated leader who was ready to work out differences through compromise. The politician 

 and he may not have seen eye to eye on every occasion. He worked out a middle ground between state-owned monopolies and private-monopolies by implementing a mixed-economy model and handing out licenses to industries owned privately. He encouraged replacing foreign imports with domestic production, which was essential taking into consideration the fact that the 

 and drain of wealth, which stopped indigenous industries from cropping up.

Alongside major state-controlled enterprises and cooperatives, he encouraged the growth of small-scale industry and implemented a policy of protective tariffs on foreign imports, to encourage domestic production and consumption allowing these infant 

 industries to flourish, without being obscured in the competition of a free market. The in-elasticity of 

 finished goods had always been a colonial legacy and 

 to bring it out of the initial rut it had been in after the colonisers left.

His trusted that economic change should necessarily follow political change and saw 

 as crucial in the development of nations, locating the crisis of the 

 in the lack of economic planning in the western democracies. 

’s development after the success of the 

“the Five-Year Plan has completely changed the face of

. From a feudal country, it has suddenly become an advanced industrial country”,

 and because he saw it as a fitting model, he sought to implement it in his own country too, that hadn’t just industrialised and modernised 

 but had lifted millions out of poverty, given them jobs and promoted scientific inquiry and technological advancement.

’s critiques, there is sense in realising that his economic reforms were suited to his time and revived the economy. The exports increased gradually and 

 showed growth at 4 percent, which had been a breakthrough keeping in mind the circumstances. While there is a lot of controversy in the 

 economy regarding disinvestment presently, in the context of a newly independent nation, a dominant private sector that is only concerned with turning profits and not public welfare could not ensure better services but would instead rake up prices and employ as less labor as possible in order to cut costs and make as much profit as possible.

Public sector enterprises on the other hand, were not concerned with just turning profits and were required in order to provide employment as well as provide goods and services for consumption within an economy at a rate that could be affordable to the masses. Setting up private-sector enterprises in an economy without first raising the purchasing power parity within the economy through social reforms and tax regulations would not have made much sense back then.

 was a legacy of the national movement, its foundations were laid by the 

 and then subsequently implemented in the 

’s vision was ultimately implemented through 

’s message to a world level by implementing it in his politics and within his economics— the import substitution industrialisation mission is not lost on us when we consider that the message for 

 had been embedded in our national movement. 

 advocated for peace and cooperation among nations, so that mutual development shall be possible and there had also been debates about disbanding the 

No matter which direction we forge into, we find the spectre of 

 that seems to be quickly moving away from its 

’s ideas hold relevance. They are the reason why we continue to have subsidized travel in the railways, low-cost but quality education in public universities and low-cost healthcare that is affordable to many. Had the 

 economy completely developed along the trajectory of the 

 economy, higher education would become impossible in 

 without raking up student debts and affordable healthcare should be a distant dream.

The mixed-economic model saved us from receiving a huge blow during the 

 that delivered a large blow to economies that depended on banking system & credit. 

 has a naturally tendency to lean towards the tenets of 

 in times of crises, economic or otherwise, which reaffirms why our goals should remain firmly socialist, so that we can guarantee equity for all, in terms of quality of life, which is why maybe it isn’t time to bid adieu to 

On Nehruvian-ism: His Socialism for his India

Feminism is hardly just about lifting other women up, “empowering” them or understanding and empathizing with their perspectives. Its use isn’t that limited and should not be restricted to that. It isn’t a tool that should be used as a cheer-leading support group, which is run by women for other women, in whatever it is that women are trying to achieve and whatever choices they are trying to make. Choice is not the keyword in this discourse anymore.

It is disheartening to see, when women who consider themselves feminists, proceed to give a defense of themselves as soon as they are labelled 

. I cannot account for how many times I have heard feminists justify how they aren’t man haters. The fundamental man/woman binary that the institution of patriarchy is based upon, thrives on the subjugation of women, as in a binary opposition, there is no coexistence and only violence. And, in order to challenge this institution, it is necessary that this binary opposition be subverted, not to be permanently reversed, only for us to arrive at a new binary opposition, but to show how arbitrarily all binaries, including the gender binary is constructed. Being able to successfully deconstruct this binary opposition, can at least hypothetically collapse the patriarchal institution and overturn the social order, and it is important that we remember that the overturning of a social order, the centralization of margins is never a cakewalk. It is a violent play of forces, and it is hostile.

Critiques of feminism argue along the lines that feminism has lost its purpose and has become another aimless movement, or that feminists are a thing of the past, from when women had no existing political rights. However, the ultimate motive of feminist movements does not stop when women gain political rights. Political justice does not lead to the disappearance of social injustice. The fight of the subaltern, extends much beyond our primordial needs of gaining our political rights. The political system grants a woman her political rights within the matrix of patriarchy and never truly guarantees her liberation.

The famous expression that opens the second volume of 

“One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman”

 means that there is no inherent female nature or essence. Here, the author adapts Existentialism’s notion of 

 to the ways in which gendered identity is experienced. However, if human beings have no essence then it is our choices that make us who we are. Nonetheless, often a times there is no real choice but an illusion of it. Our choices are influenced by phenotypical factors and our opinions are a result of social conditioning. 

, calls the diabolic beauty standard a euphemism for constraining the movement of women, and appearance a diversion.

Most women would call their fixation on vanity a choice; but this does not discount the fact that the feminine ideal that these women are chasing, is a social construct created in the context of 

, by the media in a process that was jump started by economic liberalization, when foreign brands began coming into the country and started using models for advertisements making the Indian woman the earnest consumer. The lives of women have an element of 

 absurdity attached to them, enough for them to go ‘maverick’ — they go around in cycles all time, cycles that occur between washing dishes and the monotony of those that come monthly. However, a running critique of 

 sees femininity as constructed, she does not hold masculinity as accountable. Time and again, we have seen women give up what is more feminine in them and suppress their classically feminine traits while fighting their larger struggles — we’ve seen that in the new woman of the late nineteenth century, we’ve seen it in the women of the suffragette and we’ve seen it in women who stepped in during the 

However, when we do so, when we try to actively suppress what is feminine by giving up hemlines and embracing pantsuits, we are somehow saying that we hold the classically masculine traits at a higher credential than we hold what is classically feminine. The suppression of what is seen as more feminine might gradually lead to the disappearance of the supposedly ‘unwanted’ feminine traits from the public sphere. While feminine and masculine identities can coexist in all genders, it is important to recognize that they are both equally, socially constructed. And, contrary to the popular belief, the aim of all that is feminine is to not be restrictive; but is sometimes to be half-decent.

Women however, tend to let their identity as a ‘woman’ take a backseat but instead associate themselves with other markers of identity: race, religion, and caste. Many women are against calling out their oppressors because they’re afraid about feminism driving a wedge in the communities that they are a part of, which they harness their identity from. Women across all borders have been sacrificing themselves all along for the sake of their communities and while inter-sectional feminism tries to make sure that all the identities in an individual harmoniously coexist, the very requirement of inter-sectional feminism stems from the need to integrate feminism within the patriarchal matrix, in order to tone the feminist movement down. It helps in integrating a woman’s interests as an individual, along with her community’s interests on the surface but these ‘community identities’ or ’social identities’ have found form and are protected by the patriarchal matrix. Hence, inter-sectionality is a concept that has evolved within the patriarchal matrix and thus it works to preserve it.

Feminism isn’t a support group. Choice is not the keyword in Feminism. It is not about helping women make just any choices but informed choices. Feminism is about women calling other women out, on their own misogyny and on their own internalization of patriarchy and amplifying marginalized voices. Sometimes it is also about the understanding of how all institutional religions came to exist and how they all preserve patriarchy and guarantee its continuation. Often, it is also about vocalising realisations like the 

 promotes patriarchy, because it acts as an extension of the 

. The state, acts as a reflection of the family in a certain society and even reflects its ideals. This theory holds especially true in South Asian countries like 

. In both of these nations the family is an important institution and family values are given significance. Age-hierarchy comes into play and elders are to be obeyed. Both these countries also lay heavy emphasis on national loyalties, where the nation is often imagined as a 

, which means that the kind of family values that are dictated to us are complimentary to the national loyalties we are taught about and even make the whole concept of ‘

’ believable. The governments we live under can dictate to a great extent, how the institution of family should be shaped under them, without us ever realizing it.

The only reason Feminism finds so many critiques is because it poses a threat to the prevailing social order and dares to treat women as individuals and not as secondary players within the framework of a society. While the concept of ‘coexistence’ in 

, empowers a woman it will never truly liberate her from her subjugated position in the binary opposition. It is necessary that we not let pseudo-liberals trivialize this fight, hijack the narrative or extend a hand of friendship or offer flowers to those who oppress us. When we classify feminism into liberal and radical, we tone the nature of the movement down. Coexistence and Friendship only exists among Equals and in a Patriarchal society. Women are in a subjugated position and ‘nothing is so unequal as the equal treatment of unequals’. Only when this social order is subverted, shall men and women be on an equal plane, and maybe friendship is possible, from thereon but until then, 

Department of History, Jamia Millia Islamia

Articles by Maria Uzma Ansari

Exposing Oneself to Partition Literature: The generational trauma of a continent divided

On Nehruvian-ism: His Socialism for his India

Nature of Feminist Movements: A Bitter Pill

Exposing Oneself to Partition Literature: The generational trauma of a continent divided

On Nehruvian-ism: His Socialism for his India

Nature of Feminist Movements: A Bitter Pill