Ironic India

A tribute to all the freedom fighters of the pre-partition India

Mahatma Gandhi - The leader of the nation, was really one of the most successful leaders of the pre-partition India. A lot has been written and said about his greatness that no further justification or praise is required to emphasize his camaraderie. Its good to see that 50 years post independence there are still some filmmakers who think of basing a film on his principles.

While I fully agree with the vast majority of Indians in praising and remembering the greatness Mahatma or Bapuji as he was fondly called by the close ones, a thought passes my mind - are we being unjust to the thousands and more of other freedom fighters who made sacrifices to the best of their capabilities for just the same cause? Should we not instead have a plaque titled “Father’s of the Nation”, or if the plural is objectionable, then maybe “Founders of the Nation”?

By pronouncing only one of the many freedom fighters with the title of “Father of the Nation”, I think we are being very gender biased or male chauvinist or impractical. Either we have managed to weigh each individual’s sacrifices or some other measurable criteria and come to a conclusion that Bapuji’s were the most, or have we just let our emotions take over, thus sidelining all the other great men and women. Also, on a lighter note, if we were to have a father of the nation, should not rightly have a mother and a uncle and a grand father for the nation as well!!! ....hmmm…

The worst irony is; pause; we have to go a little back-date to better understand the point; to the era of Pre-independence; when we had a united India, or an undivided Hindustan, prior to the partition. That time as we know, for numerous reasons, or maybe fewer, a two nation theory was conceived. I think if we really try to trace for the reasons behind this theory, it will not be easier than figuring out the origin or birth of Hindu civilization or the so called ‘Hindu religion’ lately (By ‘lately’, I am referring to the AD era of English calendar; for the ‘Hindu’ existed a long before that. The depths and intricacies of the word ‘Hindu’ are beyond the scope of a couple of pages of explanation, and thus differed for now).

If we were to take the gist of it, the reasons and forces behind the two nation theory would be –
Firstly, the British or the English, because we have this mind-set, after being ruled by ‘them’ for over decades to give importance and superlative priority to the fair skins aka. whites or the not so racist term, the Westerners. That’s just on the lighter note, but yes, since they were the rulers of the country, they would probably be the right candidate for the numero uno reason for tearing down Bharat, India.

Secondly, would be the extremist, not just the Muslim extremist, but certain sect of Hindu extremist as well. Now, whether the Hindu extremist reacted as a response to the Muslim extremist demands, or vice versa, or no co-relation at all is a different debate all together.

Thirdly, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, also known as “Quaid-e-Azam” or “the Greatest Leader” or “Leader of the Nation” (Of-course by the term nation, it is meant the Pakistan) in history, or at least in the Pakistan history.

Fourthly, Jawaharlal Nehru, The son of prominent Congress leader Motilal Nehru.

A lot of people would object the third or the fourth reasons, or their order, or both, but these were indeed some major influential forces behind the partition.

Whatever may be the reasons behind the partition, the partition did happen, not so peacefully as some envisioned, in-fact in a much brutal manner others may say. But it did happen for good or for bad, maybe for worse.

Now, if we apply a little common sense; One thing is broken into two by someone, maybe the father or the creator of two parts, and yet, only one child-part refers to the creator as the ‘Father’. Now, if 2 nations were created by breaking an existing single nation, those two nations should both have a common and the same father. But its not quite so. Now, if Indians decide to refer Mahatma as “Father of the Nation”, so should the Pakistanis. And this is where lies the biggest irony. Only one child decided to title Mahatma as the father, not the other... Now, why did the other nation refuse on accepting Mahatma as the father of their Nation as well. Well, I wouldn’t know any better.

Its like two siblings but not a common father. Now that’s shameful indeed. But ironic nevertheless.

Yet another irony; After partition, one nation gets declared as a Muslim country. Fair enough, but then logic suggest the other half should be declared as a Hindu country. But some think tanks with better reasoning decided to name the second nation, India that is, as a secular nation. The meaning of the term secular is as dubious as the country itself. If all religions are same, if the country does not recognize any particular religion as superior or majority, they still coined the term ‘minority’. Not surprising, this term is majorly used to categorize the Muslims living in India. It damns me every time why in the first place if we had to have a minority community pre dominantly being Muslims, did they not simply name this nation as Hindu nation.

There is another chauvinist face to the secular definition of the country. There is this reservation for the lower castes! On one hand we are secular, meaning everyone is similar. And on the other hand we still distinguish between something like a ‘upper caste’ and a ‘lower caste’, and then, for doing justice to the ‘lower caste’ we declare special reservations.

Are we really secular? Are we proud of what we are? Do we know for real who and what we really are?