Name: Saad Sajjad

Roll Number: 18025

Course: Pak Studies

Section: BSMT-18

REFLECTION PAPER
India’s 1947 partition was a ‘bloody’ event that physically and psychologically affected millions

of people. Many historians took the event on board; however, no one was able to fully explain

the event and why it was such a disorganized event and who was primarily responsible for it.

The partition was explained in a completely different way by an Indian historian, Urvashi

Butalia. Instead of focusing on ‘the big man’s’ history, she focused on the history of the people

as to how it affected them and tried to voice ‘the untold partition stories’. She believed that

history was ‘a man's story’ and thus tried to explain how the event mostly affected women, and

how even their most basic rights were violated and they were the victims of a male savagery. A

different way of presenting the partition is why her work has intrigued me the most.

She explains how rape, honor killings, abduction and conversion were subjected to women.

Mostly women were killed for honor because if they were raped, they would lose their human

identity and become ‘impure’. Indeed, many women chose death over dishonor themselves and

chose to die themselves. What's so amazing is the fact that the women who were kidnapped and

forcibly married and somehow managed to accept the circumstances after going through all the

agony were then brought back to their ' home ' nations and not even asked if they wanted to

return or not. One such event Butalia mentions in her book when Zainab, a Muslim girl, fell in
love with her abductor, was later brought back by a search party. She promised she would be

back but did not come back. Boota Singh, her husband went to Pakistan to find her, and in a

court case Zainab, stated that she did not have anything to do with him now. Perhaps she was

forced to record this statement. Women could not even make a choice for themselves. Their

honor was not theirs but belonged to the men of their families. The children of the ‘impure

women’ were left to struggle for themselves and branded as ‘impure products’. Nobody thought

of them. For both sides, it had become more of a personal grudge against the other community

rather than an idea. Another unbelievably confusing factor is how the men later justified the

killings of honor by saying they were killed for ‘protection’. How can someone be killed for

protection? Maybe it was just that these women were conditioned to appreciate their honor that

wasn't even above their lives to them. Another point that arises here is that partition was defined

on religious basis, but people being mercilessly slaughtered and women being raped is against

every religion. People had become so begrudged against the other community that they went

against the very belief which was defined as the basis for the event. The men on both sides chose

to use the body of women as a weapon to dishonor the other community and chose honor killings

to counter rape and conversion from the other community.

Butalia's work is amazing to me since she's shown how much more they were to the partition

than just its political aspects. She succeeded in brilliantly highlighting the society's patriarchy.

The manner in which honor-killed women were glorified and the rape, abduction victims were

labeled ‘impure’ and were left to fight on their own. This suggests that only until the woman was

' pure ', remained the family honor. Some of the people also gained from the partition, for

instance, she mentioned her own uncle, who stayed in Lahore in order to inherit the family

properties and orchards which would all be his now.

1
“Bapsi Sidhwa, in a conversation with Alok Bhalla as documented in his book Partition

Dialogues, talks how greed was a strong motivator during the riots. Perhaps some communities

thought that if they could get rid of the other, they could take over their business or remove

competition.”

Ayesha Jalal argues that Jinnah never really wanted a Pakistan. It was the efforts of Congress

that led to the separation. He just wanted to be the Muslims ' sole representative.
2
‘’On 3 June 1947, as planned, Mountbatten and Atlee simultaneously announced that India

would be partitioned and power would be transferred to two separate states on the basis of

Dominion Status. Nehru recommended the partition plan as a ‘big advance towards complete

independence’, while Jinnah simply left it to the League Council to decide whether to accept the

plan as a ‘compromise or a settlement’… The A.I.M.L. Council formally announced that it

accepted the plan, not as a settlement but as a ‘compromise’.”

Faisal Devji also argues that Jinnah was an ‘arrogant character’, who held a low opinion of most

Muslims, and who was not religious in any way, and he tries to imply that he might have just

wanted all the power for himself. Why did Jinnah want all power is what these historians fail to

explain? Why would a sick man fight for power and why would he still agree to lead Pakistan

and perform his duties so intensely if he failed in his initial motive of a united India with

Muslim’s power? What was in it for him?

The contradiction between Ayesha Jalal and Faisal Devji is that the latter claims that Jinnah

looked at Pakistan as an attorney looked at the goals of his client, implying that he wanted

1 “The Other Side of Silence.” Essay UK Free Essay Database, Essay UK, 5 Nov. 2016,
www.essay.uk.com/essays/english-literature/the-other-side-of-silence/.
2 Ayesha Jalal, The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the demand for Pakistan,
Cambridge University Press, pp. 287
Pakistan no matter what and did not consider its after-effects, while Jalal says that Jinnah never

really wanted the partition. The prime difference between all these writers is that Urvashi Butalia

negates ‘the big man’s history’, which is so evident in the writings of Ayesha Jalal and Faisal

Devji. She also attempts to portray separation as a tragedy for the people who have suffered as

a result of it rather than as a result of a failed political strategy. For this reason, Butalia’s work

seems more complete to me since she describe all facets of the partition rather than just the

political aspect of it, which was although integral but only a small part of the event.

Works cited

[1] “The Other Side of Silence.” Essay UK Free Essay Database, Essay UK, 5 Nov. 2016,
www.essay.uk.com/essays/english-literature/the-other-side-of-silence/.
[2]Ayesha Jalal, The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the demand for Pakistan,
Cambridge University Press, pp. 287
[3] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1AXPFLFiUamm2k8YNM4g3jCY12rT3EMnN