by Prannv Dhawan 1 June 2019
Robert Gordon had defined critical history as “any approach to the past that produces disturbances in the field.”[i] In this context, feminist historiography produces the disturbances in the field of existing social reality by foregrounding the women’s experiences within the complex and diverse society.[ii] It is in this context that many Indian feminist scholars have problematized the silences of the subaltern and gender perspectives within the loud and pervasive cacophony of official accounts about ‘high politics’[iii] and ‘blame game’[iv] of Partition.
The works of feminists like Urvashi Butalia’s have made considerable attempt to bring the common people’s, especially women’s ‘experience’ during the Partition through oral historical narratives. Feminists have also explored how the discourses of nation, gender and ethnicity impact the women’s conceptions as victims, survivors, subjects, martyrs etc.[v]
The widespread bloodshed and rioting led to destruction and devastation of thousands of people, houses, properties to an extent that the damage to cities like Amritsar and Lahore was accessed to be more than the damage of an air strike in a war zone.[vi] The ethnic cleansing and forced migrations of hundreds and thousands of people in instances like the Great Calcutta Killing or the Rawalpindi Massacre raised the ugly head of competitive communalism. Jawaharlal Nehru, in his personal correspondence with his minister Krishna Menon had remarked that the peaceful population of the country had turned so militantly murderous that the strife could not be termed as rioting for it was the manifestation of “sadistic desire to kill”.[vii]
In this context, it is important to understand the gendered aspect of the social reality of Partition and what it meant for role, status and interests of women. It is important to acknowledge that the differences between various schools of feminism are largely notional and only signify a point on the spectrum of feminist thought.[viii]
However, the mention of the gruesome atrocities against women of all communities and religions in the various border as well as mainland regions did not focus on women as the primary agent or subject of the discourse or narrative. Women, like during the horrific times of Partition, were relegated to the status of an object. So, while historical research on women’s experiences is scarce, Urvashi Butalia’s The Other Side of Silence and Ritu Menon and Kamla Bhasin’s Borders and Boundaries present the long repressed pains about the trials and tribulations of the women survivors of Partition.[ix] Another female writer, Anis Kidwai, has highlighted the plight of women in her book In Freedom’s Shade. A notable passage from the book makes a strong satirical comment:
“There are many young, half-mad women who keep laughing- perhaps at all of us, at the country, at religion and the propagators of these religions, at government and their laws. Maybe they laugh at freedom – who knows what they are laughing at?”[x]
Many feminist authors have also used the medium of literature to draw upon real-life stories to build narratives of burgeoning nationalist and communal strife and its degrading impact on women.[xi] One of these accounts include Bapsi Sidhwa’s Ice-Candy Man wherein the gendered brutalities of communal violence are highlighted by atrocities against Muslim women.[xii] It explains how violence against women incites counter-violence against women of the enemy community. It also shows how amiable inter-community social relations turned immediately violent and how women bore the brunt of this exploitation through gang-rape, forced marriage, forced prostitution etc. While depicting how the “will of men” had precipitated the gory bloodshed and communal divide, the story also valorises women’s solidarity for each other to accord agency to their actions.
This shows how the complicated relation between women’s sexuality and violence in a patriarchy. This is due to the understanding of women’s body as “the receptacles of a man’s honour” which are the object of “male constructions of their own honour”.[xiii] Even as communal and nationalist rivalries are understood as contests to protect women’s honour or avenge for the disrespect of the same, women’s bodies become the markers of triumph against the enemy. The disconcerting scale of atrocities (including rape, abduction, torture) against women during Partition range between “33,000-50,000 Hindu and Sikh women and 21,000 or so Muslim women”.[xiv]
Hence, the gendered brutalities during Partition are also embedded in the dominant patriarchal ideology of controlling women’s bodies. It is against this backdrop that women representation in cultural and familial contexts is problematized.
Hence, the gendered re-telling of Partition presents various hitherto unexplored silent oppression and turns them into meaningful and eloquent silences of the women who survived the challenging circumstances with grit and resolve. It is evidenced from their emphasis on minutiae of their lives, like the death of children or dispossession of resources, cattle etc. It was in stark contrast to male accounts which predominantly focus on change in inter-community relations.
However, there are multiple manifestations of violations that women went through during the Partition. One of them was abductions of women from the homes or from moving kafilas/trains etc. While they were portrayed as male acts to protect and serve the honour of one’s community, it was also rooted in the male urge for seeking pleasure through sexual exploitation.[xv] Ayesha Jalal explained this by stating, “Men of all three religions delighted in their momentary sense of power over vulnerable women.”[xvi] The brutality of gendered violence can be evidenced from the eye-witness account of Satish Gujral, “The worst …was the attack on the Muslim Girls’ Hostel at Amritsar. The inmates of this hostel were stripped and forced to march in a procession .. they were openly gang-raped, subjected to the most perverse.”[xvii] In a clear display of communal triumph and conquest, slogans like “Pakistan Zindabad” or “Hindustan Zindabad” were tattooed on the body parts of women.[xviii]
It also shows how the social customs had shackled women’s sexuality and put them under the fear of marginalisation and isolation by their own family members.[xix] It also shows that women acted within the patriarchal framework to promote male interests, wherein, they would not castigate their sons when they abducted and raped women belonging to the enemy religion.[xx] This also had the aspect of social authorization of these exploitative relationships by forced conversions and marriages of the abducted women to the abductor. The dilemma within which women acted was exacerbated by the fact that they did not have any real option to leave these marriages even if the Government’s recovery and rehabilitation authorities offered them the same. This was due to the toxic notion of family’s purity under-which families refused to accept their own mothers and sisters.[xxi]
Hence, the de-humanization of women not only took away their agency but made them unfortunate symbols of the male honour and the violation of bodily integrity became a blot of shame on them. This conflation of women’s purity with sanctity of the race, family and community ironically made them vulnerable to sexualised violence by the opposing vanguards of family, community and nation honour.[xxii] It is in this context that Jisha Menon ascribed the term “political artefact” to women by borrowing it from Alien Feldman who has critiqued commodification of bodies in contested nationalist and communal ideological contexts.[xxiii] The transgressions of women’s agency were perpetuated even in the process of rehabilitating women. Numerous women were mandated to go through regular medical test to limit the possibility of defilement of family through birth of a child of enemy origin. The women’s bodies and reproductive abilities were put through the contestations of patriarchal nationalist ideologies wherein their agency to choose to engage in sexual relations or procreate was totally mitigated.
Dishonourable Idea of Family and Community Honour
“Puttar, Aurat da ki ai, au tan varti jaandi ai hameshą , bhanve apne hon, bhanve paraye.”[xxiv]
(My child, what of a woman? It’s her lot to be used, either by her own men or by others.)
In the context of the partition, women’s agency has to be understood with regards to them being the symbolic representation of the family. Their agency is decided by taking into account several facets, not just the moral order that they function in, but also the community and the class and their position in the social hierarchy. Thus it is rather difficult to completely conceptualize women’s agency during the Partition.[xxv]
Women’s agency in the private, domestic or the familial sphere is always looked at from the perspective of the men. Specifically with regards to their sexual agency, it was evaluated as a duty they owed to men.[xxvi] The Manusmriti categorically lays out that women are the property of men. The woman is considered to be lustful and impulsive and therefore should be controlled by her father and husband, this includes one’s mother, sister and wife as women are led astray easily. This is directly connected to the comparison of the woman as the representation of the family and her dignity and honour as the dignity of the family itself.
The story of Jaswant kaur is an example of this characterization of the woman. She was the daughter of Kartari who was taken away by a Muslim friend of her father’s and was raped by him. When she was returned to the family they outcasted her as she had dirtied the reputation of the family. This shows the deep impact that this characterization had on the societal mindset in India, that if a woman was taken away and then subsequently recovered, they have lost the honour, dignity and purity and have consequently brought the same on their families. Similarly religion did not matter in such cases as the patriarchal mindset was instilled irrespective of religion. In the case of Kamala Patel, who rescued several Muslim women from the clutches of Hindu men the abductors of the women came to her and said “Bibiji, you say you cannot return these women to us. But we have heard that many Hindu women come to you from Pakistan. If you cannot return these women, just give one of the women, who have come over from Pakistan.”[xxvii]
The story of Thoa Khalsa highlights the how ignominy of the forced mass suicide is equated with a sacrifice by young twenty-six girls in order to protect their sexual purity.[xxviii] Similarly, stories by Durga Rani shows that in context of this gory violence, the reasoning behind these pre-emptive mass-suicides was to prevent violation of purity by the enemy. This is evident in the writings about the partition, wherein the women were indoctrinated and told to protect their honour at all costs, as their honour and dignity was the honour of the family.[xxix] They should consume poison, bite their tongues or asphyxiate themselves and take their lives, if their honour is at stake. These deaths were then glamorized and valorized by the nationalists and the proponents of this “pre-emptive suicide” by women.[xxx] Multiple instances show where it is claimed that women committed suicide by their own free will but the complicated considerations of the social stereotypes and structures complicate the exercise of this free choice. The gendered relations of power predominantly impact the intent to live because even feeble resistance could violate the hegemonic cultural constructions.[xxxi]
The ruling establishments of both the new States of India and Pakistan, pursuant to the Nehru-Liaquat Agreement,[xxxii] had passed legislation to setup machinery for the process of recovery of abducted women.[xxxiii] However, despite the initial enthusiasm to safeguard national honour and provide humanitarian relief through the initiative of social worker Mridula Sarabhai, the various government efforts faced challenges due to lack of coordination, geopolitical hostility and bureaucratic inefficiencies.[xxxiv]
The terminology or semantics of ‘recovery’ signify a commodification and de-humanization of the women. This explains the reason behind utter disregard of the agency of these women. The forced recovery of women not just violated women autonomy but also caused double emotional and mental displacement to her. Veena Das has stated the Constituent Assembly’s finding that while 15000 women were recovered from India, the number of recovered women from Pakistan was 6000.[xxxv] As explained earlier, State officials disregarded the women’s choice to stay in the marital arrangement with their abductors or enemy persons as per their own understanding about their welfare. The collusion of the State administration with social workers led to infantalizing the women and disregarding their autonomy. Das further problematizes the paternalistic and protective nature of State’s rigid disciplinary actions.[xxxvi] Through rigid administrative authorities and functions, the State made existing customs and familial constraints more rigid by privileging the idea of honour and purity.[xxxvii]
Even the Parliamentary Act disregarded any intent or willingness or interest of the abducted women. The Abducted Persons’ Act provided for a tribunal that would determine abducted women’s right to stay in a particular social setting. This undemocratic provision not only violated women’s agency but also abridged their citizenship rights as they were considered appendages of their erstwhile families determined by their original religion.[xxxviii] Moreover, the repatriation process masquerades ethnic parochialism as humanitarian relief.[xxxix] This is apparent from the mention of religious figures from Hindu epics as abductor and abducted women, hence, ascribing the women as Sita and all Muslim abductors as the demon Ravan. Hence, the State protectionism of a secular polity developed a communal perspective and discourse about repatriation in addition to making the social structures more rigid for women through official interventions. [xl]
While Partition caused the irretrievable loss of familial ties, community belonging, residence, and socio-economic status, it provided enlarged social spaces to women who were left on their own to sustain themselves and their families.[xli] Sometimes, the families exploited women’s diligence. Bibi Inder Kaul, a migrant government employee states “I had spread my wings…Partition gave me the opportunity to get out of the four walls of my house… I feel Partition forced many people into taking the initiative and finding their own feet.”[xlii]
As Menon and Bhasin have asserted, the lack of resourceful familial arrangements provided avenues to women to move beyond patriarchal socio-cultural and attitudinal moulds to enter economic mainstream.[xliii] As they moved into the public sphere to earn a living, customary compulsions like veil or purdah were removed. Menon and Bhasin have documented an old widowed women from uneducated conservative family background who enhanced her socio-economic mobility through her spirit of self respect and not seek any favours from the relatives.[xliv] Hence, while the State severely restricted scope of women’s agency and independence, many women took the initiative to rise to the occasion and enlarge their socio-economic role and gain financial independence.
In conclusion, the Partition was not just about a separation of hearts, division of communities and apportionment of territories.The plight of women was on amount of severe suppression of their social, cultural and sexual agency by the intertwined forces of religion, nation and family. The pre-occupation with the patriarchal idea of women being symbols of community or national honour converted them into the subject of oppression and exploitation within the derangement of gory communal bloodshed. Amidst the ignominy of violence and imposition of recovery by these forces, many women rekindled strength to rebuild their lives and enlarged their scope of socio-economic possibilities.
[i] . Robert W. Gordon, ‘Foreword: The Arrival of Critical Historicism’, 49 Stanford Law Review (1997) 1023, 1024; ‘Critical Legal Histories’, 36 Stanford Law Review (1984) 57.
[ii] Kamala Bhasin and Nighat Said Khan, ‘Some Questions on Feminism and its relevance for South Asia’ – Kali for Women, Delhi, (1986).
[iii] Jisha Menon, ‘Rehearsing the Partition: Gendered Violence in “Aur Kitne Tukde”’, Feminist Review, Postcolonial Theatres (2006), 29-42.
[iv] Supra note 3, at 33.
[v] Supra note 3, at 36.
[vi] Report on the Recent Disturbances in Punjab (March- April 1947) All India Congress Committee File (AICC) No. G-10/1947, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library (NMML).
[vii] Mushirul Hasan, ‘Partition Narratives’ 30 (7/8) Social Scientist, (2002) 36.
[viii] Rosemarie Tong, Feminist Thought: A Comprehensive Introduction, (2006) 7-8.
[ix] Urvashi Butalia, The Other Side of Silence: Voices from the Partition of India, (2000).
[x] Anis Kidwai ‘In Freedom’s Shade’, (2004).
[xi] Rituparna Roy, South Asian Partition Fiction in English: From Khushwant Singh to Amitav Ghosh, (2010).
[xii] Bapsi Sidhwa, Ice Candy Man, (2006) 149.
[xiii] Supra note 9.
[xiv]Urvashi Butalia, ‘Community, State and Gender: Some Reflections on the Partition of India’
16 (1/2) Oxford Literary Review, (1994) 36.
[xv] Supra note 3, at 37.
[xvi]Supra note 3; See also Ayesha Jalal, The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan, (1994).
[xvii] Supra note 9.
[xviii] Supra note 3.
[xix] Supra note 3, at 37.
[xx] Supra note 3.
[xxi] Supra note 3.
[xxii] Supra note 3, at 40.
[xxiii] Supra note 3, at 39.
[xxiv] Supra note 14 at 36.
[xxv] Veena Das, ‘The Figure of the Abducted Woman: The Citizen as Sexed’ ,(2007)18-37
[xxvi] Lata Mani, Contentious Tradition: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India in Recasting Women: Essays in Colonial History 92- 93 (1990); Radha Kumar, The History of Doing: An Illustrated Account of Movements for Women’s Rights and Feminism in India, 1900-1990 (1993).
[xxvii] David Gilmartin, The Historiography of India’s Partition: Between Civilization and Modernity, (2003) 23-41
[xxviii] Pippa Virdee,‘Remembering Partition: Women, Oral Histories and the Partition of 1947’, 41(2) Oral History, (2013) 49-62.
[xxix] Veena Das, Language and Body: Transactions in the Construction of Pain (1995) 67-91
[xxx] Shorish Kashmiri, ‘Humiliated and Harassed They Left’ in Mushirul Hasan (ed), India Partitioned : The Other Face of Freedom (2005).
[xxxi] Ravinder Kaur ‘Distinctive Citizenship: Refugees, State and Postcolonial State in India’s Partition’ 6(4) Cultural and Social History (2009) 429–46.
[xxxii] C (4), Agreement Between the Governments of India and Pakistan Regarding Security and Rights of Minorities (Nehru-Liaquat Agreement) New Delhi, 8 April 1950.
[xxxiii] Y. D. Gundevia, Outside the Archives, (1984).
[xxxiv] Pallavi Raghavan, The Finality of Partition: Bilateral Relations Between India and Pakistan, 1947- 1957 Dissertation, Cambridge University (2012) 36.
[xxxv] Supra note 25.
[xxxvi] Veena Das, ‘National Honour and Practical Kinship’, Critical Events: An Anthropological Perspective on Contemporary India, (1995) 55-83.
[xxxvii] Supra note 36, at 67.
[xxxviii] Supra note 36, at 67.
[xxxix] Supra note 36.
[xl] Supra note 36.
[xli] Ritu Menon and Kamala Bhasin, Borders and Boundaries, Women in India’s Partition, (1998) 215.
[xlii] Supra note 41.
[xliii] Supra note 41.
[xliv] Anjali Bhardwaj, ‘Gendering Oral History of Partition: Interrogating Patriarchy’ 41(22) Economic and Political Weekly, (2006) 2229-2235.