Let's wind our clocks 61 years ago. Imagine the aura that must have prevailed in the new rising country. But as I think of those celebrations it reminds me of the concomitant havoc the treat of independence brought with it for the two daughter countries. Millions faced the blades of millions. Millions displaced. And millions wept for them. The carnage was such that it would shame the cruelest of murderers.
Yet millions were celebrating. Yet the newspaper headlines read: "One-sixth of human race get independence". Yet Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru became Prime Minister. Yet the Brits claim credit of power transfer. What was transfered? Power? If yes then it got dissipated in the process of transfer. And the dissipated power exploded in the form of violence and hurt very people it was transfered to.
The celebration of independence was marred by the violence the engulfed millions for most people. But for others the independence meant execution not in British rule but in self-rule, if by any definition there a tint 'rule'. From then year after year people celebrate independence and year by year the marring of celebration is lessened. But for me it always reminds me of the people for whom independence meant death. It brings a bad taste always.
The Brits expulsion from country is many times referred to as Shameful Flight. As for my belief the largest share of this shame should be credited to Mountbatten. The undue celerity he showed in making decisions was the core of it. And if not half then at least partly the shame is shared by Indian leaders who were so hesitant to partition before Mountbatten and just as he stepped in everything seemed running for them. At least they should have foreseen the aftermaths. For Pt. Nehru himself said that: It was difficult to decide the best way of transfer but for what's happening now I can say this was certainly not.
7 comments:
More than Indian leaders it was Jinnah who in order to fulfill his selfish aspirations pitted the two communities against each other by calling for "Direct Action". The hysteria he created gave way to unprecedented violence and cataclysm which still haunts India.
By India I meant erstwhile including both daughter countries.
Jinnah was the initiator of large scale violence. But others were also a part of the process which resulted in the carnage.
Wow that was heavy but nice :)
I didn't knew. that means I can right heavy too...
I am a cynic (partly because of the book I have been reading these days) so I wud say that are we truly independent ?
As u said, we cud be called independent for we are the rulers (or so we think we are) of this great and ancient nation. But we still play by the rules of other nations. We think a thing is good when they say it is good. We are a country of 1 billion people but we lack individuality as a nation. Its not because there is so much diversity. Its because there is more of disparity in the diversity than unity.
So till we get over these, we can't be called independent.
Because u hadn't seen the time before 47 is that u can afford the luxury of posing such dubious questions. Probably u need to go down history book once again.
You can say we r'nt a strong nation, or we r weak nation, or crippled nation if u r that pessimistic, or rather devastated nation if even worse.
Personally I believe that we-r-not-still-independent stuff is crap and a literal exaggeration for the miserable conditions of the poor people coined by some pseudo-activists.
U r right. i haven't seen the time before 47. Neither have i read too much about it. But i do have read about the present condition of India. In ur words only, u can afford the luxury of saying that this is an exaggeration because u have not seen what poverty is,because we have always lived a life of luxury, because we have never been helpless..
Post a Comment