Kolkata and Partition: A Conversation

This text comprises a conversation between two individuals, likely a filmmaker and an interviewee. The discussion centers on Kolkata and the partition of India and Pakistan, exploring the lasting impact of British colonialism and the resulting societal divisions. The speakers reflect on the complexities of identity, communal harmony, and political realities in the aftermath of partition, drawing parallels between historical events and contemporary societal issues. Their conversation highlights the enduring pain and lingering consequences of this historical period.

Kolkata: History, Culture, and Memory

Kolkata is described in the sources as a city with significant historical, cultural, and emotional importance. Here’s a breakdown of its significance:

• Historical Importance: Kolkata was once the capital of British India [1, 2]. The city’s infrastructure, including buildings, roads, and train systems, reflects the story of British rule [1]. The British also established the world’s first supermarket in Kolkata, known as New Market [2]. The city’s history also includes being a site of assembly for the British [2].
• Cultural Significance:Kolkata is portrayed as a city with a diverse population where people of different backgrounds and religions live together and celebrate each other’s festivals [1].
• The city is described as having a unique culture, with a variety of languages and issues [3].
• Kolkata is also associated with the arts and cinema, with references to old Indian films [2, 4].
• The city has a rich culture, with a unique blend of spices and dishes [5].
• Emotional Significance:For some, Kolkata holds a deep emotional connection and is considered a “love city” [1]. It is also referred to as a city that “beats in my heart” [1].
• The city is remembered for its humanity and the ability of its people to connect with others [4].
• The city is a place of memories, and there is a wish that the quality of life there could be as good as “home grown chicken as good as daal” [2].
• The city is remembered as a place where Mother Teresa did her service [2].
• Significance related to Partition: Kolkata is also mentioned in the context of the partition of India, with discussions about the suffering endured by people there [4]. The city is also mentioned as a place that Gandhi went to when attempting to prevent Hindu-Muslim conflict [6].
• Symbolic Significance: Kolkata is a place of great interest and love, with some people having interests and loves that are fulfilled by the city [4]. It is seen as a place that was home to a variety of people who lived together peacefully until the British rule [5].

In summary, Kolkata is presented as a city with a rich history, a diverse culture, and a deep emotional connection for many, particularly those with ties to India or the pre-partition era. The city’s significance extends from its historical role as the capital of British India to its cultural importance as a melting pot of diverse communities.

The Partition of India and Pakistan: Trauma, Blame, and Lasting Consequences

The partition of India and Pakistan is portrayed in the sources as a deeply traumatic event with lasting consequences, stemming from hasty British decisions and the exploitation of existing tensions [1, 2]. Here’s a breakdown of the key aspects discussed:

• The Partition’s Impact:
• The partition resulted in immense suffering, with both Bengal and Punjab being divided and the nation being “torn into pieces” [1].
• The immense suffering experienced by the people during the partition is emphasized, with the claim that “no one else had to bear” as much [1].
• Families were displaced and continue to face difficulties in traveling between the two countries [1].
• The division caused lasting pain, and the effects are described as reaching “till the veins” and being present until “doomsday” [1].
• The emotional toll is significant, with the speaker stating their “heart does not allow” them to celebrate the division [2].
• British Role and Responsibility:
• The British are blamed for the hasty nature of the partition [1].
• The partition is described as a result of British self-interest, as their power and army were weakening [1]. They were under pressure to leave and did so without a proper plan [1].
• The British are accused of making two major mistakes: ending the Mughal government and partitioning India. The British are blamed for humiliating and punishing Bahadur Shah Zafar and for the way they left the country, creating long-term issues [2].
• The British are criticized for creating a system that led to corruption and division, and for creating a system in which people have to bribe others for their needs [3].
• The British are seen as having a policy to “earn their political bread” by keeping different groups troubled [2].
• Underlying Tensions and the Two-Nation Theory:
• The seeds of division were sown when the British started ruling and tried to create India from their own perspective [3].
• The “two-nation theory,” which posits that Hindus and Muslims are separate nations, is identified as a key factor in the partition [4].
• Some people on both sides of the divide started to believe in the two-nation theory which increased the religious tensions between Hindus and Muslims, contributing to the division [4].
• The Muslim League, which was based in Dhaka, is mentioned as an organization that was not influential across all of India at the time of the partition [5].
• The Nature of the Violence:
• The violence is described as indiscriminate, with no distinction between Hindus, Muslims, Punjabis, or Sikhs, with the claim that “the English will burn your houses” [5].
• The violence was also characterized by the demolition of Hindu and Sikh Gurudwaras [5].
• There is a strong sense of injustice and a critique of how the violence was exploited for political gain [5].
• Alternative Views and What Could Have Been:
• The speaker reflects on the possibility of a united India with democracy, implying that it would have been a better alternative [6].
• The speaker suggests that if the British had stayed and trained the local people, there would not have been a need for partition, implying that the partition was not beneficial and caused devastation [6].
• The speaker says that the partition happened without the consensus of the people, because of the British, and was not done with democratic principles [3].
• The speaker suggests the British “were fools to let India and Pakistan become independent”, but rather should have set up a plan for a democratic separation, in order to avoid the pain of the division [3].
• Relevance of Individuals:
• Gandhi’s efforts to prevent Hindu-Muslim conflict are acknowledged, although ultimately he was not able to prevent the violence. He went to Kolkata to protest the Hindu-Muslim fighting [5].
• Allama Iqbal’s realization that India would become independent is mentioned, as is his concern about the consequences of independence [4].

In summary, the partition of India and Pakistan is portrayed as a tragic event caused by the hasty and self-interested actions of the British, exploiting existing tensions between religious communities. The partition resulted in immense suffering, displacement, and lasting trauma that continues to affect the people and relationships between India and Pakistan [1, 2].

British Raj: Legacy of Division and Discord

The sources discuss the British colonial impact on India and Pakistan, emphasizing both the immediate and long-lasting consequences of their rule. Here’s a breakdown of the key aspects:

• Infrastructure and Systems: The British are credited with establishing infrastructure such as buildings, roads, and train systems in Kolkata, which reflect the story of British rule [1]. They also established the world’s first supermarket, the New Market, in Kolkata [2]. The sources acknowledge that the British implemented systems and structures in India [1].
• Political and Social Division:
• The sources argue that the British sowed the seeds of division by attempting to create India from their own perspective [3]. They are blamed for implementing policies that exacerbated tensions between different religious and social groups [3, 4].
• The British are seen as having a policy to “earn their political bread” by keeping different groups troubled [5].
• The British are criticized for ending the Mughal government and expelling Bahadur Shah Zafar from the country in a humiliating manner [5].
• The British are blamed for the hasty partition of India and Pakistan [6]. The partition is described as a result of British self-interest and a desire to leave without a proper plan [6].
• The partition is described as causing immense suffering, displacement, and lasting trauma that continues to affect the people and relationships between India and Pakistan [6].
• Economic Impact:
• The sources suggest that the British created a system that led to corruption [3].
• The British are blamed for creating a system in which people have to bribe others for their needs [3].
• The sources compare British contributions to those of the Mughals, concluding that the British seem “totally useless in the competition” [3].
• Cultural and Identity Issues:
• The sources argue that the British created a system in which people are identified by name or religion which was not the case in India previously [7].
• The British are blamed for the two-nation theory, which created a division based on religion and led to the partition [4].
• The speaker argues that prior to the British rule, people of all religions and languages lived together harmoniously, and that it was the British who disrupted this balance [3].
• Critiques of British Actions:
• The sources contain criticisms of British actions and their long-term impact on the region.
• The speaker suggests the British “were fools to let India and Pakistan become independent,” and should have had a better plan for separation [3].
• The sources state that the British left without principles, and that the partition was not beneficial [3, 6].
• The sources also state that the British were driven by self interest, were weak, and did not properly plan their departure [5, 6].
• Differing perspectives: The sources include differing opinions regarding the British.
• One viewpoint is that the British did good by providing training and opportunities to the people of India and Pakistan and that this is how they should be remembered [2, 3].
• Another viewpoint criticizes those who hold the British in high regard, arguing that their policies and actions led to significant problems [3].

In summary, the sources portray the British colonial impact as a complex mix of infrastructural developments and divisive policies. The lasting impact includes the partition, ongoing tensions, and the disruption of previously harmonious social structures. The sources emphasize the negative consequences of British rule, including the creation of corrupt systems, the fostering of religious division, and the failure to plan for a peaceful transition to independence.

Personal Reflections and Historical Contexts

The sources contain several personal anecdotes that provide insight into the speaker’s experiences and perspectives. These anecdotes often relate to broader themes such as friendship, the impact of historical events, and the speaker’s personal connections to specific places. Here are some of the personal anecdotes discussed in the sources:

• Friendship and Shared Memories:
• The speaker recounts a friendship with Faheem Akhtar, noting that they became friends in Kadamba garden and then were hosted by Faheem and his family in England [1]. This anecdote illustrates the importance of personal connections and shared experiences in the speaker’s life.
• The speaker expresses gratitude for the time they spent with Faheem, and how their relationship has impacted the speaker’s life.
• Personal Connection to Kolkata:
• The speaker mentions having spent 26 years in Kolkata and considers it a “love city” that “beats in my heart” [1]. This demonstrates a deep emotional connection to the city.
• The speaker expresses interest in Kolkata’s history and culture, particularly its connection to the British, and how it was the “assembly of the British” [2].
• The speaker mentions that in 1985, they met a person in Muktsar who they had previously met in Kolkata [3]. This connection demonstrates how the speaker’s life is intertwined with the history and people they’ve met in different places.
• Experiences with Partition:
• The speaker describes their personal feelings regarding the partition, explaining that their “heart does not allow” them to celebrate it due to the immense suffering it caused [3].
• The speaker shares that they had gone to live with unhappy people in order to help them after the partition, noting that this personal experience impacted them deeply [4].
• The speaker explains that their marriage procession was based on their thoughts about the partition and that they had not thought about it before that, but were moved to do so by the event [5].
• Personal Encounters and Observations
• The speaker recalls seeing a picture of Mother Teresa on their pillow as a child, with the words “I am Mother” written below it [2]. This personal anecdote demonstrates the admiration the speaker held for her.
• The speaker describes witnessing an incident where people were being chased away and their homes were being ruined, which led them to question the meaning of freedom [4]. This personal observation highlights the speaker’s empathy and critical perspective.
• The speaker recounts seeing a video of a police officer behaving badly on the train and states that this behavior is an example of the type of behavior that is creating divisions in the country [6].
• The speaker refers to the way that the British changed India so that people are judged by their names, implying that this was a very negative change, and was also a result of the British system [6].
• Experiences of Living in England
• The speaker mentions that they moved to England when they were 26 years old, and that they have been living there for 30 years [1].
• The speaker mentions that the government paid for their social science degree, which then enabled them to work as a professional [1].
• Other personal connections:
• The speaker mentions that they are a “big gram eater” and had an interest in learning about the caste system based on that, and the things they learned about Calcutta from the book Ain-e-Akbari [2].
• The speaker mentions that they are the son of a Syed, and therefore had a personal interest in the caste system [2].

These personal anecdotes contribute to a richer understanding of the speaker’s viewpoints, highlighting their connections to places, people, and historical events, and how they feel about these things.

British Colonialism and its Legacy in India and Pakistan

The sources offer extensive political commentary, primarily focused on the British colonial impact, the partition of India and Pakistan, and the nature of democracy. Here’s a breakdown of the key political points:

• Critique of British Colonial Rule:
• The sources heavily criticize the British for their divisive policies and their role in creating the tensions that led to the partition [1-3]. It is argued that the British intentionally exacerbated tensions between religious and social groups to maintain their own power [1, 2].
• The British are accused of ending the Mughal government and humiliatingly expelling Bahadur Shah Zafar [2]. This is presented as an example of the British acting unjustly and without respect for established rulers [2].
• The sources claim that the British implemented systems that encouraged corruption [3].
• The British are described as having left without a proper plan, leading to chaos and immense suffering [1]. The hasty partition is seen as a consequence of the British prioritizing their own interests over the well-being of the people [1].
• The Partition of India and Pakistan:
• The partition is portrayed as a catastrophic event caused by British self-interest and a desire to leave without principles [1]. It is noted that the partition resulted in immense suffering, displacement, and lasting trauma [1, 2].
• The speaker believes that the partition was not a true representation of freedom and that it led to the unnecessary loss of life and property [2]. The speaker mentions that their heart does not allow them to celebrate the partition [2].
• The speaker suggests that the British were weak and broke the back of the people. It is argued that they should have left with a better plan to avoid the resulting chaos [1].
• Democracy and its Failures:
• The sources offer a critical view of democracy, particularly in the context of India and Pakistan. The speaker argues that India is not a true democracy but rather a dictatorship [3].
• The speaker notes that both countries have been trapped by the hatred created by the division and that neither country is a true democracy [4].
• The speaker criticizes the idea of the two-nation theory, arguing that it was a political tool used to divide people and create unrest [5].
• The speaker expresses concern that the current political climate is such that people are being identified by name and religion, which was not the case prior to the British rule [4]. They believe that this focus on identity is further dividing the people of both India and Pakistan [4].
• The speaker suggests that people in power are using the idea of democracy to justify violence and oppression, by falsely accusing innocent people [6]. They state that instead of true democracy, they see abuse of power [4, 5].
• The speaker questions whether the freedom that India and Pakistan achieved was worth the immense suffering and division that came with it [2].
• Religious and Social Division:
• The speaker argues that the British are responsible for creating divisions between Hindus and Muslims [3, 5]. They believe that prior to the British rule, people of all religions and languages lived together harmoniously [3].
• The sources criticize the use of religion as a tool for political gain, noting that those who promote division often do so for their own benefit [5, 7]. The speaker also observes that people who incite conflict do not help those who are suffering but rather seek to gain politically from these actions [7].
• The speaker notes that people are now being defined by their names and religion, which was not the case previously [4]. This is stated to be a negative consequence of British rule [4].
• The sources highlight the suffering that individuals and communities have faced as a result of the political and religious divisions created [1, 2].
• Other political commentary:
• The speaker mentions that the Aligarh movement did not change the situation of India and Pakistan [4].
• The speaker states that Pakistan was formed because of the idea that they should be separate, which goes against the way that people have lived in the area for centuries [3, 4].
• The speaker notes that people with two-nation theories tend to create conflict rather than help [7].

In summary, the political commentary in the sources is largely critical of British colonial rule and its lasting consequences. The speaker emphasizes the negative impacts of the partition, the failure of democracy to address the issues, and the ongoing religious and social divisions within India and Pakistan. The speaker does not present the British in a positive light, but rather presents them as self-serving and ultimately harmful to the region. They argue that the legacy of British rule continues to negatively impact the people and politics of both countries.

Kolkata: A Personal History

The speaker has significant personal experiences and connections to Kolkata, which they refer to as their “love city” [1]. Here’s a summary of the speaker’s experiences in Kolkata, based on the sources:

• Duration of Stay: The speaker lived in Kolkata for 26 years [1]. This long period of residence has clearly shaped their perspective and emotional connection to the city [1].
• Emotional Connection: The speaker expresses a deep emotional connection to Kolkata, stating that “Kolkata beats in my heart” [1]. This indicates a strong sense of belonging and affection for the city [1].
• Multiculturalism: The speaker emphasizes that Kolkata is a place where “all the people live together, all the festivals of all the people are celebrated” [1]. They highlight that this inclusivity was a defining characteristic of the city, without any religious or cultural barriers [1].
• British Influence: The speaker notes that Kolkata was the “assembly of the British” and served as their capital, and that the infrastructure there, including the buildings, roads, and trains, reflect the story of British rule [1].
• Historical Significance: The speaker was interested in learning about Kolkata’s history, particularly its role as a capital during British rule [1, 2]. They note that the city’s infrastructure and buildings reflect this period [1]. The speaker also learned that the world’s first supermarket was made by the British in Calcutta [2].
• Personal Encounters: In 1985, the speaker met someone in Muktsar who they had previously met in Kolkata [3]. This anecdote demonstrates how the speaker’s life is intertwined with the people and places they have encountered [3].
• Cultural Perspective: The speaker sees Kolkata as part of the culture of India, which has a lot of variety [4]. The speaker is very interested in the culture of Kolkata, and is also interested in how it is perceived by others [1].
• Historical Context: The speaker has a deep interest in the historical context of Kolkata, citing their interest in the book Ain-e-Akbari and how it explains the caste system, and particularly with how that information connects to Calcutta [2]. They have also been very interested in the history of how the British came to the city, and the impact of their rule there [1].

These experiences in Kolkata have greatly impacted the speaker’s views and opinions as expressed in the sources. The city is not only a place of personal history but also a lens through which the speaker views broader issues of culture, colonialism, and identity [1].

Kolkata and Lahore: A Comparative Reflection

The speaker contrasts Kolkata and Lahore, highlighting their distinct characteristics and personal significance. Here’s how the speaker compares the two cities, based on the provided sources:

• Multiculturalism and Inclusivity: The speaker emphasizes that Kolkata is a city where “all the people live together, all the festivals of all the people are celebrated,” indicating a high level of inclusivity and cultural harmony [1]. The speaker also mentions that in Kolkata, there are no specific identities that cause divisions, and that from the time that they were born to the time that they left the city after 26-27 years, all of the people lived together [1]. In contrast, the speaker does not offer this characterization of Lahore. Instead they refer to the “boxes” in Lahore, implying a city that does not share the same sense of unity as Kolkata [1].
• Personal Connection: The speaker has a deep emotional connection with Kolkata, which they refer to as their “love city” and state that it “beats in my heart” [1]. This level of personal affection is not expressed for Lahore.
• Historical Context: The speaker states that Kolkata was the “assembly of the British” and served as their capital [1, 2]. The infrastructure there, including buildings, roads, and trains, reflect the story of British rule [1]. The speaker notes that the British made the world’s first supermarket in Kolkata [2]. There is no equivalent discussion of the historical impact of the British in Lahore.
• Contrasting Experiences: The speaker mentions that they lived in Kolkata for 26 years [1]. Later, they went to Lahore, and they mention witnessing the suffering of people there, especially related to the partition [3]. The speaker explains that when they have heard about the suffering that Hindu people have endured in Lahore, that they want to learn more about the people who die in buildings, and that their heart does not allow them to celebrate the division of the country. In this way, the speaker is relating how their experiences in Lahore are much different than their experiences in Kolkata, where they were not witness to this kind of suffering.
• System of Justice: The speaker notes that the government gave them money to get a degree in social science, which they state allowed them to work in a professional job, and that this is something “very beautiful, Masha Allah, very awesome” [1]. The speaker states that these systems of justice are “not the same as in Calcutta” [1]. The speaker does not elaborate further about the differences between the system of justice in Lahore vs. Kolkata.
• The Impact of British Rule: The speaker implies that the British rule in Kolkata, including the establishment of the New Market, was a significant development [1, 2]. Although the speaker critiques British rule generally, they don’t provide the same level of historical context regarding British rule in Lahore. However, they note that the British are responsible for the division between people in India and Pakistan [4].
• Current Political Climate: The speaker notes that they believe that the current system of governance is making it so that people are judged by their names [5]. They suggest that this was a change that the British caused in both countries [5]. The speaker believes that this type of system is not in place in Kolkata [1], and they are very concerned about the political climate in both India and Pakistan [5]. They are very critical of the systems and policies that are in place [5].
• Partition and Suffering: The speaker makes it clear that the partition had a profound impact on Lahore, stating that it was devastating for the people [3]. The speaker notes the suffering of the people in Lahore, and that they have gone to live with unhappy people as a result [3, 6]. They note that their heart will not allow them to celebrate the partition [6]. The speaker mentions that at the time of the partition, Bengal was broken into two parts, and the Punjab was also broken, which caused an immense amount of suffering [3]. The speaker also mentions that they believe that the British are responsible for the partition, because they left so hastily [3]. They do not refer to this kind of suffering specifically in Kolkata, and suggest that people there lived in harmony [1, 4].

In summary, the speaker views Kolkata as a city with a rich history, multiculturalism, and personal significance, while they portray Lahore as a place marked by the trauma of partition and political and social divisions.

Kolkata: A British Legacy

The speaker in the sources indicates that the British played a significant role in shaping Kolkata, both in its physical infrastructure and in its social and political dynamics [1, 2]. Here’s a summary of the British impact on the city according to the speaker:

• Capital of British India: Kolkata was the “assembly of the British,” and served as their capital [1, 2]. As the capital, it became a focal point of British administrative and colonial power, and the city’s development was directly influenced by British priorities and policies.
• Architectural and Infrastructure Legacy: The speaker notes that the buildings, roads, and train systems in Kolkata reflect the story of British rule [1, 2]. This indicates that the British significantly invested in and shaped the city’s infrastructure. The British constructed the New Market, which the speaker notes was the world’s first supermarket [1, 2].
• Social Impact: The speaker believes that the British influenced the way that the people of Kolkata live, and how they interact with each other. The speaker notes that in Kolkata, all the people lived together, and they celebrated each other’s festivals [1]. The speaker sees this as a very important part of the city’s identity, which was influenced by British rule [1].
• Historical Significance: The speaker expresses an interest in the history of British rule in Kolkata. They have read about the history of Kolkata’s role as a capital during British rule. They connect their understanding of the British rule to how they view the city of Kolkata today [1, 2].
• Partition: Although the speaker does not directly connect the British to the shaping of Kolkata at the time of the partition, they do express that they believe that the British caused the division of India and Pakistan due to the hasty way that they left [3]. The speaker is aware that the partition significantly impacted the region, and they believe that the British are at fault for this division.

In summary, the speaker views the British as having a profound and lasting influence on Kolkata, shaping not only its physical landscape but also its social and historical context [1, 2]. The speaker’s perspective is critical, as they suggest that while the British contributed to the city’s development, their policies ultimately led to the division of the country [3].

Calcutta: A City’s History and Identity

The speaker’s interest in Calcutta’s history appears to stem from a combination of personal connections, a desire to understand the city’s unique identity, and a critical perspective on British colonial influence. Here’s a breakdown of what prompted their interest in Calcutta’s history, based on the sources and our conversation history:

• Personal Connection and Identity: The speaker has a deep emotional bond with Calcutta, referring to it as their “love city” and stating that it “beats in my heart” [1]. This strong personal connection seems to have prompted an interest in learning more about the city’s past. Having lived in Calcutta for 26 years [1], the speaker’s desire to understand the historical context behind their own experiences in the city is a motivating factor.
• Multiculturalism and Social Dynamics: The speaker is interested in the fact that, in Calcutta, “all the people live together, all the festivals of all the people are celebrated” [1]. They contrast this with other places and they seem interested in understanding how this dynamic came to be, and how this unique social dynamic was influenced by the city’s history. The speaker is interested in the fact that in Calcutta, there are no specific identities that cause division, and that from the time that they were born to the time that they left the city after 26-27 years, all the people lived together [1].
• British Colonial Influence: The speaker notes that Calcutta was the “assembly of the British” and served as their capital, with the city’s infrastructure reflecting British rule [1]. This has sparked an interest in the impact of British colonialism on the city, including its architecture, infrastructure, and social systems. The speaker’s statement that “the buildings, the roads, the trains, the systems there, all show the story of the British rule in them” [1], shows the importance of British history to the speaker’s understanding of the city. The speaker is interested in the way that the British shaped the city, not only in terms of infrastructure, but also in terms of social norms [1].
• Historical Texts and Accounts: The speaker mentions that they read a couplet about Calcutta and were interested in learning more about the city as a result [1]. The speaker mentions being interested in the book Ain-e-Akbari, and how that book discusses the caste system [2]. This suggests that the speaker’s historical interests also stem from a wider intellectual curiosity about the region and its history, especially as related to Calcutta [2].
• Contrasting Calcutta with Other Places: The speaker compares the social harmony in Calcutta to the “boxes” in Lahore [1]. This contrast appears to have also heightened the speaker’s interest in understanding how the two cities came to be so different. This seems to have further motivated them to explore the historical factors that contributed to Calcutta’s unique identity.
• The New Market: The speaker learned that the world’s first supermarket was made by the British in Calcutta [2]. This has contributed to their interest in the history of Calcutta.
• Desire to understand the Partition: While the speaker does not directly connect their interest in Calcutta to the partition, the fact that they are interested in the suffering that was caused by the partition, and the role of the British in the partition may also be a factor in their interest in the history of Calcutta, and how it came to be a site of British rule [3].

In summary, the speaker’s interest in Calcutta’s history is prompted by a combination of personal connections, the unique social and cultural dynamics of the city, and a desire to critically examine the impact of British colonial rule. The speaker seems motivated by the desire to understand how these historical forces have shaped the city they know and love.

The 1947 Partition: A Tragedy of Unnecessary Division

The speaker views the 1947 Partition with a great deal of sorrow and criticism, emphasizing the immense suffering it caused and questioning its necessity [1]. Here’s a comprehensive breakdown of their perspective:

• Devastating Suffering: The speaker believes that the Partition resulted in an immense amount of suffering, stating that “the amount of suffering you had to bear and the amount of suffering we had to bear, I think no one else had to bear” [1]. The speaker expresses a deep sense of empathy for those who suffered, noting that the pain of the Partition “reaches till the veins” [1]. They also express that they want to learn more about the suffering that Hindu people have had to endure in Lahore, and that they cannot celebrate the division of the country because of the pain that they have witnessed. The speaker mentions that they went to live with “unhappy people” as a result of the partition, and that their heart will not allow them to celebrate it [2].
• Unnecessary Division: The speaker questions the purpose and the necessity of the Partition, suggesting that it was a destructive event that tore the nation apart [1]. They state that “for freedom, dividing the country, ruining it so much, praying for these people… did freedom mean anything and it meant nothing” [2]. This suggests they believe that the division of the country was not a necessary component of independence.
• Critique of British Haste: The speaker believes that the British were responsible for the hasty and poorly planned execution of the partition [1]. They believe that the British left because their “back was broken” and they no longer had the strength to rule, and that they left without establishing a proper plan. They believe that the British should not have left so quickly [1].
• Personal Impact: The speaker’s personal experiences and observations in Lahore have clearly influenced their view of the Partition [1]. They mention seeing the suffering of people in Lahore and that their heart does not allow them to celebrate the division of the country [2]. The speaker notes that they went to Lahore to be with those who are suffering, which shows how deeply affected they have been by the devastation of the partition [2]. The speaker contrasts this with the peaceful co-existence of people in Kolkata, where the people lived in harmony [3].
• Impact on Communities: The speaker emphasizes that the Partition caused significant disruption to communities, noting that “the families who have settled here are troubled, they are facing difficulty in coming and going” [1]. They believe that the partition caused long lasting disruptions to peoples’ lives, and that the pain and difficulty that people have experienced is still present today [1].
• Critique of the Two-Nation Theory: The speaker questions the logic behind the Two-Nation Theory, which posited that Hindus and Muslims could not live together and needed separate nations. The speaker notes that the idea of dividing the nation based on religion caused people to view each other based on their identity rather than their shared humanity, stating that “the politics of Presto of dividing in the name of religion and presenting the two nation theory, all this started from there because when some people on both sides started believing in this They started talking like this is a Hindu, this is a Muslim…” [4]. The speaker notes that prior to the British rule, there was no conflict between people of different religions, and that the British are responsible for causing the division between people [5]. The speaker states that “before the British there was no issue” [5]. The speaker points out that the people who promote the Two-Nation Theory do not do anything to help those who are suffering, and that instead they incite more conflict [6].
• Long-Term Consequences: The speaker suggests that the consequences of the Partition are ongoing, noting that “we have been trapped in the hatred of those” [7]. They express concern about the political climate of both India and Pakistan, and that the systems are causing people to be known by their name, rather than as individuals, and that this is a direct result of the policies that were put into place during the partition [7].
• Missed Opportunity for Unity: The speaker notes that, despite the fact that they believe that the British should have stayed, that they should have left the region in a way that would have preserved the unity of the people [7]. They suggest that the division was not inevitable, and that the British left the region in a state of turmoil that resulted in lasting hatred and conflict [7].

In summary, the speaker views the 1947 Partition as a profoundly tragic event, characterized by immense suffering, unnecessary division, and the long-lasting negative consequences that continue to impact the region [1]. They hold the British responsible for the hasty way that they left and for the division of the people based on religion [1, 5]. The speaker’s personal experiences, combined with their understanding of history, have led them to believe that the partition was a mistake [2].

Kolkata, Partition, and the Shadow of Empire

Okay, here is a discussion guide based on the sources and our conversation history, focusing on key themes and points raised by the speaker:

Themes for Discussion

• The Impact of British Colonial Rule:
• How did British rule shape the physical and social landscape of Kolkata [1, 2]?
• What does the speaker mean when they refer to Kolkata as “the assembly of the British” [1, 2]?
• How did British rule contribute to the infrastructure of the city, such as the roads, train system, and New Market [1, 2]?
• What is the speaker’s perspective on the long-term consequences of British rule on India [1-6]?
• The Speaker’s Personal Connection to Kolkata:
• What is the significance of Kolkata to the speaker [1]?
• How has their personal history in Calcutta shaped their views [1]?
• How does the speaker’s personal connection to Calcutta influence their interest in its history [1, 2]?
• How does the speaker describe their love for Calcutta [1, 2]?
• What does the speaker mean when they say that “Kolkata beats in my heart” [1]?
• How does the speaker’s experience of living in Calcutta for 26 years affect their views [1]?
• What is the speaker’s view of the multiculturalism of Calcutta [1]?
• The 1947 Partition:
• What is the speaker’s view of the 1947 Partition [3, 4]?
• How does the speaker believe the Partition impacted the people of India and Pakistan [3]?
• What role do they believe the British played in the Partition [3, 4, 6]?
• What does the speaker mean when they say that the British left in a “hasty” way [3, 4]?
• How does the speaker describe the suffering caused by the partition [3, 4]?
• What are the speaker’s thoughts on the Two-Nation Theory [3, 7]?
• What does the speaker mean when they say that “the amount of suffering you had to bear and the amount of suffering we had to bear, I think no one else had to bear” [3]?
• How does the speaker’s personal experience in Lahore contribute to their views of the Partition [3, 4]?
• What does the speaker mean when they say that “for freedom, dividing the country, ruining it so much…did freedom mean anything and it meant nothing” [4]?
• What does the speaker mean when they state that “we have been trapped in the hatred of those” [8]?
• Democracy and Governance:
• What is the speaker’s perspective on the current state of democracy in India and Pakistan [6, 8]?
• What is the speaker’s view of political leaders [4-8]?
• How do they see the relationship between religion and politics in the region [3, 6-8]?
• What is the speaker’s view of the systems that have been implemented by the governments of India and Pakistan [6, 8]?
• What does the speaker mean when they say that India is not a democracy, but a dictatorship [6]?
• What does the speaker mean when they say that “today people are knowing people by name” and that “this was not there in India earlier” [8]?
• How does the speaker perceive the systems in place that allow for the abuse of the people [8]?
• Historical Perspective:
• Why is the speaker interested in the history of British rule in India [2, 4]?
• How does the speaker’s interest in historical texts, such as the Ain-e-Akbari, influence their perspective [2]?
• How does the speaker interpret the actions of figures like Bahadur Shah Zafar and Mahatma Gandhi [4, 5, 7]?
• How does the speaker believe that the British used historical events to justify their rule [4, 5]?
• What does the speaker mean when they say “before the British there was no issue” [6]?
• The Role of Individuals in History:
• What does the speaker think about figures like Mother Teresa, and Syed Ahmed Khan [2, 6]?
• What is the speaker’s perspective on the role of individuals in promoting division or unity [7, 9]?
• How does the speaker view figures who have a “two nation theory” [7, 9]?
• What is the speaker’s view of the role that “criminals” play in society, and how do they define “criminal” [9]?
• Social Justice and Humanity:
• How does the speaker’s sense of social justice shape their views of the historical and political events they discuss [3, 4]?
• How do they define the concept of humanity, and how do they believe that people have failed to uphold these ideals [1, 3, 7, 8]?
• What is the speaker’s view of how society should treat those who are suffering [3, 8]?
• What does the speaker mean when they say that “humanity has become lacking in us these days” [3]?
• How does the speaker’s view of humanity influence their views of the British [6, 8]?

Questions for Further Exploration

• How do the speaker’s personal experiences and emotions affect their interpretation of historical events?
• What are some of the main differences between the speaker’s view of history and other perspectives?
• How does the speaker’s understanding of history influence their views of contemporary issues?
• How might the speaker’s perspective challenge or confirm our own understanding of history and society?
• What are some of the specific examples that the speaker uses to support their points, and what do these examples reveal about their perspective?
• How does the speaker view the role of religion in the political division of the region [6-9]?

This study guide is designed to encourage a deep and critical analysis of the speaker’s perspective, using their statements and observations in the provided sources as a starting point for a thoughtful discussion.

A Critical Perspective on the Partition of India

Okay, here’s a briefing document based on the provided sources and our conversation history, designed to give a comprehensive overview of the speaker’s perspectives on key topics.

Briefing Document

Subject: Analysis of Speaker’s Views on Kolkata, the Partition of 1947, and Related Issues

Introduction This document provides a detailed analysis of the speaker’s viewpoints as expressed in the provided sources. The speaker offers a critical perspective on various topics including the legacy of British rule, the 1947 partition of India and Pakistan, the nature of democracy, and the importance of social justice and humanity. The analysis is based on the speaker’s statements, reflections, and personal experiences, with an emphasis on understanding their nuanced and often critical perspective.

Key Areas of Analysis

• Personal Connection to Kolkata
• The speaker has a strong emotional connection to Kolkata, which they describe as their “love city” that “beats in [their] heart” [1]. They lived there for 26 years and it is a place they feel deeply connected to.
• They emphasize the city’s multiculturalism, noting that people of all backgrounds live together and celebrate each other’s festivals [1].
• They view Kolkata as a place where people co-exist peacefully, which contrasts with their view of the division and conflict they have witnessed in other places [1].
• British Colonial Rule
• The speaker acknowledges that the British made Kolkata their capital and developed its infrastructure, including buildings, roads, and the train system [1].
• They note that the British also established the New Market, which they recognize as the world’s first supermarket [2].
• While they acknowledge these contributions, they also criticize the British for their negative impact, particularly in causing the partition of India and Pakistan [1, 3].
• They believe that the British ended the Mughal government and humiliated Bahadur Shah Zafar [4].
• They also believe that the British were ultimately responsible for the division between people based on religion [5].
• The speaker believes that the British were motivated by selfishness and did not make a well thought out plan for the end of their rule, and they left because they no longer had the ability to stay [3].
• The 1947 Partition
• The speaker views the Partition as a deeply tragic event that caused immense suffering and the unnecessary division of a country [3].
• They describe the suffering as reaching “till the veins,” and express a deep empathy for those who experienced it [3].
• They believe that the partition was a mistake, and that the division of the country was not a necessary part of independence [3].
• They suggest that the partition created long-lasting problems, as families continue to face difficulties in traveling between India and Pakistan [3].
• The speaker believes that the British were responsible for the hasty and poorly planned execution of the partition, and they should have left in a way that preserved the unity of the people [3].
• The speaker notes that the suffering that resulted from the partition has caused them to feel that they cannot celebrate the division of the country [3].
• Critique of the Two-Nation Theory
• The speaker is critical of the Two-Nation Theory, which posited that Hindus and Muslims could not live together and needed separate nations [6].
• They believe that this theory promoted division and caused people to view each other based on their religious identity, rather than their shared humanity [6].
• They argue that there was no issue between people of different religions before the British rule [5].
• The speaker states that people who promote this theory do nothing to help those who are suffering, and instead incite more conflict [7].
• Democracy and Governance
• The speaker expresses a critical view of democracy in India and Pakistan, suggesting that these are not true democracies but dictatorships [5].
• They believe that the current political systems are causing people to be known by their names rather than as individuals, which is a negative outcome [8].
• They express concern about the abuse of power by police and government officials, stating that this is a fundamental flaw in the systems [8].
• The speaker also criticizes the way that governments use the idea of “democracy” to justify their actions [9].
• Historical Perspective
• The speaker is very interested in historical texts, such as the Ain-e-Akbari, and they use this knowledge to inform their perspective [2].
• They express a critical view of historical figures, like Bahadur Shah Zafar, who they believe was wrongly punished by the British [4].
• The speaker notes that the British used historical events to justify their rule, and that they did so by manipulating these events to achieve their own goals [5].
• They believe that the root of many of these conflicts can be traced to the way the British altered the course of history [5].
• The Role of Individuals in History
• The speaker has a positive view of individuals who worked for peace and unity, like Mother Teresa [2].
• The speaker is critical of people who promote division based on religion, and points out that these people never take any action to help those who are suffering [7].
• They note that “criminals” are people of all religions and that they should not be seen as a reflection of their religion [7].
• The speaker notes that people should be known for their humanity, rather than their religion or political affiliation [6].
• Social Justice and Humanity
• The speaker is deeply concerned with the suffering of ordinary people and emphasizes the importance of social justice and the need to protect human rights [3].
• They believe that people have failed to uphold the ideals of humanity, as they have been divided by the political events of the time [3].
• They are saddened by the lack of humanity that they have witnessed, and believe that the division of the region has caused people to lose sight of their shared humanity [3, 6].
• The speaker feels that society has a responsibility to help those who are suffering [3].

Conclusion

The speaker’s perspective is marked by a deep sense of empathy, a critical view of colonial history, and a strong commitment to justice and humanity. They view the 1947 partition as a tragic event that continues to impact people today, and they believe that the British colonial rule played a significant role in this division. Their views are informed by their personal experiences, historical knowledge, and a profound concern for the suffering of ordinary people. They offer a nuanced perspective on the issues, and they are highly critical of the political systems that they believe are causing great harm. The speaker feels that people should be known for their humanity, and they deeply lament the loss of unity that was caused by the events that they have discussed.

Kolkata, Partition, and Humanity

Okay, here is an FAQ based on the provided sources and our conversation history, designed to give a comprehensive overview of the speaker’s perspectives on key topics.

Frequently Asked Questions

• What is the speaker’s connection to Kolkata?
• The speaker has a very strong emotional connection to Kolkata, describing it as their “love city” that “beats in [their] heart” [1]. They lived there for 26 years and have fond memories of the city [1].
• They highlight the city’s multicultural nature, where people of all backgrounds live together and celebrate each other’s festivals [1].
• The speaker views Kolkata as a place of peaceful co-existence, which contrasts with the division and conflict they have witnessed elsewhere [1].
• What are the speaker’s views on British colonial rule in India?
• The speaker recognizes that the British made Kolkata their capital and developed its infrastructure, such as buildings, roads, and the train system [1].
• They also acknowledge that the British established the New Market, which they note was the world’s first supermarket [1, 2].
• However, they are critical of the British for their negative impact, particularly in causing the partition of India and Pakistan [3, 4].
• The speaker believes that the British were selfish and did not have a good plan for the end of their rule, and that they left because they no longer had the power to stay [3, 4].
• They criticize the British for ending the Mughal government and humiliating Bahadur Shah Zafar [4].
• The speaker believes that the British are responsible for creating divisions between people based on religion [5].
• What is the speaker’s perspective on the 1947 partition of India and Pakistan?
• The speaker views the Partition as a tragic event that caused immense suffering and the unnecessary division of a country [3].
• They describe the suffering caused by the partition as reaching “till the veins” and express empathy for those who experienced it [3].
• They believe that the partition was a mistake, and that the division of the country was not a necessary part of independence [3].
• The speaker also suggests that the partition created lasting problems, as families continue to face difficulties in traveling between India and Pakistan [3].
• They believe that the British were responsible for the hasty and poorly planned execution of the partition, and they should have left in a way that preserved the unity of the people [3].
• The speaker notes that the suffering that resulted from the partition has caused them to feel that they cannot celebrate the division of the country [4].
• How does the speaker view the Two-Nation Theory?
• The speaker is critical of the Two-Nation Theory, which argued that Hindus and Muslims could not live together and needed separate nations [6].
• They believe that this theory promoted division and caused people to view each other based on their religious identity, rather than their shared humanity [6].
• They state that there was no conflict between people of different religions before the British rule [5].
• The speaker argues that people who promote this theory do nothing to help those who are suffering, and instead incite more conflict [7].
• What are the speaker’s thoughts on democracy and governance?
• The speaker expresses a critical view of democracy in India and Pakistan, suggesting that these are not true democracies, but rather dictatorships [5].
• They believe that the current political systems cause people to be known by their names, rather than as individuals, which they see as a negative development [8].
• They express concern about the abuse of power by police and government officials, stating that this is a fundamental flaw in the system [8].
• The speaker also criticizes the way that governments use the idea of “democracy” to justify their actions [9].
• How does the speaker use history to inform their perspective?
• The speaker is very interested in historical texts, such as the Ain-e-Akbari, and they use this knowledge to inform their views [2].
• They express a critical view of historical figures, such as Bahadur Shah Zafar, who they believe was wrongly punished by the British [4].
• The speaker notes that the British used historical events to justify their rule, and they did so by manipulating these events to achieve their own goals [4].
• They believe that the root of many of the conflicts can be traced to the way that the British altered the course of history [4].
• What are the speaker’s views on the role of individuals in history?
• The speaker has a positive view of individuals who worked for peace and unity, like Mother Teresa [2].
• They criticize people who promote division based on religion, noting that these people never take action to help those who are suffering [7].
• The speaker states that “criminals” come from all religions and that they should not be seen as a reflection of their religion [7].
• The speaker believes that people should be known for their humanity, rather than their religion or political affiliation [8].
• What does the speaker believe about social justice and humanity?
• The speaker is deeply concerned with the suffering of ordinary people and emphasizes the importance of social justice and the need to protect human rights [3, 4].
• They believe that people have failed to uphold the ideals of humanity, as they have been divided by the political events of the time [3].
• They are saddened by the lack of humanity that they have witnessed, and believe that the division of the region has caused people to lose sight of their shared humanity [3].
• The speaker feels that society has a responsibility to help those who are suffering [3].

This FAQ provides an overview of the speaker’s complex and nuanced views on these important topics, based on the provided sources.

India’s Partition: A Legacy of Division

Okay, here’s a timeline of key events and periods discussed in the sources, based on the speaker’s perspective:

• Before British Rule:The speaker states that before the British, there was no issue of division between people of different religions or languages [1]. People of all backgrounds lived together peacefully for centuries [1]. This is contrasted with the period of British rule.
• British Colonial Rule:The British made Kolkata their capital [2, 3]. They developed infrastructure such as buildings, roads, and trains [2, 3].
• The British also established the New Market, which the speaker notes was the world’s first supermarket [3].
• The speaker believes the British attempted to create India based on their own perspective, which led to divisions [1].
• The speaker says the British ended the Mughal government, humiliating Bahadur Shah Zafar [4].
• 1926:The speaker mentions that the destruction began in Pindi, with the demolition of Hindu and Sikh Gurudwaras [5].
• The speaker’s father died during this period [5].
• 1946:August 16, 1946: The speaker references the Direct Action Day and the compulsions felt by Allama Iqbal, who realized the implications of India’s impending independence [6].
• 1947: Partition of India and Pakistan:The speaker states that the British hastily partitioned India and Pakistan [7].
• This partition resulted in immense suffering [7].
• The speaker expresses a strong belief that the partition was a mistake, and that it should not have happened [7].
• The speaker states that families continue to face difficulties traveling between India and Pakistan [7].
• Post-Partition:The speaker suggests that the political systems in India and Pakistan have become like dictatorships [1, 8].
• The speaker believes that people are now known by their names or religious affiliations, rather than their individual humanity [6, 8].
• They criticize the abuse of power by the police and government officials [8].
• The speaker notes that the hatred created during the partition continues to affect people today [8].
• The speaker states that the divisions created by the British and the partition are still relevant in the current situation in India and Pakistan [6, 8].

This timeline reflects the key events and periods discussed in the sources, as seen through the speaker’s perspective. The speaker sees British rule and the partition as a turning point that introduced conflict and division into a previously peaceful society.

A Critical View of British Raj in India

The speaker has a complex and critical view of the British Raj’s impact on India, acknowledging some developments while highlighting significant negative consequences [1-3].

Positive aspects of British rule mentioned by the speaker include:

• The British made Kolkata their capital and developed its infrastructure, such as buildings, roads, and train systems [1].
• The establishment of the New Market in Kolkata, which the speaker notes was the world’s first supermarket [2].

However, the speaker is primarily critical of the British for the following:

• Creating divisions: The speaker believes that the British tried to create India from their own perspective, which led to divisions between people of different religions [3]. The speaker says that before the British, people of all religions and languages lived together peacefully [3].
• Ending the Mughal government: The speaker is critical of the British for ending the Mughal government and humiliating Bahadur Shah Zafar [4].
• The Partition: The speaker believes the British were responsible for the hasty and poorly planned partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, which caused immense suffering [5]. They believe that this partition was a mistake, and that it should not have happened [3, 5]. The speaker feels that the British left because they no longer had the power to stay, and they did not leave in a way that preserved the unity of the people [5].
• Selfishness: The speaker accuses the British of being selfish, stating that their actions were motivated by their own political gain [4]. They believe the British did not have a good plan for the end of their rule [5].
• Long-term negative impact: The speaker notes that the divisions created by the British continue to affect people in India and Pakistan today [3, 5]. They believe that the political systems in India and Pakistan have become like dictatorships, which is a negative outcome of British influence [3].

The speaker’s overall perspective is that the British Raj had a largely negative impact on India, despite the infrastructure development and other systems that they put in place [1, 2]. They believe that the British created divisions, ended established governments, and caused the tragic partition of India and Pakistan, and that these issues are still causing problems today [3-5].

British Rule in India: Two Critical Mistakes

The speaker identifies two major mistakes made by the British [1].

• First, they opposed the Mughals and ended their government, expelling Bahadur Shah Zafar from the country in a humiliating manner and punishing him despite the fact that he was not a terrorist [1]. The speaker believes that the British should have praised Bahadur Shah Zafar rather than imprisoning him [1].
• Second, the British acted out of selfishness, which resulted in the partition of India and Pakistan. The speaker asserts that the British did not leave with a good plan for the end of their rule, and they left because they no longer had the power to stay [1, 2]. The speaker notes that the British did not leave the European Union without a plan and should have done the same in India [1].

Kolkata’s Multicultural Harmony

The speaker describes Kolkata as a city with a unique and cherished multicultural environment [1]. They emphasize that in Kolkata:

• People of all backgrounds live together, and celebrate each other’s festivals [1].
• This co-existence is presented as a norm, as the speaker lived in Kolkata for 26 years [1] and remembers the city as a place “where there is no identity” in the sense that people of different backgrounds blend together [1].
• The speaker views this aspect of Kolkata as a model for how different groups can live together peacefully [1].
• They suggest that this is in stark contrast to the divisions and conflicts that they have witnessed elsewhere, particularly after the partition of India and Pakistan [1, 2].

The speaker’s description highlights Kolkata as an example of harmonious multiculturalism, where diverse communities coexist and celebrate their shared humanity [1].

The Partition of India: A Legacy of Suffering

The speaker views the 1947 partition of India and Pakistan as a major mistake with devastating consequences [1]. They believe that:

• The British were responsible for the partition, carrying it out hastily and without a proper plan [1]. The speaker feels that the British were motivated by selfishness and left because they no longer had the power to stay [2].
• The partition caused immense suffering for the people involved [1]. The speaker states that the amount of suffering endured during the partition was unlike anything else, and they do not believe that the suffering has ended [1].
• The partition broke the country into pieces [1]. The speaker states that Bengal and Punjab were divided and the nation was torn apart [1].
• Families continue to face difficulties traveling between India and Pakistan [1]. The speaker feels that families who settled on either side of the border continue to face hardship related to the difficulties of traveling back and forth between the countries [1].
• The partition was a major source of conflict [1]. The speaker states that the hatred created during the partition continues to affect people today [3].
• The speaker believes the partition should not have happened [1]. The speaker wishes the British had not divided the country [4].

In summary, the speaker views the 1947 partition as a tragic event that resulted from the mistakes and selfishness of the British, causing immense suffering and creating lasting divisions [1, 2]. The speaker wishes the British had not divided the country and believes that this event was one of the worst things that the British did in India [4].

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!