Khalid Saleem
ONE came across a most interesting item of news in the paper some weeks ago. Datelined New Delhi, the item in question conveyed the news that the Indian Supreme Court was scheduled to hear a plea that has ‘sought a direction’ to the Indian government ‘to take appropriate steps to bring amendment in Article I of the Constitution’ and replace the word ‘India’ with ‘Bharat’ or ‘Hindustan’. The stated intention is to ‘instill a sense of pride in our own nationality’ as also to ‘ensure the citizens of this country to get over the colonial past’. Before trying to jump to a hasty conclusion, it would be advisable to give deep thought to this matter. Things certainly are not as simple as may appear at first glance. In fact, it would deserve to be assessed dispassionately in the light of recent and not so recent history. The whole matter smacks of an historical enigma that calls out to be unraveled.
The plea in question is not as simple as would appear at a cursory glance. It touches on a question that has much wider and deeper implications than what would appear at first sight. For one thing, it could well have a bearing on the course of history of the sub-continent after the Colonial Power called it a day. At this stage, a discerning glance over the shoulder may well be in order. Let us begin by posing some basic questions: why did the Colonial Power permit one dominion to assume the name ‘India’ when the British Indian Empire, and by implication, ‘India’ as a country had been legally dissolved? Should not, after the formal dissolution, the two successor states have been designated as the successor states i.e. Bharat/Hindustan and Pakistan? In the latter case, each of these dominions should legally stand to inherit the ‘spoils’ of the dissolved entity. By tacitly permitting one dominion to inherit the name ‘India’, the latter was thereby legally permitted to lay claim to the complete ‘assets’ of the former British India. This it promptly did!
Just to take one example; India was automatically considered to have ‘inherited’ the membership of the United Nations and its ancillary bodies; while Pakistan was obliged to apply anew for membership. Had it inherited the nomenclature ‘Bharat/Hindustan’ the latter would have had to go through the same growing pains as Pakistan was obliged to! There is also the little matter of division of the assets of British India that ‘successor’ India conveniently usurped. Pakistan would have been weaned out completely but for the intervention of Mahatma Gandhi. There is a legal aspect to the whole phenomenon that has never received the attention that it deserved, especially of those who considered themselves as legal experts during the course of this basically flawed exercise. Any transition from colonial status to independence has several legal loop-holes that must need to be recognized and avoided betimes. Those ‘leaders’ who inherited, nay sired, the new-born states of India and Pakistan have a lot to answer for.
An attempt is made in the following paragraphs to probe some of the unanswered questions related to the so-called ‘partition’ of the British South Asian Empire. Prior to this final exercise, some states of the region had already taken the decision to opt out with the blessings of the British colonialists. Their decisions were accepted with varying degrees of grace by the colonial masters. The final stage in the dissolution of the British Indian Empire came with the reluctant acceptance by the colonial power of a ‘partition’ of whatever remained of the British Empire into two states on the basis of religion, among other factors. This decision, in due course, led to several questions that have remained unanswered to the present day. Historians have sought logical answers to these questions to this day. Some of these unanswered questions are tackled in the following paragraphs.
Why was it considered expedient to announce the creation of Pakistan on 14 August 1947 one day prior to that of India? There are several Pakistani ‘historians’ who crow at the fact that Pakistan ‘became independent one day prior to India’. What these seers conveniently forget is that this was a double-edged sword meant to hurt the status of the new successor state of Pakistan. As a consequence of this, Pakistan in effect appears to have accepted the status of a ‘seceding’ state rather than a ‘successor’ state of the British Indian Empire, as was envisaged in the partition plan. The state of ‘India’ was, as a consequence, accepted by the world a day later as the sole ‘successor state’.
Had sufficient attention been paid to this aspect betimes, several undesirable consequences of ‘partition’ could and should have been avoided. For one thing, the founding fathers of Pakistan should logically have insisted that the two successor states should call themselves as ‘Pakistan’ and ‘Bharat’, and emerge simultaneously. The name India was an invention of the British and should logically have been allowed to die a natural death with the dissolution of the British Indian Empire and the departure of the British colonialists. Much water has flowed under the bridge since the fait accompli of the founding fathers of the two logically ‘successor states’. The great harm to this country that has resulted from this cannot be undone. Nevertheless, even a realization at this late stage of the injustice done to Pakistan as a consequence of the shoddy ‘partition’ charade should be welcomed by those who would wish their ‘history’ to be in a pure and un-adulterated form.
— The writer is a former Ambassador and former Assistant Secretary General of OIC.
