1. Engineer,A.A. `Communalism in India', Vikas Publishing House,New
Delhi, 1995.
2. ---------,`Pakistan, Religion, Politics and Society', Centre for the Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai, March 16, 96. 3. Chandra,B. `India's Struggle for Independence', Penguin,New Delhi,1989.
4. Khosla, Gopal Das. Stern Reckoning, Quoted by C. Subramanyam `Independence and the pain of Partition'. 5. Partition of India: Living with the Divide, Communalism Combat, Mumbai, August, 1996.

6. Shakir,M. `Dynamics of Muslim Thought', in Political Thought in Modern India (Ed: Bantham & Deutsch), Sage, 1986. 7. Mitra,N.N.(ed.), Indian Quarterly Register, 1927, Vol.1, pg.37.
8. Zakaria,R. `The Truth of Appeasement', in Indian Muslims: Ed.
Rajkishore (Hindi) Vani Prakashan, 1994. (This article draws heavily from books of HM Seervai and Ayesha Jalal.)
9. Sumit Sarkar "Modern India" Macmillan, 1996, pg.59. 10. Swami Vivekanand `Collected Works', Vol.VIII, pg.330. 11. Percival Spear: A History of India (vol.2), Penguin, 1990. 12. Seervai,H.M.Partition of India: Legend and Reality, Emmenem Publications, Bombay,1990

Indian National Social Action Forum Manual

Partition Politics

For historians studying the partition period, the most contentious issue remains that of conflict between Hindus and Muslims, in particular, whether the tensions were always there, or created and aggravated by the British policy of "divide and rule". Of all historical debates that South Asia scholars are engaged in, none are as obfuscated by contemporary politics as this one. In the early Pakistan period, strident nationalism, the 1965 war and other factors combined to encourage adherence to the "Two Nation theory". In the aftermath of the 1971 war, there was a shift to the opposite philosophy: i.e. that Hindus and Muslims were never meant to be separated into distinct homelands. In particular, the two nation theory had always been anathema to Congress and the Hindu middle class in West Bengal. The independence of Bangladesh provided this group with a joyful occasion, the perceived confirmation that charges of discrimination leveled at Hindu society during the partition period were now proven false. After the fall of Dhaka, the leading Indian magazines took out a full page advertisement with a picture of a tombstone-- on the tombstone were etched the words: "Here lies the remains of the Two Nation theory"

In researching the primary material, and interviewing those old enough to remember the British period, I found the truth to be a varied combination of the extreme versions. What was truly revealing for me was to observe how much bitterness towards the Hindu majority the elder generation exhibited. This contrasted sharply with the present generation which, having never had to compete with such a majority, generally regarded Hindus with great sympathy. The official written narratives yielded little of value, but anecdotal references in miscellaneous articles were revealing. Dr. Motahar Hossain's son for example, in describing his father's rise to the top of the sciences, related how, when Hossain finally went to Dhaka University he was told, "Oh, science and all that is not meant for Muslim boys!"

Novels and short stories also contained many interesting insights, especially in terms of documenting perceptions and thoughts that were unconsciously demeaning to Muslims. In particular Bankimchandra, the writer credited with creating the form of the Bengali epic, was a sore point for educated Muslims in British India. The situation became particularly volatile when Congress and other elements took up the slogan Bande Mathorom (Hail to the Mother) from Bankimchandra's Kopalkundola as a nationalist slogan. In the novel, the chant was sung by soldiers while slaughtering Muslims (or "nere's" as Bankim referred to them). Although Congress claimed to represent all Indians, and held no explicitly religious stance, it was in essence, a product of the Hindu middle class' aspirations-- the Bande Mathorom slogan simply made this visible to educated Muslims. Other interesting references are to be found in Swaratchandra Chatterji's epic four volume novel Srikantho. The first volume begins with this sentence: "There is a football match going on. On one side are the Bengali boys, on the other side the Muslims" As MSI pointed out during our first session, "Now you see, these Muslims are also Bengali! Of course they are! But he is making them separate from the Bengalis-- meaning Hindu Bengalis. I don't think he even noticed, because that is the way they thought."

In more recent revisionist literary criticism, Tagore is held up as another example of Hindu cultural hegemony. Although Tagore professed adherence to the "religion of man" and espoused universal solidarity, elsewhere he wrote, "Whether I like it or not, whether I want it or not, I was born a Hindu and I will always be a Hindu." One Bangla Academy researcher pointed out during a conversation that Tagore never wrote a novel with a major Muslim character. In fact, the only Muslim characters in his books were servants and minor characters. Defenders point out that Tagore was reflecting the society he grew up in, one in which Muslims did not play a major, or even any, role. Others deflate this by drawing a comparison with his stories that feature lower caste Hindus, a community from which he was distant at least to the same extent as he was from Muslim society. As one Bengali literature professor put it, "Everyone does not have to be Dickens and serve time in jail in order to write about the working class. That is the power of great literature, to bring to life an experience that many of us, the writer included, may never have in real life. The truth is Rabi babu was not interested in writing about Muslims, it was not an issue for him." Jubeida Khatoon, who in spite of her scarring experiences of going to all-Hindu school in Calcutta, retains a great fondness for the old-style Bengali writers (all Hindu), observed that: "In Rabindranath's work, there was subtle things. He has many novels, many dramas, have you seen that any of the hero-heroines are Muslims? The servants were the Muslims. Guards, servants were the Muslims. Besides there were no Muslim characters, all were Hindus. Almost all the servants would be Muslims. Cowherds, shepherds, these were the Muslims. Rabindranath did not write anything against us, but this also hurt me, that he didn't write anything in favor of us either. None of the heroes are Muslims, people get hurt by this sort of thing. Sharat, Bankim, people would read their work a lot, and it was there. In all the works, in words, jobs, everything the Muslims were made to look small."

The existence of antagonism between Hindu and Muslim populations was referred to repeatedly during the interviews. Almost all Muslims of the elder generation had some negative experience to speak of. This was in marked contrast to the traditional narratives that most Bangladeshis of my generation grew up with, a narrative in which Hindu-Muslim tension is a top-down phenomenon, created and bolstered by the British. The interviews indicated that, the tensions were there before the politicians arrived to take advantage of them. The experiences narrated to me were primarily of two types: overt insults deriving from religious and cultural dogma, and subtle comments deriving from stereotypes and perceptions. In general, few Muslims in Bangladesh seem to have experienced the subtle slight, since this appeared to happen in interactions between educated equals-- which was less frequently the case among Muslims and Hindus in Bengal.

In the village areas, many of the tensions seem to have derived from Hindu conceptions of 'untouchability' and the Muslims' ranking in that hierarchy. Sirajul Islam Bhuiyan's explanation was, "In the Hindu caste system, you have nomoshudra, chamar, thathi, etc. Then you come to the Muslims, and since we are not even from the same religion, we fall outside that, lower than the lowest castes, so to speak." Accordingly, on a social level, there appeared to be little interaction between the two religions at the lower level. In the rural context, the most likely interaction would be around common space, most frequently water from a tubewell. The practice was that, if there was any semblance of a line, the Hindus would go first. In addition, if a Muslim boy's feet were touching the base of the tubewell, the Hindu boys would not drink from the water until he had removed his feet. One particularly bitter interviewee in Rajshahi, Khandaker Abdus Sabur, had this story: "I saw mukhujjo da, he had just taken his bath in the pond. As I approached he quickly got off the road, taking this roundabout path. I was a little confused, so I veered in his direction. What I didn't realize was that, that was precisely the last thing he wanted. So finally he had to shout out, 'Ey, ey, ey, don't come here, don't walk over my shadow-- amar chaya marash ne. Now he wasn't just being rude, he literally believed that if I walked over his shadow, his jyath would go, he would have to bathe again to purify himself, all that.'"

Similarly awkward situations also occurred when Muslims visited Hindu households. In the late nineteenth century, there was little fraternization among the two communities, so these issues did not come up-- nor was the appropriate social decorum established. But by the 1920s, a significant number of Hindu students began meeting their Muslim counterparts in school. As they began to bring their new friends home, resistance came from the elder generation, for whom fraternization with Muslims was a new and unpleasant phenomenon. Many of the subjects told of being invited to have lunch at a Hindu friend's house, and then once they arrived, having to face the humiliation of being made to sit on the porch by the parents, being given food in the clay pots (which would be broken after they left), having ashes scattered across their path, and in particular, the cataclysmic reaction to their entrance into the kitchen: "I walked into the kitchen by accident, but my god you should have seen the reaction. It was as if the dog had just come in urinated in the pot of bhaji. In fact, from the mother's point of view, probably both a dog or a Muslim would make their food unholy. Of course, they had to throw all the food out; probably all the pots and pans as well. Food really was the last frontier." [anonymous interviewee in Chittagong] M.A. Sami, a virulently anti-Hindu Pakistani had this story: "I was the only muslim boy in that school. You know, this dirty, ragged beara, he would be carrying the dal and rooti. He would just pour the dal from that distance, splashing everywhere, then drop the rooti on the plate from that distance. I used to eat and cry. You know there was no latrine in the hostel, we had to go and be at ease in the woods. I saw a dog licking my stool, then I saw the same dog licking their dishes that had been set aside to be washed. They did not drive the dog away, but they would drive me away."

Although the narratives paint a grim picture of Hindu-Muslim relations, it is also worth bearing in mind that interaction between Hindus and Muslims were limited. At the peasant level, much of the oppressive behavior was class-oriented, and the subjugated happened to be Muslim. Unpleasant incidents died down quickly and were highly localized. It was not until the politicization of communal relations that Hindu-Muslim tensions ballooned and began to appear in communities all over the subcontinent. The key question in dealing with this phase is whether the politicians and their rhetoric acted as a crucible for years of frustration, or whether they accelerated and magnified individualistic behavior. In the next two segments, one about the Muslim League, the other about the Congress, I probe these issues in more detail.

Muslim League on the rise:
elite manipulation or mass mobilization?

For subaltern scholars, the great unsolved riddle in partition history remains the causality of the Hindu-Muslim conflict. In particular: did the Muslim League exploit a situation of imbalance that was already in existence, or did they, in fact, create and foment these rivalries from out of thin air? Much of the answer hinges on two parts of the Muslim League puzzle: how it was created, and where it received its support from. The birth of the ML was clearly an elite phenomenon, amply documented by Ayesha Jalal, Hasan Zaheer and others. The ML at its inception was primarily a protest device created by Jinnah and a handful of other Muslim leaders, who feared that when the need for presenting a united front to the British had passed, they would be relegated to token positions in the Congress party. Thus, Jinnah's original vision seems to have been to use the ML as a tantalizing tease, and leverage the threat of Muslim separatism into a greater chunk of the Congress pie. Islam itself was useful to Jinnah as a tool of differentiation, but in private life, he held a vision of a diluted role of religion in daily life. Clearly, when he lent his weight to Muslim separatism, his vision was of the need for economic opportunity, not spiritual space. As things actually proceeded, several pieces of the equation failed to connect. Congress reacted to the ML threat, first in amusement, and then in hostility. Ultimately Jinnah's gamble of ruffling Congress feathers worked a little too well: instead of being hungry for reconciliation, Congress leaders felt pushed into a corner and reacted with hostility, shutting out any possibility of a consensus government. ML leaders also were ambivalent towards this opportunity: some felt that things had gone too far, and it was time to return to the united India concept. Others were overjoyed at the opportunity to go their separate ways, especially those who were mediocre political performers and would never be able to capture majority votes in a united India.

Although, the private musings of the ML coterie were hidden from public view, Jalal and others have done an excellent job of piecing together behind-the-scenes analysis based on varied information sources, including letters, posters, leaflets, and memos. What remains much more of a mystery is the amount of support the ML actually enjoyed at the grass roots level. Even more impossible is the task of dissecting the reasons and boundaries of that support. Given the simplistic dimensions of the only election that the ML participated in (in essence a referendum on the creation of Pakistan), the low literacy rate among the majority of Muslims (and, therefore, limited access to the media), and the prevailing atmosphere of extreme paranoia and retaliation; the events on record-- election results, riot casualties-- paint a deceiving picture of uniform Muslim support for the ML. In this aspect, my interviews broke new ground, reaching beyond the numbers for a wealth of anecdotal information. Particularly interesting were the observations of Ansar Ali Mian. A firebrand ML'er at the time of partition, Ansar Ali never looked for any rewards for his campaigning on behalf of the ML. Therefore, his testimony about the appeal of the ML is considerably more reliable than other accounts I recorded. Ansar Ali was particularly useful to ML campaigners because of his superb singing voice; at each provincial ML meeting, he would open the program by first singing the anthem "Larke leyenge Pakistan [We will fight to get Pakistan]". Besides his official role, Ansar Ali also earned a reputation as a confrontational firebrand, once through his speech which broke up a Congress meeting, and another time through his efforts to guarantee that Muslims were able to sacrifice a cow on the holy day of Eid-- efforts which almost resulted in his dismissal from the army.

Through these narratives, Ansar Ali was insistent on one point: "I was a ML supporter, I am not any more, now I support the Jamaat, because they are the only people that talk about Islam, but, I am not a 'fundamentalist'." With reference to the historians who argue that ML never had grass-roots support (and that this did not matter in the pre-partition chaos), Ansar Ali was equally forceful: in an unrecorded conversation with me, he said, "That is all nonsense. Many people kept supporting the ML after independence, many people got disgusted and moved away to something else. But, if any educated Muslim stands here and tells you that, before partition, when the question of Pakistan had not been decided, they did not support the ML, they are just lying. Later many people realized that the leaders were bad, or they had made a mistake in supporting them, or situation would have been better if India was united, etc. But at the time, with riots going on, and all this fear of what the Hindus are going to do once the British leave-- are they going to make kochu kata [chopped tubers] out of us-- every Muslim, everyone of them, supported the ML."

Gandhi and Congress:
secular saints or pious hypocrites?

Congress' role during all this seemed to be of consistently under-estimating the ML threat. If the party leadership had shrewdly held out an olive branch early in the process, Jinnah and his group could have been bought off very easily. By the time, the ML threat was realized through the referendum results, both ML and Congress leadership balked at a compromise: ML because they saw much more to be gained in Pakistan, Congress because they saw that too much power would have to be conceded at the center. In particular, Vallabhai Patel, with his virulently anti-Muslim rhetoric, successfully organized the 'refuseniks' inside Congress. Nehru's suave manner, rapport with Lord and Lady Mountbatten, and Gandhi's ascetic image, all helped to sway the British to be more partial to Congress' demands. Although, Nehru and Patel were the chief opponents of Jinnah, those interviewed indicated that Gandhi was seen as a target for Muslim frustrations during the partition period. In particular, Gandhi professed love for all religions, but did not allow his relative to marry a Muslim. When Noakhali's Saha family was hit by riots, Gandhi went to visit the area. The local Muslims were furious at this double standard, and gave him a very hostile reception. This new anti-Gandhi sentiment among Muslims was strongest in Noakhali itself. Shafayath Hossain described how attempts were made to block the railroad to prevent Gandhi from advancing. But the Noakhali Muslims' "shining hour" was in the form of a huge affront they delivered to the man who was "revered worldwide as a latter-day saint...To Muslims though, especially after Noakhali, he was something completely different. I mean look, he wouldn't let his own blood marry a Muslim, and he would talk all the time about communal harmony." Gandhi always took a goat with him on his travels in order to drink goat's milk. Within an hour of his arrival in Noakhali, his goat was stolen in the midst of the crowd. The story goes that, the goat was then cooked and fed to the local people. Clearly, Gandhi had not succeeded in winning the hearts and minds of all Indians.

MA Sami had an actual meeting with Gandhi, which was similarly unpleasant: "Gandhi I didn't like at all. An absolute hypocrite. I met him once, in 1940. I went to the nikethan, his secretary was this lady......______. I said my name is Mohammed Abdus Sami, really emphasizing the first part. Because usually I would say Sami, people would think Swami-- they would think I was a Hindu. So I wanted her to know I was a Muslim. Now you know, thakur ghore ke, bole ami kola khai ni. She says, well Mr. Sami, we don't really believe in conversion. Now this meant, they were thinking that I was wanting to get close to Hindu dadas, to walk a little like you, improve myself. So I said, why not, you mean to tell me that you do not want to convert. You talk to someone, you try to make them see your point, that is converting to your views. So you know, she saw that, ore baba, e tho thyador chele [Oh goodness, this is a tricky fellow]. Quickly became very careful. Said to me, oh you want to see bapu, he is about to take his walk, you can talk to him there. So there was a thatch type thing. A very thick white mattress, and there he sat, surrounded by these pretty girls, his apsaris you know. Wearing that nengti and resting on two women, a sight. He started saying, ah yes, you are a Bengali, please be comfortable, speak in your own language. But meanwhile he had already reached inside his dhoti and pulled out his watch. Never mind Bengali, I didn't even have a chance to speak. He said, well now I have to go for my walk. So you know, I understood exactly what was what. I thought, acccha, thik ache-- all right. Oh then I said to one of the others, can I get a glass of water. So he [Gandhi] had already started going away, but he had heard me. He pointed in the distance and said, there is the motka, you can drink it from there. And you know what, not one single person there moved to help me. I had to walk all the way there and get it myself. So I got a very valuable lesson."

Carnage at the crossroads:
endgame and partition riots

 

As discussed in the previous segments, Hindu-Muslim tensions were apparent at the grassroots level. The narratives I encountered also indicated that the ML did not create issues out of thin air-- rather their rhetoric touched some raw nerves and focused people's anger towards convenient targets. However, at the critical juncture of 1944, the gap between the agitational propaganda of the party and the existing situation in the heartland of India began to grow. Thus, as the party leaders began to realize that their rhetoric was outpacing the reality, they took it upon themselves to correct the situation. This was accomplished through a combination of insidious propaganda and the activities of hired thugs and agent provocateurs. In particular, communalization of religious festivals in rural areas was entirely a top-down phenomenon. Prior to the entrance of the ML and Congress, not only had festivals been free of incidents, they were in fact an area of remarkable syncretism and solidarity. In North Bengal, old Hindu and Muslim families talked of their experiences in the British period, when shared religious festivities were a strong part of their community experience. In particular, the Hindu puja festivals with their festive trappings were a major attraction for young Muslim boys and girls. The exuberance of Holi with its color fights, the vivid imagery of Durga, Kali and other deities, the ceremonial splendor of the ritual immersion of statues -- all of these were in marked contrast to the relatively somber atmosphere of Eid and other Muslim festivals. Besides the ban on graven images, Muslim festivals were also subdued due to the economic hardship of a majority of Muslims. As a result, the Hindu ceremonies were particularly attractive to young Muslims because they offered a welcome stimulus to their lives. In some towns, wealthy Muslim businessmen would even pay for some of the expenses of the float and participate in carrying the statue to the river. Not all saw this mixing of two religions as something positive. Qamrunnesa Begum was particularly harsh in her reaction: "...muslim boys would go to hear Geeta Path. Why? "There is much to be learnt from it." It was a fashion, especially for girls. This was in university quarters. My question was, have you people bothered to read Quran? Mongol Pradeep, etc. brought from Calcutta were elements of cultural subversion."

There were other areas where a fluid exchange between rituals occurred, especially through infusion of Hindu rituals into Muslim households. But, as Jubeida Khatoon points out, "it was always one-sided, we took their things gladly, I didn't see them taking any of our ceremonies." Elements such as the bindi on the forehead of women, shakha bracelets, the practice of touching elders feet in respect ("payer dhula neya"-- taking the dust from the feet), dipshikha lamps at wedding ceremonies-- all these and many other aspects of Hindu culture gradually seeped into and became part of muslim rituals. Only later, as Hindu-Muslim relations became a subject of propagandizing, did these elements come under critical scrutiny. Ultimately, this was one of the biggest impacts of the ML-Congress feud: the destruction of areas of cultural/religious solidarity and tolerance. Muslim women of the 1940s generation, who at one time gladly put on bindis, now rejected them with fury. Salma Chowdhury, at one time a very fashionable member of Dhaka society and now a very reserved, and religious woman, commented on her one-time obsession with "Hindu culture": "At the time I thought nothing of all this. I was very hi-fi, tip-top, always with the latest things. I wore shakha bracelets, had a prominent teep [bindi], wore short sleeve blouses. But later, much later, I came to understand that those were just Hindu-ani, and we were gladly taking it on ourselves to be that way."

In the mid 1940s, ML and Congress turned their focus on several rituals that they considered offensive to the other community. The leaders then proceeded to carry out ruthless propaganda campaigns-- campaigns that were so successful in spreading fear and hate among the masses that, by 1944, truth and fiction had blurred beyond recognition. In retrospect, looking over some of the documents from this period, one is struck by how little effort was needed to spread a rumor. With almost minimal literacy in the rural provinces, the one person in an area who could read a newspaper had absolute, unchecked power to exaggerate events, or fabricate them completely. With minimal communication between provinces, rumors coming in from outside quickly acquired the status of hard facts. The most notorious issue became the Muslim ritual of sacrificing cows at Bakri Eid. Suddenly, reports started coming in from all over India that in Hindu majority areas Muslims were not being allowed to sacrifice cows. The power of the written word combined with insinuation was put in full practice during this period. Ansar Ali described his own experience: "I destroyed this meeting by myself (laughs). I had the magazine in my hand. I went up to the President and asked permission, "I want to say a few words." A lot of people knew me at the time. These days I cannot speak, but in those days I spoke very well. He said, "Who are you?" I said, "I am Ansar Ali". Now I had many fans. They started shouting, "Who? What are you asking? let him speak. You have to give him permission." These were mostly young people. "Since the boy has asked, he has to be given permission." So I was given permission. I took that Muhammadi article, the stories about persecution by Hindus, ban on cow sacrifice, many such incidents, a 2-3 page long article. I said, "Respected President shaheb, respected audience, brothers, assalam u alaikum. I do not have anything significant to say, but I will read something to you, please listen." The President interrupted, "What article?" And the audience yelled, "What do you want to look at the article for? Whatever he wants to read, the boy wants to read, let him." The President was Muslim, but Congress, Hindu minded. They had called the meeting Krishak Proja Party meeting. Other people said, "Mr. President, what are you doing? The boy wants to read, let him read." So I started to read. At the time, I could read very well. Where you needed to put accent, I read with that accent. After I had finished reading, there was a huge yelling and shouting: "Ooosrgh, You haramzadas ['sons of bitches'], Hindus, sons of Hindus! We won't stay at your meeting." The meeting broke up in chaos...After I read the article, Muslims were so furious [goshya]: What! Hindus won't let them sacrifice cows! Muslims can't even do Qurbani in peace! There were many other incidents in that article. None of the party people attempted to catch me later. Muslims getting angry, especially if it is uneducated people, is a ferocious situation. In that situation, there was no question of scolding me. Rather, they took great care not to offend. "All right boy, you have read quite well." The meeting of course did not go on. They did not let anyone protest. The general [shadharan] people's thought was: Since he has read it from the paper, it is correct. They have not made it up."

In reaction to the cow sacrifice stories, those in Muslim majority areas made an extra effort to perform their sacrifices in a more visible and defiant manner. There were also incidents of cow entrails being thrown into Hindu temples in protest. The Muslims then picked on the issue of puja celebrations going past mosques, playing loud music. In the past, such ceremonies turned down their music if they were passing a mosque. But in 1945, mutual hostility was at a peak and the puja organizers made a point of blaring their music even louder than usual. Shi'a muslim celebrants carrying tajia floats also balked at lowering it when passing under the ashyoth tree, held as sacred by Hindus. One resident of Kushtia, Jainab Ali, wryly observed, "Suddenly Muslims were flexing their muscles, going, 'We won't lower our tajia for any Hindu symbol. Muslims will never bow their head to any but Allah', etc. Next thing you know, some Muslims had even gone and cut down the branches of a ashyoth tree so it would not be in the way, which of course infuriated the Hindus in the area, which was precisely the desired reaction. It was all very ridiculous, because this tajia before a tree business, the fuss about music in front of a mosque, all this never happened before, or bothered anyone. But suddenly, it seemed that people were just looking for any, and I mean any, excuse to start a fight. Funny thing: a tajia isn't even Islamic, but the bearers of the tajia now thought they were the saviors of Islam."

Inevitably, the worsening of relations led to the violent riots of the 1940s, climaxing in the fearful riots in Noakhali and Calcutta. In Bengal, the most horrific accounts came from Muslims who were studying in Calcutta and residents of Noakhali who witnessed the retaliation attacks on the Saha families. But prior to the Calcutta riots, although the surface declaration of any incident was one of hate towards the "other", a little probing below the surface usually revealed class hatred and personal vendettas-- a settling of old scores under the guise of communal riots. Abdumamu, a resident of Sylhet, gave a lucid reading of the Noakhali riots: "In Bihar, Hindus were going, kill the Muslims. Result? Noakhali. Two reasons I think for Noakhali: Religious feelings were higher than elsewhere. Also there was the Saha community, paisawalah [moneyed] Hindus, just like the Marwaris-- they were certainly targets of some looting. The mahajans did sud logni [lend-lease] in that area. Now when Gandhi came to Noakhali, it did not go down well. "Why don't you go to Bihar?" people were yelling at him. You've heard the story about his goat being stolen, jobai kore khaoa holo [it was slaughtered and eaten by everyone] (laughs). "Ekhane ashcho keno? [Why are you coming here?]" again and again that question. About the Sahas, [they were killed because everyone owed them money]. I'll give you another example: in 1971, the Kabuliwalahs were picked out and killed--I owe him money, of course if I kill him I don't have to repay that money. Kabulis were big moneylenders in those days. I saw with my own eyes, there would be Kabulis sitting at the gates of the Dacca Secretariat-- to get their money back. Why secretariat? Well, there were a lot of government employees who would loan money from the Kabulis. For fear of having to return that money, when they didn't have the money, they would even enter by back gates to escape the Kabulis. Now, you won't see any Kabulis in Bangladesh. In the past, there were thousands of Kabulis. They have been in the money lending business since British era. When the cries went up, "Finish off the Urdu-speakers!"-- the Kabulis were finished off. Of course, economics is always the hidden reason. But it sounds more [heh] patriotic to say, I killed him because he is a Hindu-son-of-a-Hindu, or I killed that Urduwallah."

However, all this changed after the Calcutta riots. Hired thugs brought in from outside by both parties, the frenzy of the imminent division of spoils, and the pervasive fear of the 'other'-- all this combined to make Calcutta the site for the most bloody fratricidal conflict in the subcontinent's recent history. In particular, these riots, in their all encompassing savagery, sounded the death knell for Hindu-Muslim reconciliation. For the first time since the ML-Congress players started using riots as the mode of confrontation, Hindus and Muslims were attacked solely because of their religion. No mitigating circumstances of class hatred could be uncovered in the madness of the Calcutta riots. As Sultanuddin Bhuiyan explains it: "The Calcutta riots really were the end of all hope. After that, no sane person would even dream of suggesting that Hindus and Muslims could ever live together in peace. Could we have lived together? I would liked to have tried. But after you have seen ordinary neighbors committing extraordinary acts of violence, you lose all faith in human nature. No wanted to take the risk any more. Thus, the riots handed partition as fait accompli to the citizens of India. The few rational minds that could have mustered an argument against the "Two Nation theory" were now too numbed by the scale of the savagery to venture any attempts at reconciliation. In these times of extreme violence, the masses and the leaders ran for the safety and shelter of their "own kind".