Partition of Indian Subcontinent: A Thought-Provoking Outcome of the Prevailing “Anachronistic” Approach to Religion instead of “Modern”

Understanding of the holocaust event, ‘Partition of Indian Subcontinent’(1947) still appears  a problematic chapter to deal with  even after  more than seven decades of  the holocaust event not only for millions of  Indians and Pakistanis but for many in abroad too.  The momentous event still continues to tantalize    many   historians, writers, researchers and scholars at present day context even. Reading history is not enough to understand this event of great vastness. Literary representation of Partition also plays a significant role in this regard.  The cataclysmic event has been documented in a wide range of literary genres -fictions, non-fictions, poetry, memoirs, oral history etc., published in multiple languages in many countries. All the writers try to capture   the most harrowing scenes of the turbulent period of   history as per their immensity of   experiences and meticulous observation.  Besides many reasons responsible for the Partition,   the underlying  ‘anachronistic’ approach  to ‘religion’ is noticed as the most  prominent one in resulting the thought-provoking disaster  of 1947. The present paper seeks to explore ‘the’ least attended aspect but ‘the’ most important   reason of the holocaust i.e. the prevailing anachronistic approach to “religion” instead of “modern” with special reference to Brent Nonbri’s idea of  “modern concept” of an  “ancient( traditional)” notion of “religion.”


Introduction
The vastness of the cataclysmic Partition of Indian Subcontinent (1947) and its legacies still need an expanded framework for its assessment. There were many remarkable situations (social, political and historical), underlying concepts and reasons responsible for the catastrophe.
Those contexts include : The underlying 'anachronistic' perspective to 'religion' instead of 'modern' ; Growing religious hatred between two major religious groups (Hindu-Muslim on the basis of their historic and cultural roots of discord) ; Influence of foreign invasion on the subcontinent ; the rise of narrative for two different types of religious nationalism (Hindu nationalism and Muslim Nationalism) which turned into 'communal' form of nationalism ; Insertion religion into politics; Gandhi's Hindu religious biasness as a strategy of freedom struggle ; Burden of WWI and WWII on Indians as well as on British ; suddenness of decision for Partition ; Divide and Rule policy of British ; Late announcement of boundary demarcation line( Radcliffe line) ; Lack of development and spread of massive secular thought among the frontline political leaders (except Jawaharlal Nehru) as well as among the masses ; Lack of implementation of the great, ideal concept "Unity in Diversity" ( the state of togetherness in spite of presence of immense diversities) in reality etc. With the existence and developments of these events and concepts, the cataclysmic Partition was made inevitable. The magnitude of the event has far-reaching consequences in constructing memory for generations that gives rise to form a new literary paradigm called Partition Literature and an archive in the name of 1947 Partition Archive( founded by Guneeta Singh Bhalla), a nonprofitable organization that is working into digging various details of Partition of the Indian subcontinent through recording and compiling of oral stories of the victims and witnesses of Partition.
In fact, Partition of Indian Subcontinent was not a simple geographical partition literally.
Millions of human lives, age long languages , cultures, valuable properties, were partitioned forcefully in a hasty process which still has its legacies in Indian as well as Pakistani way of life(socio-political, economical and cultural). The major untoward consequences of the decision for Partition include -massive exodus, loot, rape, murder symbolizes Partition. Hence, the whole event is considered as a great holocaust as humanity was partitioned along with land. Mahatma Gandhi appropriately defines this forceful Partition as the "vivisection". In the article entitled, "Generations of memory: Remembering Partition in India/Pakistan and Israel/Palestine", Jonathan D. Greenberg rightly acknowledges Gandhi's metaphorical usage of the term Partition, "Tragically for the people of the subcontinent, Gandhi's version of the body politic metaphor was far closer to the truth" (Greenberg,92). Ian Talbot and Gurharpal Singh viewed Jinnah's version of Partition as "a surgical operation". Joya Chatterji notes Lord Mountbatten's response to Jinnah's idea of a surgical partition , "An anesthetic is required before the operation" ( Chatterji,194). Referring to Stanley Wolpert's analysis on Neheru's point of view on Partition, Jonathan D. Greenberg writes, "Even Jawaharlal Nehru came to believe that "[by] cutting of the head we will get rid of the headache" (Greenberg,92). However, amidst many theses of many frontline political leaders in Pre-partitioned India, finally Partition was come into being. However, the religious hostilities were not solved with the great vivisection. The spatial aspects of the holocaust and its traumatic implications in mindscape are getting reflected in much dynamic manner even at present context which seems far-reaching and edgeless.
Although it is true that by the time of Partition, communal tension had reached high through the major riots in 1940s but the seeds of communal poison were sown much before the decision of Partition . On the one hand many Hindu political leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, superstitious mother who was indulged in rigorous fasting, worshipping god to cure her sick child 'colonial India'. According to Ghosh, Gandhi's ideology was a fusion of religion, Indian traditionalism, the bourgeoisie humanist thoughts and ideas that couldn't help him to understand the flow of "religious nationalism" trend in pre-partitioned India. As a result, without a secular root, Indian nationalism and democracy seems fragile in many ways.
In spite of many causes responsible for Partition, "the religious animosity" is considered as the most prominent one. By the time, when the subcontinent was partitioned, the very concept of "the religious hatred" had already been transformed into "communal hatred" through frequent occurrence of communal violence. Referring to communal violence as a strong legacy of Partition, Asghar Ali Engineer aptly notes in the article, "Communal violence in Maharastra", " .  (Engineer,148). Quoting Abid Hussain's idea on the prevailing communal atmosphere in pre-partitioned India, Anup Chand Kapur writes, "We should remember that in the period of political transition, the struggle for political transition, the struggle for political, economic, and cultural domination among followers of various religions had become a powerful separating force . . ." (Kapur,15). However, like Hussain, Ashghar Ali Engineer also emphatically notes, in the article, Genesis of Communal Violence", " a shift in the economic and political situation with the introduction of the British Raj led not only to the strengthening of communal prejudices but also to periodical outbursts of communal violence which assumed a certain pattern over a period of time and culminated in the partition of the country" (Engineer,189). But it is noteworthy here to mention that British was not simply an alien force, moreover it was the third party that tried its best to instill its strategy of "divide and rule" for a lasting period using "religion" as the most fitted weapon. With the colonization of British, Christianity was also involved in the long term religious hostility between Hindus and Muslims and strengthened it more for its own benefit. Thus, the dispute was not among the Hindus and Muslims only but amongst the three communities -Hindus, Muslims and Christianity, while the earlier two were the subjects and the later one was the ruler.

Divide and Rule policy:
The first colony of the British empire that was partitioned along religious line was Ireland and second was Indian subcontinent. Analyzing the very common feature of 'divide and rule' in The Longest August: The Unflinching Rivalry between India and Pakistan, Dilip Hero, says, "What was common between the two partitions was [religious affiliation]. In the case of Ireland , it was different sects within Christianity, whereas in united but colonized India it was a clash between polytheistic Hinduism and monotheistic Islam"( Hero,xi). In a heterogeneous society, inter-group conflicts are inescapable part of public life which is difficult to avoid literally. So, far as Partition of India was concerned on the basis of religion it was happened in a context when approach to religion was not "modern" but still "anachronistic". This "anachronistic(traditional) treatment" of "religion" still exists in modern society which is a major challenge today to overcome. In fact the issue exists worldwide ( in underdeveloped, developing or even for developed nations). At this juncture, a critical analysis on Nongbri's idea of 'modern' notion of religion seems more helpful.

Nongbri's version of 'ancient' concept of 'religion'
In order to have some sort of clear-cut idea on 'religion' from modern point of view Brent Nongbri's concise account of modern notion of 'religion' is noteworthy to refer to in the background context of Partition of Indian subcontinent. Nongbri tends to guide through his treatise, Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept, to rethink the concept 'religion' in brief in modern context. According to his minute observation, even at present context, very often most of the people in general deal with it (religion) anachronistically but not from the modern point of view. The idea of "religion" is still being propagated with nothing "new" in modern context. It still exists as a concept "preoccupied with" many age old rituals, beliefs and doctrines which are treated as "sacred" and "good" in so-called way and thus "necessary" to follow as it was used in one way or the other in ancient and mediaeval society. But so far as the enlightening ideas of modern society is concerned, no more the ancient concept of religion is found helpful rather harmful. Because the traditional concept of religion creates many hindrances, confusions and helps only in blockading the exploration of science, scientific ideas, scientific temperament, humane human attitudes etc., in many ways in global context . If these (religions) are considered somehow useful by some people ( "a majority" or "minority" group of people as per their respective beliefs ) then it is to be understood that such considerations are only trying to serve 'some' sorts of purpose in private as well as public sphere of lives "more" (on the basis of socio-political, cultural and economical context) but serving "less" to justify its "traditional meaning" in general what it is assumed to be (believing any religion means believing in an interior spiritual journey for the so-called salvation concept of soul etc.).
Karen Armstrong's (the former nun and best-selling author) views, "The spiritual quest is an interior journey; it is psychic rather than political drama. It is preoccupied with liturgy, doctrine, contemplative disciplines and an exploration of the heart, not with clash of current events" (Armstrong, ix). Here it seems, somehow Armstrong puts her opinion in the line of Locke, that the position of 'religion' is confined to 'the' private context (by using two specific words 'psychic' and 'interior journey') and should not be applied publicly and politically.
In ancient period, the discussion on sacrality and gods were very much in the public domain. They referred to the concept of religion in their hierarchical protocols of all sorts. As per Nongbri's study: For example-In Greek, the people frequently uses the word "eusebeia" to perceive proper attitude towards Gods and parents and "asebeia" for holding wrong attitude.  ( Nongbri,5).

Nongbri's modern notion of ancient concept of "religion"
In order to define the 'modern' concept of religion, Talal Asad views, "I would urge that [religion] is a modern concept not because it is reified but because it has been linked to Siamese twin [secularism]" ( Asad,. Supporting Asad's point of view, Nongbri emphatically says, "It is this simultaneous birth of 'religion' and 'secularism' that merits attention" ( Nongbri,4). He claims that what modern people perceive the domain of religion today was absent in the ancient world. Because the modern dichotomy of "being religious" and "not being religious" was not of concern of the ancient world.  (Nongbri,4)". In the chapter, "Conclusion: After Religion?" he discusses the origin of "modern" notion of "ancient" concept of "religion" in an informed way. Focusing the origin of "modern" concept of religion, he says, "It was born out of a mix dispute Christian disputes about truth, European colonial exploits, and the formation of nation-states" (Nongbri,154). Moreover, he aptly says the democratization of the modern idea of "religion" started when European exploration of the world, they discovered the "new" people ( in Africa, America etc.,) and their different worship practices. Thus, Nongbri appropriately says, these "new" peoples became the "ammunition" for the world of Christian disunity which was found as the very 'basis' to construct the framework of World Religions. The advocate of constructing the phenomena of "modern idea of religion" in 16 th century was John Locke who recommended to treat religion 'privately' and 'apolitically' for the betterment of growing nation-states with which the modern notion of "religion" ( the distinction between "the religious" and "the secular") came into existence.
The trajectory from ancient to modern records many kinds of developments of different societies time to time. What is most important to note here is that in spite of much progress of human lives by the modern era, there still found some kind of influences of mediaeval pagan beliefs and practices in modern society all over the world. The different taboo subjects -religion, ethnicities , culture, language etc., still has its dominance in shaping the "psychology" as well as "social behavior" as per the age long underlying ancient beliefs. So far as the theory of evolution and the idea of secularism is concerned, it is observed not yet the people( in general in the present modern society) have achieved the modernized status in their outlook, socio-cultural behavior, economic and political development etc., in global context.
However, so far as the concerns of religion is meant in general in traditional sense, people believe "religion" as a kind of inner feeling or personal belief which is ideally remote from secular affairs. Thus, in this scenario, independent World Religions are considered as different platforms in order to know about the genesis of world, creation of life, how to obtain salvation, what's the best way to realize the concept of "almighty", "supernatural entity" or "god" etc.

"Defining religion" is a peculiar job
The very process of 'defining religion' seems a peculiar job to discuss but can't be ignored as it has still a strong dominance on the traditional belief system of people. As Nongbri suggests ideally, it is the need of the hour to have a clear-cut idea on 'modern' concept of religion. Eric J. Sharpe, the historian of comparative religion opines, "To define religion is, then far less important than to possess the ability to recognize it when we come across it" (Sharpe, 46-48 greater or lesser success, more than fifty ways" ( Smith,(179)(180)(181)(182)(183)(184)(185)(186)(187)(188)(189)(190)(191)(192)(193)(194)(195)(196). However, analyzing Smith's and Leuba's points of view, Nongbri critically observes, "the industry of proposing new, [better] definitions of religion shows no signs of flagging, despite the decreasing sense that any universal definition will ever be accepted" ( Nongbri,16).
Nongbri intelligibly and justifiably rejects the efforts of producing "better definitions" or "more cross-culturally valid definitions." According to him "the" very process as well as "the" important is not try to produce a "better" or "inclusive" definition of religion. According to him, religion has its "traditional meaning for us and for the audience for which we write , and by so widening or otherwise altering what it includes , it may well cease to have much utility as a research and literary tool" (Saler,157). Nongbri notes as an academic discipline, the study of religion still assumes "religion is simply a fact of human life and always has been." Thus, a key question arises, "How should the study of religion move forward?" (Nongbri,154). Hence, he suggests to study religion in a more informed way and putting two crucial questions in this regard to focus on.

Who is doing the defining and why?
2. What is at stake for those who think it is important to adhere to this or that particular definition of religion?
In the article, "God Save This Honourable Court: Religion and Civic Discourse", Jonathan Z Smith discusses ". . .government entities in the United States determine what does and does not get to count as religion through an examination of Supreme Court cases." (Smith,. In this regard, Nongbri critically views, "This kind of approach has more potential for generating useful insights. What sorts of interests are involved in such decisions of defining religion?" ( Nongbri,155). In many countries this problem of "direct involvement" of government machinery in the affairs of religion still exists. Amongst them , the so-called largest democracy and the so-called secular 'India' is 'one'. 6. Direct "involvement" of Government in the affairs of religion in the so-called secular India With particular reference to the recent verdict on "Ram Janmabhoomi(birth place of Ram)-Babri mosque dispute" in 2019 , it is observed that like U.S. in India also it is "the same" Supreme Court that dramatically acts as the "Supreme Tool" not only in "defining" what is religion but also "which religion is more important and which is less" as per the dominating "majority vs. minority" narrative. So far as the recent "Ram Mandir-Babri mosque" verdict is concerned, Gurpreet Mahajan's analysis seems very much appropriate in this regard.
According to Nongbri, the "activity" of defining the religion and the "act" of saying "some things" or "Some people" are religious and others are not, lead to giving up "the essentialist project" of finding "the" definition of religion. In his words, "Such a reorientation in the study of religion would also allow for a more playful approach to second-order redescriptive usage of religion" ( Nongbri,155). Thus, he emphasizes on, to treat 'something' as religion in 'non-essentialist' ways for the purpose of 'analysis' that would shift the mode of discourse. He suggests intelligibly with the shifting of mode of discourse, "We would no longer ask the question , 'Is phenomenon X is a religion?' Rather we would ask something like 'Can we see anything new and interesting about phenomenon X by considering it, for the purpose of study, as a religion?" (Nongbri,155). With the attempt of shifting mode of discourse, Nongbri opens up the concept of religion to be responded in a more informed way.

Critiquing 'Religion'
In fact it seems unworthy to discuss "religion" merely as "re-descriptive" concept in order to have some kind of idea on creation and destruction of universe, attaining salvation etc. It and implementation of laws of science (that creates a genuine scientific temperament and developing scientific, humanitarian approach to different aspects of life and society).
Due to "squarely" assigned status of religion in the so-called secular country like India, its claim of "secular" character contradicts itself. At this juncture, it seems more appropriate to consider India either as a pseudo-secular nation or as a "multi-theocratic state" reference to Marx's recommendation for "abolition" of religion and Nongbri's recommendation to study religion "in a more informed way" ( Nongbri,154) .
Although it seems difficult to abolish the influence of religion completely from social life but not seems impossible as well. The more influential and interesting part to study and discuss religion would be to focus it as a research area with a sound questionnaire in order to discuss some key questions as such: Perhaps all such questions may provoke some valuable assessment on the idea of "religion" in a more informed way.
Critiquing Marx's comparison of religion with opium, Beverely Milton Edwards states, "religion is not so much an opiate of the masses but is harnessed by the state elite into the fabric of the state -to varying degrees -as a means of force and order"(Edwards,29). According to Nongbri's insightful claim, what seems more authoritative in the problematic study of religion is "to simply view it as a modern subject" focusing the "particular" time of John Locke's scholarly recommendation for the treatment of religion when it was truly reorganized as a modern concept. There is found a great challenge before modern man not only to be talk about the ancient world is not anachronism. All of our concepts are modern and hence anachronistic when applied to the ancient world. The problem is that we so often suffer from a lack of awareness that we are being anachronistic. Informed and strategic deployment of anachronism, on the other hand, can have unexpected and thought-provoking results" (Nongbri,158). With this particular analysis, Nongbri guides to instill a "modern idea" rejecting the ancient notion of religion. He aptly focuses on the central issue that due to "informed and strategic deployment" of anachronistic ideas (old taboo ideas), it would have only one result i.e.
to bring unexpected, unhappy, thought-provoking results. Because as the modern man lives within the circle of many modern ideas (cosmopolitanism, secularism etc. ) in a technologically advanced world as well , hence, while dealing with religion, it would be disadvantageous for him to confine his "mindscape and social space" in anachronistic (traditional) sense instead of modern . Nongbri knowledgeably makes it clear, "religion as an explicitly second-order or redescriptive concept has a place in the study of antiquity. That leaves us with the final question of what to do about our descriptive account of the ancient world" (Nongbri,158). In fact, the study of 'religion' can be explored as a research field in a more productive way when it will be being manifested in many societies, countries in the name of "civil war", "ethnic war" and "intra-religion wars", "inter-religion wars" etc. In Asian countries like India and Pakistan since the time of Partition, the legacy of religious violence still persists in communal form even after more than seven decades of the cataclysmic event of 1947. The tumultuous Partition still appears as a curious topic in public arena. Myriad attempts still are being made time to time to fill in the gap to understand the various circumstances why the infamous Partition took place.
However, if it is not considered that the horrendous event took place in the context of the "underlying anachronistic" approach to "religion," (that could have been avoided with a sensible and intelligible modern outlook to religion) then the gap would remain seemingly unbridgeable.
From Nongbri's point of view, it can be emphatically concluded that the thought-provoking Partition of the Subcontinent happened due to "an underlying anachronistic approach to religion" in the modern period i.e. in 1947. Hence, if this valid ground is not taken into account as the most "noticeable ignorance" of the public as well as of the political leaders then all the myriads of attempts on the assessment of the great holocaust would go in vain.
Many thought-provoking events have occurred unexpectedly in global context due to "the" anachronistic approach to religion in modern era which can't be ignored. Including Partition ,the long term Ram temple-Babri Mosque dispute, and finally the dramatic narrative of 'demolition' of Babri mosque in 1992 and 'construction' of Ram temple at the demolished sight in 2020 etc., are fitting example of the reflection of the prevailing religious hostilities between Hindus and Muslims in India. The hostilities are not found merely religious but competitively communal as well.
The West and the Middle East are not exceptional in this regard. The cataclysmic events like "9/11 in USA," the recent "11 -day Palestinian-Israeli violence" in May, 2021, the ongoing military offensive by Taliban and allied groups since 1990s till date (the recent escalation of Taliban offensive in Afghanistan in August,2021) etc., are the most striking examples of some high degree of thought-provoking outcomes that happened in recent past in global context due to manipulation of "religion" in an inappropriate and 'atavistic' way instead of 'modern'. No peace talks and no reconciliation seems possible to escape from the attack of all kind of taboo subjects-religion, ethnicity , language, culture etc unless it is handled from "purely" modern scientific, humanitarian perspective exercising all the ideas knowledgeably and sensibly.
However, if some sorts of purposeful efforts are not being made seriously for the eradication of the very "basis" of religious hostilities as well as communal hatred then this "religious virus" may mutate its feature towards pandemic nature to perform its action in much more vigorous and violent way impeding "the" very process of progress of modern human society up to the mark and as a result, the modern society will lag behind more in achieving the great ideals -cosmopolitan democracy, secularism, socialism, humanism etc., in true sense.
The modern man needs to be more socialized, democratized, secularized and above all humanized. The earlier is the diagnosis, the better is the treatment.