My relationship with history is a messy one. Born
more than forty years after Partition, surrounded by those who remembered it,
the event trickled into the deepest shadows of my imagination, populated by
mind-elves in saris and kurta pajamas, squabbling about the Muslim League,
Unionists and Congress in muddled, half-understood Urdu and Punjabi. When I was
asked to summon my thoughts about it as a college student, archivist or
interviewer, the elves clambered out, noisily, to the background sound of yellowing
pages rustling against a thumb with paper cuts.
My first awakening, the first time these ghosts with
their UP accents and starched cotton saris were asked to organize themselves
and explain to my post-everything self what 1947 stood for, was in college.
Until then, Partition was a badly understood idea at best, confused by
school-sanctioned patriotism and tacky “Love the soil of Pakistan” bumper
stickers. Then came Ayesha Jalal, with her dry prose cutting through the
nonsense of national idiom and setting my mind on fire. She was followed by
historians, political scientists and dozens of interviewees who exhausted my
capacity to comprehend Partition. I fantasized about crawling into my
grandmother’s closet, scented with mothballs, and not coming out until my
thesis wrote itself. I alternated between frenzied bouts of reading and writing
and running from all things Partition-related. The process was so all-consuming
that my idealistic motivations about educating children fell by the wayside.
How, how, how would I transmit my half-baked ideas to anybody? The weight of
August 1947, its sticky heat and oppressive ennui, made my mind sag like plants
in an Amritsar home that a young woman and her mother had expected to return
to, but didn’t.
There was the Jinnah movie in fifth grade, of which
I remembered only a pregnant woman’s belly being pierced with a spear while an
angry Junoon tune played in the background and the Stanley Wolpert quote about
Jinnah which has been reproduced so many times in so many school assemblies and
14th August demonstrations.
There were vague ideas about Muslim rights and the image of sadness-tinged, upright
forefathers refusing to sing Vande Mataram and something to do with Hindu
supremacy. There was the story of my grandmother and the death trains-the image
seared into our ten year old brains was the one of her beautiful hair being
chopped off after being exposed to filth and fleas on the two-month journey to
Pakistan. There were the stories of my other grandmother and her home with its
important visits by important people who we studied about in history books and
the sense that we must live up to their expectations (don’t decry nationalism
or their ghosts will look down on you reproachfully, don’t joke about them or
Allah Mian will hear you). There was all this, no doubt, along with a
heaviness, a pregnant-but-not-ready encyclopedia of images and ideas, in the
minds of my students. They were me. I was twenty-two. Where does one even begin
to commit to this moment in history, to this colossal undertaking of
simultaneously understanding and explaining Partition? So I organized the
things I could not and would not teach and how I could not and would not teach
them. I went to class and fiddled with pedestal fans, dusted chalk off my
kameez, passed around photocopies about inoffensive things like the geography
of Pakistan (the borders already drawn for me by 1947). I talked about refugees
and the Muslim League and the Congress and overthrowing colonialism, making all
the political characters sound Equally Good and On The Same Side. I expended
huge amounts of energy on not noticing that it was forty seven degrees Celsius and
there was no electricity and how it just
didn’t matter what I taught anybody in that context. In return, they taught
me about their colonies and picnics at Benazir Bhutto park and playtime and
loss. We became friends and I grew increasingly bitter with the idea of an
objective history.
I started hating the questionnaire we used to
interview oral history candidates, with its quiet assumptions about class and
nationalism. Do you remember seeing the Pakistan flag unfurled for the first
time? Were you proud to fly PIA the first time? I’m so sorry to steer you back
to our topic, but can you describe Karachi’s nightlife in the 1950s? It made me
sick. Meanwhile, Pakistan moved on, never allowing us a moment to catch our
collective breath, not caring that I was scanning decaying newspaper articles
about Mujib-ur-Rehman’s Six Points and vintage advertisements for Kashmiri
Beauty long-lasting matchsticks. I would transcribe interviews, my heart
breaking over and over for the man whose wife called him a coward and burned
him with her disappointment when he ran for his life during a Dhaka riot in
1971; applauding the lady whose excellent matchmaking services and record of finding
Very Suitable Boys saw her through bombing raids in 1965 after she was widowed.
In between, I would check Facebook and Twitter for updates on the situation
outside our window. Zulfikar Mirza drunkenly poked fun of Muhajirs. Rehman
Malik came into power and a joke about calling apples bananas made the rounds. We
lost students’ family members at summer camp to communal violence and missed a
few days of school. Osama was killed. Drone strikes escalated. Polio vaccine
campaigns came under threat. Damned if we do and damned if we don’t, we said.
Pakistan was reappropriated as “Af-Pak.” All that history we were digging up
that made us part of India, we joked, was becoming obsolete, as if such a thing were possible. We saw ourselves
morph into a Taliban state, a Global Threat, citizens of the world’s Most
Dangerous City. People told us we were brave and we felt uncomfortable. On most
days, Partition and its stories made no sense.
The following year, as a teacher, I quietly struck “South
Asia; the partition of the subcontinent and the subsequent history of the
Indian and Pakistani states” off the world history syllabus for my O level
students. It’s because I didn’t want to confuse them by offering them “real”
history the same year they learned the mutilated Partition history of Pakistan
Studies, I said to school administration. It’s because I would much rather
teach China, a topic that is so relevant today, I told students. It’s because
our syllabus is so lengthy, I told colleagues. I couldn’t decide which answer
was best. It could be because Mrs. J left her home in Amritsar unlatched
because she was going to return soon, but she, like her neighbor Sadat Hasan
Manto, never did. It could be because Mr. I was an Urdu-speaking man from Calcutta
who migrated to Punjab, didn’t fit in, migrated to Dhaka, didn’t fit in,
migrated to Karachi and still doesn’t fit in. It could be because a million
silent rapes have been replaced by louder ones. It could be that I am
exhausted, and twenty five, and no smarter than three years ago, and there is noise in my head, a rustlerustlerustle
of pages of books and interviews which leap out and eat me alive. It could be
that the thought of going to graduate school for history lost its charm when
the idea of writing papers about Objective History appeared to be a monstrous
irrelevancy before the fifteen year olds I have not yet taught. It could be,
that in another forty years, a granddaughter may beat her head against the
boulders left to her by my generation…and by then, I will have grown to understand, by then I will have something to teach.
3 comments:
Please publish this somewhere. This one deserves a much wider audience.
Thank you :)
I have absolutely no idea who would want this, though.
love this, but do you really think grad school would have been writing papers about Objective History? in my experience, the idea that such a thing exists is the first thing that is torn apart. academic learning of history has so many problems though...maybe the better way to teach is through literature and stories. would be awesome if you could transform some of those oral histories you heard into short stories.
Post a Comment