A boy in a refugee camp in Delhi during the Partition in 1947 | Margaret Bourke-White, Life Magazine
In a career spanning over six decades, India’s veteran journalist, Kuldip Nayar has covered a host of events; he has met, interviewed and written about major figures in India’s, as well as the world's, political life: Indira Gandhi, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Jai Prakash Narayan, Mujibur Rahman, Ziaul Haq, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan.
The list is endless. His first major assignment as a cub reporter working for Delhi-based Urdu newspaper Anjaam was to write on Gandhi’s assassination in 1948. The poignancy of that moment left a deep impact on his psyche. Only three months into working as a journalist, he could “see” history explode before his eyes; he admits he wept unashamedly. He is still haunted by Gandhi’s words, delivered at a public prayer service a few days before his death where Nayar was present: Hindus and Muslims are like my two eyes, he had said.
Also read: When Pakistan and India went to war over Kashmir in 1999
In a previous book, Tales of Two Cities (co-authored with senior Pakistani journalist Asif Noorani), Nayar has written with empathy and clarity about Partition, which changed countless lives, including his own, forever.Was it inevitable, I ask? Could its thirst for blood have been slaked by some means other than India’s division? Holding Jinnah and Nehru equally “responsible”, Nayar explains the Partition was not inevitable to begin with. The Cabinet Mission Plan held promise of resolution but as events panned out and Nehru and Jinnah remained implacable, it became inevitable.
"One day, all of South Asia will be a union – one visa, one currency … everyone will be free to work, travel, think."
Having witnessed first-hand the blood and gore, the massacres and the communal carnage, how, then, did he not go the “other” way? After all, many did. In fact, right-wing organisations on both sides of the border fed on precisely the trauma that the first generation of migrants had experienced to swell their ranks and obtain sympathisers, if not members? Nayar explains that it is precisely because he witnessed the trauma and the madness that his belief in pluralism was strengthened. He learnt to judge a person by his beliefs and commitments, not his religion.