The Women's Partition Hospital

“August 1947 heralded a new world order. It was the beginning of the end of the British Empire. The country’s mighty rule over nearly 400 million people on the Indian subcontinent was over. But it was to close shambolically, hastily, and catastrophically.”

- Kavita Puri

In mid-August of 1947, a young girl named Hameeda returned to school after receiving time off in observance of the independence days of India and Pakistan. She rode a small yet reliable bike from home to a modestly sized building, parked her bike, and walked inside. Upon arrival to her classroom, she noticed that many of the seats where her classmates once sat remained empty even after her teacher commenced with morning lessons. Once a full and lively place the week prior, now less than twenty students remained. She didn't remember the specifics of what was taught that day. Rather, she recalled the atmosphere feeling distinguishably different. At only eleven years old, Hameeda was aware of Partition, but soon she would witness its devastating impact—especially to women.

Colonial Context

To understand the importance of Indian-Pakistani independence in 1947 and how it was both great and terrible, we must first touch on British colonization. European nations during the Early Modern era looked to other non-Christian and non-European countries as opportunities for trade, conversion, colonization, and—in the most extreme cases—assimilation. Upon arrival to India, many English soldiers greatly admired and respected the Indian people. Some opposed any form of assimilation and others felt inclined to abandon their foothold in India altogether, despite the profits. However, the historical narrative shows that these sentiments did not last long.

As the British Empire gained more wealth from the Indian subcontinent, they gradually increased labor and resource strains on the Indian people. Britain also found themselves in a power struggle between other European superpowers such as France, and sought to remove them from territory they desired. In 1757, Britain emerged victorious from the Battle of Plassey. This short yet impactful skirmish has been considered by many historians as the turning point of British colonialism in India. After the Battle of Plassey, the British Empire continued their expansion of economic, political, and military control in India.

Painted depiction of a sepoy (Indian soldier serving British interests) with an Indian woman, Wellcome Collection, JSTOR

In 1857, roughly ninety years before the events of Partition, the Indian subcontinent roared with warfare. Hindus and Muslims united together in an attempt to overthrow the chokehold that the British Empire held through the East India Company. Caste systems that for countless generations segregated people of certain statuses crumbled in the name of independence. Many Indian citizens wanted to return to traditional life and society before the arrival of the Europeans. Britain returned every blow it received with equal if not more powerful force. They didn't want to lose their most valuable asset—the "crown jewel" of their global empire. By the following year, 1858, the British successfully snuffed out the flames of rebellion and officially took control of India under the rule of the British Raj. While it appeared as the beginning of a new era for the Britain and India, it in fact was the beginning of the end for British rule and the end of amiable relations between many Indian Hindus and Muslims.

In an effort to maintain control of India, Britain implemented perhaps their most powerful weapon: identity. With this weapon, the roughly ninety years of Indian life under the British Raj guaranteed control, but this foundation began showing cracks just as soon as it settled. Indian castes returned and religious discrimination regained a foothold. Civil unrest never truly died but rather hid itself for moments at a time. Identities that once distinguished themselves as cultural and ethnic gradually distorted into religious identifiers. As the world welcomed the twentieth century, so too did they welcome new ideologies and soon new political parties.

The Islamic faith constituted the largest religious minority in India during the twentieth century, and many Muslims felt this affected their political representation. The Indian National Congress, among other political parties, dominated the political scene within the Indian-controlled portion of government. However, there was an absence of a Muslim-majority party. Major steps were made during the nineteenth century, and in the first decade of the twentieth century, Muslims across India finally achieved their own political voice. The All-India Muslim League was the answer to finding representation and political power. The League's popular solution to discrimination and unrest was the creation of a new nation by which an Islamic—instead of a secular—government was at the center.

Pakistan

While India saw moments of peace and improved Hindu-Muslim relations during the reign of the British Raj, many factors including the Raj's implementation of identity politics prevented long-term unity. While prominent All-India Muslim League leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah initially sought for unity between Hindus and Muslims, he gradually abandoned that goal as conditions worsened over time. Other leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi actively opposed the splitting of India to create the new Islamic nation, Pakistan.

By the 1940s, tensions between Hindus, Muslims, and other minority groups were at an all-time high. Riots, skirmishes, and massacres plagued the Indian subcontinent. The bloodbaths of Calcutta and Noakhali collectively resulted in thousands of deaths. The British Raj's grip on the Indian people gradually weakened and soon delegates held discussions of independence. The All-India Muslim League agreed to cooperate under the condition that their wishes of the creation of Pakistan were met. By 1947, the very same year that young Hameeda entered a near-empty classroom, Britain appointed Lord Louis Mountbatten to oversee the transfer of power from the Raj to the Indian people. On June 3rd, Mountbatten announced that the official dissolution of the British Raj and thereby the independence of India would take place on August 15th, 1947. That very same day, the Partition between Pakistan and India would also take place.

Women as Weapons

August 15th, 1947, marked the end of the colonial era and the beginning of independence. The nationwide violence mixed with only a couple months of preparation for Partition resulted in high tension and abandoned homes. While some, like Hameeda and her family, chose to remain in their then-present residence, upwards of twenty million people left many of their belongings behind to cross to the "safer" side of this new international border. Hindus living within the borders of the newly-formed Pakistan made their way Southeast, while Muslims traveled Northwest. Thirst, hunger, exposure, and widespread violence resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of traveling civilians.

While weapons can work as a physical object or a purposeful concept, perhaps one of the most destructive and vile weapons during Partition was harming women of opposing religious affiliations. Women in many ways endured the most hardship before, during, and after Partition. Patriarchal structures were rather common and in many ways are still present within Hindu and Muslim sects in South Asia. Both women and men held certain responsibilities and roles, but women typically held less power in the religious, cultural, and political sectors of everyday life. Because of these power imbalances and skewed perceptions of women as the "weaker" sex, disgruntled and violently loathful men on both sides saw opportunities to express and demonstrate their religious hatred.

Countless women suffered through countless acts of violent rage, with many losing their lives. Just as Hindu men attacked Muslim women, Muslim men did the same to Hindu women. Physical brutality only seemed to satisfy some belligerents, while others wanted to mentally and emotionally break Hindu or Muslim women. Men engaged in religiously motivated acts of sexual assault against innocent women. Not only did this completely destroy the morale of the woman, but it also resembled an extremely destructive method where a man could outwardly and mentally express his abhorrence for an opposing religion. While young Hameeda did not become a victim of sexual assault or physical violence, she would soon meet many Muslim survivors of such vile acts.

A Hospital for Women

In August of 1947, Hameeda and her family lived in Hyderabad, Sindh, on the Northwest side of the Indian subcontinent. While Hameeda was aware of Partition, she noted that it still came as a surprise to her and her family. Hyderabad ended up on the Pakistani side of the newly-drawn border, which resulted in many Hindu families in the area packing whatever they could carry and heading to India. Instead of moving to India, Hameeda's family decided to stay. Hyderabad was already relatively peaceful before Partition, and Hameeda's father worked as a well-established judge.

The very same month that Hameeda noticed the relatively empty classroom, she also witnessed droves of Muslim refugees arriving on trains to Hyderabad. Exhausted, battered, bleeding, and crying men, women, and children emptied out of the train cars, with nowhere to stay or receive help. Some attempted to establish themselves in Hyderabad and Sindh, while others continued further into Pakistan.

Upon witnessing the state of the refugees, Hameeda's grandmother quickly took action to provide shelter and healthcare. She found an abandoned house with several rooms and, with prior experience and knowledge of midwifery, converted the house into a hospital. Shortly thereafter, she recruited Hameeda to help with daily operations and with assisting any newly-arrived refugees. While the hospital was open to both men and women, Hameeda recounted seeing a greater ratio of women to men arriving through the front door.

“I remember a woman who was wearing all in red clothes… and she had a big gash here, and she had just got married…and they got into the train and her husband had been killed.”

- Hameeda Hossain

Hameeda Hossain took pity on the condition of this woman and many like her and helped them quite often during the Partition migrations. Despite the senseless violent acts against the refugees, Hameeda, her grandmother, and any other volunteers provided examples of upstanding, caring, and headstrong women that provided asylum and comfort for survivors of religious violence, sexual assault, and starvation. Hameeda Hossain to this day works as a human rights activist against injustices that women and other groups continue to face in South Asia.

To learn more about her experience during Partition, watch the video below, published by the 1947 Partition Archive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atnunRcF-do

Sources:

“Dr. Hameeda Hossain lived in Hyderabad, Sindh, during 1947.” YouTube, 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atnunRcF-do.

Saxena, Chandni. “ON RELIGION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON WOMEN DURING PARTITION OF INDIA.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 75 (2014): 1253–71. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44158517.

Puri, Kavita. Partition Voices: Updated for the 75th Anniversary of Partition. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019.

Pati, Biswamoy. “Historians and Historiography: Situating 1857.” Economic and Political Weekly 42, no. 19 (2007): 1686–91. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4419570.

A Sepoy in the Service of the East India Company, with a Woman (Courtesan?) On the Right. Gouache, 18--. n.d. Gouache, with gold ;, image and border 36.8 x 26.3 cm. <a href="https://wellcomecollection.org/">Wellcome Collection</a>. https://jstor.org/stable/community.24901928.

Rajan, M. S. “The Impact of British Rule in India.” Journal of Contemporary History 4, no. 1 (1969): 89–102. http://www.jstor.org/stable/259793.

Habib, Irfan. “Towards a Political Economy of Colonialism.” Social Scientist 45, no. 3/4 (2017): 9–15. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26380342.

Robinson, Francis. “The British Empire and Muslim Identity in South Asia.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 8 (1998): 271–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/3679298.

KRISHAN, Y. “MOUNTBATTEN AND THE PARTITION OF INDIA.” History 68, no. 222 (1983): 22–38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24418393.