Partition's ghosts

Enemy property: Why India is still struggling with a political legacy of Partition

The history behind the ordinance that bans transfer of property of those who once left for Pakistan.

Nearly 70 years after Partition, and 50 years after the 1965 war with Pakistan, the government of India last week issued an ordinance that revives a debate around a legacy of those two seismic events, “enemy property”.

The ordinance specifically affects the fortunes of the Mahmudabad estate by, in effect, nullifying a 2005 Supreme Court decision that had allowed the family’s heirs to regain control over what was once classified as enemy property. That, however, is the specifics. More than that, the ordinance speaks of the continuing struggle with the political legacy of Partition.

The erstwhile Raja of Mahmudabad had vast properties across Uttar Pradesh, including in Lucknow’s Hazratganj, and present-day Uttarakhand. His very public role in the Pakistan Movement in the 1930s and ’40s was an influencing factor in the shaping of the politics and optics around the original enemy property legislation and the discussion about it today. After partition, the Raja left for Iraq, where he lived for some years, before settling permanently in London. His wife and son, however, remained in India as Indian nationals and the family continued to be active in Uttar Pradesh politics.

In 1968, three years after the war with Pakistan, the government of India enacted legislation establishing the office of the Custodian of Enemy Property. According to this, properties thought to be owned by individuals who had left for Pakistan were taken over as Enemy Property. Subsequently, when the properties of the erstwhile Raja of Mahmudabad were declared enemy property, his family went to court and contested the takeover all the way to the Supreme Court, which finally ruled in their favour in 2005.

The verdict, inadvertently, opened a Pandora’s Box, and cases began accumulating in courts where real or purported relatives of those who had left for Pakistan produced deeds of gift claiming they were the rightful owners of properties. Legislation was attempted to restore order by establishing which cases could be reopened and defining the rights of the Custodian (that is, the government) and the claimants. However, the United Progressive Alliance government’s efforts in this direction failed because of internal differences within the Congress party. The current government has managed to push this ordinance through and, as a result, the Mahmudabad estate finds itself back in the now decidedly incongruous category of enemy property.

Flood of migrants

The term Enemy Property was coined in the United Kingdom in the context of German commercial holdings within the country during the First World War. Rather than have the British sterling funnelled into Germany during the war, it was decided that earnings from enemy-controlled entities should flow to a custodian and their assets frozen. Similar measures were used elsewhere during the Second World War – notably in the United States against Japanese properties. In many of these cases, the funds were eventually returned.

In South Asia, the legal concept acquired entirely different applications. The idea initially gained currency in the years after the Second World War and it was adopted into legislative practice in the aftermath of Partition. The Evacuee Property legislations – a critical predecessor of the current Enemy Property laws – were first enacted in 1947, as two new nation states tried to find resources for the rehabilitation and relief for the millions of migrants who had streamed in.

In that ferment, it was decided to use the property left behind by those departing across the border. The office of the Custodian of Evacuee Property appropriated land and buildings worth crores of rupees and, in decisions that were notoriously controversial, attempted to use the properties to house refugees. Across South Asia, refugees found to their dismay that they were dealing with the increasingly capricious demands of an office named the Custodian of Evacuee Property.

While grim and exacting, Evacuee Property laws nonetheless worked within a logic of bilateral cooperation. Both India and Pakistan, in the aftermath of the enormous transfers of populations, had to be seen to be doing – however grudgingly – what they could to help. Offices such as the “moveable property wing” or the “evacuee property claims”, set up as wings to the High Commissions of both countries, gamely set about trying to sort out the paperwork of the overwhelming numbers of claims for compensation or reclamation.

The Evacuee Property legislations, theoretically at least, allowed a migrant’s family to reclaim in the country they settled in the value of its forsaken property. The threat of a flood of dispossessed migrants coming in from across the border in search of already scarce resources for rehabilitation formed the basis of an unlikely partnership between India and Pakistan, since neither government could afford to unilaterally introduce stringency in Evacuee Property legislation without a degree of calibration with each other.

Furthermore, neither government was entirely comfortable with the idea of forcibly claiming someone else’s property. For instance, in 1953, a senior official in the Ministry of External Affairs, Badr-uddin Tyabji, pointed out that quashing the titles of Muslim evacuees who owned land in India, so that refugees from West Pakistan could be rehabilitated, was short-sighted. One problem, he argued, was that it would leave India vulnerable to action from the government of Pakistan in the International Court of Justice. More pragmatically, he argued, such an action would “necessarily equate the claims of India and Pakistan to property left behind by their citizens, even though India’s claims to property in Pakistan is larger”.

Today, the problem is a peculiarly Indian one. In Pakistan, the seized enemy properties were sold off by the government soon after they were acquired.

Rights of citizens

In many ways, the post-1965 transition from evacuee to enemy property legislations represented the hardening of both governments’ attitudes towards the irreversible consequences of Partition. A letter from the Indian Commerce Ministry to state governments in 1969 baldly told state officials that “any cash balances, provident fund balances, gratuity and unpaid wages held by any person/ firm in India on behalf of all Pakistani nationals vest in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India”.

Both governments formally – and unapologetically – said that monies, resources and, most importantly, the proceeds from the sale of land could not be sent across the border. This was no longer an exercise which could be camouflaged as a massive rehabilitation project. Rather than being directed at large numbers of nameless, poor and powerless owners of small pieces of land, the legislation was often targeted at extremely valuable pieces of property, and contested the most prominently by wealthy descendants of old families.

Notwithstanding the finality of Partition, its aftereffects plague the internal and external politics of South Asia. Property remains one of these aftereffects. Whether it is the case of Jinnah House in Mumbai or funds transferred to London on behalf of the Nizam of Hyderabad after Operation Polo and bitterly litigated by India and Pakistan since, or the case of the properties of the Raja of Mahmudabad, the legal contestations over rights of citizens, the state and of migrants continue to this day.

While legislation about evacuee property has accompanied the nation state since its inception, the changing nature of its application is indicative of the current persona of the nation. Decades after Partition, the current enemy property ordinance poses the question of whether the Indian state should be seen as churlishly attempting to settle old scores by tightening its grip on property obtained by questionable means, or, with the wisdom and graciousness of age, seek closure to a painful chapter.

Pallavi Raghavan is a Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research. She is working on a book on the history of India-Pakistan relations.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Changing the conversation around mental health in rural India

Insights that emerged from discussions around mental health at a village this World Mental Health Day.

Questioning is the art of learning. For an illness as debilitating as depression, asking the right questions is an important step in social acceptance and understanding. How do I open-up about my depression to my parents? Can meditation be counted as a treatment for depression? Should heartbreak be considered as a trigger for deep depression? These were some of the questions addressed by a panel consisting of the trustees and the founder of The Live Love Lough Foundation (TLLLF), a platform that seeks to champion the cause of mental health. The panel discussion was a part of an event organised by TLLLF to commemorate World Mental Health Day.

According to a National Mental Health Survey of India 2015-16, conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), common mental disorders including depression, anxiety disorders and substance use disorders affect nearly 10% of the population, with 1 in 20 people in India suffering from depression. The survey reported a huge treatment gap, a problem that is spread far and wide across urban and rural parts of the country.

On 10th of October, trustees of the foundation, Anna Chandy, Dr. Shyam Bhat and Nina Nair, along with its founder, Deepika Padukone, made a visit to a community health project centre in Devangere, Karnataka. The project, started by The Association of People with Disability (APD) in 2010, got a much-needed boost after partnering with TLLLF 2 years ago, helping them reach 819 people suffering from mental illnesses and spreading its program to 6 Taluks, making a difference at a larger scale.

Play

During the visit, the TLLLF team met patients and their families to gain insights into the program’s effectiveness and impact. Basavaraja, a beneficiary of the program, spoke about the issues he faced because of his illness. He shared how people used to call him mad and would threaten to beat him up. Other patients expressed their difficulty in getting access to medical aid for which they had to travel to the next biggest city, Shivmoga which is about 2 hours away from Davangere. A marked difference from when TLLLF joined the project two years ago was the level of openness and awareness present amongst the villagers. Individuals and families were more expressive about their issues and challenges leading to a more evolved and helpful conversation.

The process of de-stigmatizing mental illnesses in a community and providing treatment to those who are suffering requires a strong nexus of partners to make progress in a holistic manner. Initially, getting different stakeholders together was difficult because of the lack of awareness and resources in the field of mental healthcare. But the project found its footing once it established a network of support from NIMHANS doctors who treated the patients at health camps, Primary Healthcare Centre doctors and the ASHA workers. On their visit, the TLLLF team along with APD and the project partners discussed the impact that was made by the program. Were beneficiaries able to access the free psychiatric drugs? Did the program help in reducing the distance patients had to travel to get treatment? During these discussions, the TLLLF team observed that even amongst the partners, there was an increased sense of support and responsiveness towards mental health aid.

The next leg of the visit took the TLLLF team to the village of Bilichodu where they met a support group that included 15 patients and caregivers. Ujjala Padukone, Deepika Padukone’s mother, being a caregiver herself, was also present in the discussion to share her experiences with the group and encouraged others to share their stories and concerns about their family members. While the discussion revolved around the importance of opening up and seeking help, the team brought about a forward-looking attitude within the group by discussing future possibilities in employment and livelihood options available for the patients.

As the TLLLF team honoured World Mental Health day, 2017 by visiting families, engaging with support groups and reviewing the successes and the challenges in rural mental healthcare, they noticed how the conversation, that was once difficult to start, now had characteristics of support, openness and a positive outlook towards the future. To continue this momentum, the organisation charted out the next steps that will further enrich the dialogue surrounding mental health, in both urban and rural areas. The steps include increasing research on mental health, enhancing the role of social media to drive awareness and decrease stigma and expanding their current programs. To know more, see here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of The Live Love Laugh Foundation and not by the Scroll editorial team.