This paper analyzes Bapsi Sidhwa's novel Cracking India as a lens for understanding the religious nationalism, caste divisions, and political upheaval that accompanied India's Partition in the mid-twentieth century. Drawing on key passages and characters, the paper examines how the Partition fractured a previously diverse Indian society along religious lines. It also provides contextual background on the Hindu caste system (Varna), the philosophical traditions of Darshan and Sufism, the concepts of Karma and Reincarnation, Jainism, the Upanishads, and the legacy of the Mughal Empire — all of which shaped the socio-political landscape Sidhwa depicts in her novel.
The paper demonstrates effective contextual literary analysis: it embeds the reading of a primary text within a framework of historical, religious, and political background. Rather than treating these contextual sections as separate from the literary argument, the paper uses them to illuminate why the novel's themes of division and identity loss carry such weight.
The paper opens with an introduction to Sidhwa's novel and its central themes, then uses a pivotal quotation to anchor its argument about religious nationalism. It proceeds to examine the caste system and British colonization, then defines key religious and philosophical concepts — Varna, Darshan, Sufism, Karma, Reincarnation, Jainism, and the Upanishads — before concluding with discussions of the Partition itself and the Mughal Empire's historical legacy of unity.
Cracking India by Bapsi Sidhwa revolves around Indian society before and during the implementation of the Partition, wherein India as a country was divided into two: the Hindu-dominated and Muslim-dominated areas. India became the Hindu-dominated territory, while the Muslim-dominated area became known as Pakistan. Further divisions generated the nations of Punjab and Bengal, which are predominantly Muslim.
This was the socio-political landscape in which Sidhwa's characters found themselves. Through the main characters Lenny and Ayah, readers witness how the Partition was perceived and interpreted by people within Indian society. Sidhwa's characters are evidently unable to grasp the full gravity of the political condition their country was in. As India entered into the agreement called the Partition, glaring and antagonistic diversity emerged, creating disunity and inciting violence among people of various cultures and religious beliefs.
The following passage from the novel serves as the key to understanding how the author integrates the issue of religious nationalism and creates meaning for the title Cracking India:
"There is much disturbing talk. India is going to be broken. Can one break a country? And what happens if they break it where our house is? Or crack it up further up... No one's going to break India. It's not made of glass!" And I become aware of religious differences. It is sudden. One day everybody is themselves — and the next day they are Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian. People shrink, dwindling into symbols.
In this passage, Sidhwa effectively conveys the primary message of the novel: religious nationalism had become India's gift and curse. Prior to the Partition, India enjoyed its diversity as a society of different cultural identities. This rich Indian culture made people tolerant of each other's differences and created a hybrid culture in which, despite their differences, people identified themselves as part of one Indian nation. United by their strong ties to religion, India as a nation had a strong socio-cultural cohesion — a characteristic reflected in the exclamation that India is "not made of glass."
However, this same diversity was also the reason why India was so easily divided. Because of the strong affiliation that people held with their respective religions, the prospect of autonomy became one of the driving reasons why the Partition was supported and implemented. Lenny's character recognizes what was lost when she reflects: "[o]ne day everybody is themselves…People shrink, dwindling into symbols." This statement demonstrates how, in their preoccupation with religion, Indians lost sight of the fact that they were, first and foremost, people of the same nation rather than individuals divided by different religious beliefs.
The novel is, in effect, a testament to Sidhwa's defiance of and disagreement with the Partition, which the author believed was a political action implemented to induce disunity among the Indians. The title Cracking India asserts the invincibility of India as a nation — that despite the Partition, India as a nation can never truly be separated or surrendered to foreign control.
The dominant and rigidly structured caste system in India had long been a source of social oppression and discrimination. Aside from being a detriment to social progress, the caste system also created confusion for colonizers such as Britain, because it is a two-dimensional concept possessing both religious and social aspects — making the nation's socio-political divisions complicated to understand and implement.
This was the central challenge the British encountered when they set foot in India. In order to fully control the country, the British deemed it necessary to understand its social, political, economic, and geographic divisions and structures. Inevitably, understanding these structures meant grappling with the caste system popularly associated with Hinduism.
Confusion emerged when the British failed to distinguish the social caste system from its religious counterpart. Both religious and social caste systems are composed of four main castes: Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya, and Sudra. The Brahman is the highest caste level, assigned to the earthly gods as heads of the caste system. Kshatriyas serve as warriors, while Vaisyas are farmers and merchants. The Sudra caste is the lowest, and people within it serve as servants and laborers to the three higher castes.
One important distinction between the social and religious caste systems, however, is the latter's greater exclusivity and indivisibility. The religious caste system maintains its original structure and strictly upholds the separation of each caste. The social caste system, by contrast, developed in the opposite manner — it is non-exclusive and susceptible to further divisions and stratifications.
The castes in the social caste system, like the religious one, are divided into Jats, or communities. Social castes have a less rigid hierarchy, however, meaning that within the Jats of each caste there exist sub-communities in which members can claim greater superiority over other Jats or sub-communities. Thus, in the social caste system, political leadership is autonomous not only at the caste level, but also at every community and sub-community within a caste.
Because there was no definite assignation of leadership for each caste, Jat, and sub-community, the British had difficulty identifying the leaders of each community. This made colonization harder, since they did not know whom to approach or what alliances to form in order to make their entry into the country easier. As a result of their insufficient knowledge of the two kinds of caste systems, the British resorted to geographical divisions as their basis for establishing socio-political territories, which ultimately contributed to disunity.
"Varna" is the term used to refer to the four castes in the Indian caste system. The four Varnas are the Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras. Brahmans are considered the heads of the caste system and the title is given to all earthly gods that Hindus worship. Kshatriyas, the second-highest caste, are assigned the role of warriors. Vaisyas belong to the third caste and occupy the roles of merchants and farmers. Lastly, the Sudras are the lowest-level members of the caste system, serving as laborers for members of the three higher castes.
Each caste or Varna contains communities or sub-divisions called Jats. These sub-divisions still adhere rigidly to the caste from which they originate but claim different levels of superiority among members of that caste. At the very lowest level of the Indian social structure are the Untouchables. Apart from serving as slaves and workers for the general Indian public, the Untouchables possess no social or economic rights within their society. They are, in effect, society's property, and their fate in life is ultimately determined by other members of Indian society who are not classified as Untouchables.
You’re 56% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 4 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.