The traumatic partition caused innumerable communal conflicts, atrocities, massacre and rapes. These frenzies were mostly based on religious communities rather than class or region on both sides. The ideological division between Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs resulted into the extreme form of nationalism which advocated national identity as the significant aspect of ones identity. This National identity was based on one’s race and genetics. The composite culture in which different communities used to live before partition was soon shattered by the idea of  “Pure Land”. There was erosion of values and traditions. The events that preceded and followed the partition developed hostility between Hindu- Muslim unity and a series of violent attacks, killings and blood riots spread in different parts of India. Yasmin Khan. remarks:
Children, the elderly and the sick were not spared and ritual humiliation and conversions from one faith to another occurred, alongside systematic looting and robbery clearly carried out with the intention of ruining lives. It seems that the aim was not only to kill, but to break people. A scorched earth policy in Punjab, which would today be labelled ethnic cleansing, was both the cause and the result of driving people from the land. Militias, armed gangs and members of defence organisations went on the rampage. All this both preceded and accompanied the migration of some twelve million people between the two new nation states of India and Pakistan. (Khan 6)

Religion was a strong factor in dividing the Indian subcontinent. Religion proposed itself as a determinant of nationality. Thus, common national identity, national culture, music, mythology, folklore, literature, values, customs and traditions finally collapsed with the existence of the newborn nation ‘Pakistan’. National identity shrunk and people began to find other groups to identify with. There was uncertainty “that ordinary Punjabis were left completely in the dark about whether their homes were soon going to be in India or Pakistan.” (Khan 10)
The division of India into two halves brought with it an identity crisis for the people who were searching for a safe homeland for them. The political leaders of the time could not assess the magnitude of partition. The people on both sides were in flux as to which nation they belong to. They migrated to land which was new to them and were called refugees. It was a trauma for they had not been accepted by the society which they thought would protect them. They felt alienated in that society but left with no choice except to live in their second home. People were forced to part from their composite culture and thus the result was fragmented identities.  Ritu Menon and Kamla Bhasin in Borders & Boundaries: Women in Indias Partition remarks:

The partition of India in 1947 was an undeclared civil war, and since then we have had disputed borders in every country of South Asia. The religion-based division of the country anticipated many of the questions that trouble us now across the subcontinent: ethnicity, communalism, the rise of religious fundamentalism and cultural nationalism. Sharply but poignantly, partition posed the question of “Belonging” in a way that polarized choice and allegiance, aggravating old, and new antagonisms. (21)

In literary representations, critical analysis of partition has remained male-centric. Partition of India affected society in multi-dimensional manners. The women were most affected as they not only suffered at physical level but also at psychological level. They were encountered with emotional and traumatic experiences resulting from fractured identities. The wound of partition has hurt their psyche because of which they became more vulnerable during the time of conflict as compared to men who too were experiencing the traumas of partition. For men partition was a political, social, economical and power concern. Thus, the response of women writers varies from the male writers. By focusing on Attia Hosain’s Sunlight on a Broken Column, the paper will examine the theme of traumatic experiences of the women during partition.

Attia Hosain, a British-Indian novelist, journalist, author, actor and broadcaster, was born in Lucknow in 1913 and was brought up in the liberal Kidwai clan of Oudh. She was the first woman in her feudal “Taluqdari” family who was graduated.  She moved to England to spend her life after partition. She was greatly pained by the division of the country and with the separation of communities. She was highly moved by the nationalist movement in 1930 and was influenced by Progressive writers group in India. She wrote Phoenix Fled, a collection of short stories and Sunlight on a Broken Column, a semi-autobiographical novel dealing with partition.  

Attia Hosain’s only novel Sunlight on a Broken Column (1961) is one of the most important novels of partition. This is the first novel written by a Muslim woman writer on the theme of partition. It depicts feminine and Muslim perspective of partition. The novel reflects on the composite fabric of pre-partitioned India and then the disintegration of that society after partition. It reflects the issues of Muslim families during the time of partition. The novel reflects the change in familial, political and social issues of the times. In the words of Priyamvada Gopal,  Sunlight on a Broken Column , “is an important document of its time, one marked by profound changes in family, community, and political life.” ( Gopal 141)

The title of the novel Sunlight on a Broken Column is borrowed from T. S. Eliot’s The Hollow Men. The novel deals with the freedom struggle of Indians against colonial rule and the tragic event of partition. Broken Column symbolizes Broken India after partition. But Sunlight is a hope of ray for the partitioned country. Thus, the plot shows the disintegrated structure of India after partition which was followed by horrendous and horrific details of sufferings. The setting of the novel is the colonial period in old Lucknow, a city of nawabs and poets. It covers a span of thirty years in the life of orphan Laila and has four parts. Laila, the protagonist and the narrator of the novel, is raised up in a feudal, Taluqdari and aristocratic Muslim family. Through this novel Attia portrays the picture of an aristocratic family as well as feudal society.

Laila is fifteen when the novel opens and experiences twenty eventful years. She felt, “I lived in two worlds; an observer in an outside world, and solitary in my own.” ( SBC 124)  The novel covers Laila’s journey from her youthful days in the beginning of second part to her life as a widow and a mother towards the end of the novel. The first three parts of the novel throw light on the communal politics of the time and traditional ways of feudal system of upper-class Muslim family in Lucknow. The last fourth part deals with the trauma of partition which affected not only the country but families also. Attia shows this trauma through her characters in the novel.

The setting of the novel reflects a “Taluqdari” traditional family in colonial period. Just like Bapsi Sidhwa’s Lenny, the child narrator of Cracking India Attia depicts the trauma of partition through her main character Laila who belongs to an aristocratic feudal family and is an orphaned daughter brought up by her conservative aunts. Moreover, Laila, the protagonist in the novel, shows her dislike for the feudal system and thus struggles to have her own identity. The novel points out a breach in Muslim community. On one hand there were secular Muslim nationalists and on the other hand there were communal Muslims who viewed Congress as purely Hindu entity. Even Taluqdari family was divided in their opinions regarding Muslim entity. Partition divided not only the Indian subcontinent but also separated the family. The family lived in a heaven like home named ‘Ashiana’ but with partition secular Kemal, elder brother of Salim, accepted India as his home while Saleem left India in search of new identity. He chose Pakistan as his secured homeland where he was called as ‘evacuee’ or ‘Muhajir’. So this ‘Ashiana’ also broke in two parts like the partition of India.

Attia deals with the political, social and cultural conditions of the Indian Muslims of India impartially. She portrays a harmonious society consisting of Hindus and Muslims. The novel shows the freedom struggle of various characters belonging to different religions. There was a spirit of nationalism among the people. College going students like Nita, Sita and Asad, irrespective of their religion, participate in joint political activities against colonial rule. Laila’s friend Nita Chatterji, the strongest and bold character, believed that “To fight British imperialism we have to be organised and disciplined, and use the kind of weapons that will not misfire.” (SBC 124) Laila was deeply shocked at the death of Nita which was resulted by the “injuries to her brain caused by the blows on her head received during the police lathi charge. Her death was to me a martyrdom.” ( SBC 166) Both the girls Nita and Sita were Hindu friends of Laila. Attia through the friendship of Muslims, Hindus and Christians indicates a harmonious atmosphere of society before partition. Both communities Hindus and Muslims were filled with nationalism. By showing this harmony between Hindus and Muslims she wanted to throw light on the fact that how the partition has affected the relationship and has changed the mindset of the once harmonious religions.

Attia depicts how this communal harmony and spirit of nationalism was crushed by the divide and rule policy of British rule. In the novel, she points out the sudden hostile behaviour of the two communities which caused distrust between Hindus and Muslims. There is an episode of Muharram when

It seems some villagers were hurrying to join the big procession in the city, and just outside the big Hanumanji temple the top of their tazia stuck in the branch of a peepul tree…What was to be done? The branch of their sacred tree could not be cut without getting the Hindus angry. But there are many ways of causing mischief. Someone began to blow a conch in the temple, though it was known there was a holy procession outside. Some hot-blooded persons threw stones at the heathen sounds, and then the fighting began. This kind of mischief spreads like a fire in a field of dry grass. ( SBC 75-76)

The novelist articulates the fact that religion was the root cause of disharmony between the two communities. The novelist portrays the violence in Lucknow minutely and impartially. She exposes the fact that communal Muslims demanded a new country of their own and that disturbed the political situation of the country.  While reflecting ideas  on the political concern of the country Laila’s uncle Hamid

was among the few who recognised the challenge of the congress and the reorganized Muslim League now that millions of ordinary men and women were being given the right to vote by the new constitution. He pointed out to his friends that the congress had the strength of long years of dedicated struggle sacrifice for freedom, and the Muslim League was gaining strength from its appeal to the political and economic fears of the Muslims as the largest minority in the country, and to their religious emotions and pride. ( SBC193-194)

Attia expresses the changing political scenario of the majestic Lucknow city:

No one seemed to talk anymore; everyone argued, and not in the graceful tradition of our city where conversation was treated as a fine art, words were loved as mediums of artistic expression, and verbal battle were enjoyed as much as any delicate, scintillating, sparkling display of pyrotechnic skill. It was as if someone had sneaked in live ammunition among the fireworks. In the thrust and parry there was a desire to inflict wounds. ( SBC230)

The novelist portrays her characters to show the change within the social structure of the city. This change even shakes the unified structure of a family. Laila observes a drastic change in her cousin Saleem. In her home she notices “A new type of person now frequented the house. Fanatic, bearded men and young zealots would come to see Saleem;” (SBC230) whereas her uncle Hameed would meet “rough country-dwelling landlords and their ‘courtiers’” (SBC230). There was a difference of opinions between father and son. “Now every meal at home had become an ordeal as peaceful as a volcanic eruption.” (SBC230) The peaceful environment of the house was soon replaced by “so many wordy quarrels.” (SBC230) Saleem who was an educated Muslim strongly favours Muslim League for it was a party looking after the interests of Muslims. Uncle Hamid views Muslim League as a “communal and reactionary by nationalist Muslims”. (SBC233) Saleem retaliates “I believe the Congress has a strong anti-Muslim element in it against which the Muslims must organize. The danger is great because it is hidden, like an iceberg.” (SBC233) Thus father and son stand on opposite poles reacting to each other with diverse points of view.

Communal Muslims posed a threat to the unity of Hindu and Muslims. The countrymen who struggled for freedom suddenly became hostile. Identity based on religion not only scarred the relationship between the two communities but it also affected and divided the families.  Even being educated, the youngsters like Saleem and Zahid become conservative in their approach. The novel explores the journey of Muslims. Muslims had two options either to go to newly made Pakistan by separating themselves from their property, friends and memories or to remain in India as a minority because of mass exodus. Saleem along with his wife Nadira decides to settle in Pakistan for a better future. Zahid feels, “I think we have no future here, and our children have even less.” (SBC288) Optimistic nationalist Kemal, the elder brother of Saleem  persuades him to stay back in India. He remarks, “I see my future in the past, I was born here, and generations of my ancestors before me. I am content to die here and be buried with them.” (SBC288) Saleem and Nadira leave for Pakistan in search of a safe homeland and now “it was easier for them thereafter to visit the whole wide world than the home which had once been theirs.”(SBC289) The concept of nationalism is remarkably conveyed by Attia through the characters of Kemal and Saleem. Both brothers got divided by the birth of new Pakistan. In the same manner Laila’s distant cousin Asad, a true naionalist and liberal Muslim loves to live in India only when his younger brother chooses Pakistan as  his heavenly abode. Even the death of his younger brother Zahid does not shake his belief in non-violence. He is thoroughly Gandhian in spirit. The traumatic divide of brothers or families is a microcosm of partition of the Indian subcontinent. This way of partition divided families, friends and ethnic groups.

The novel belongs to the time of socio-political upheaval in India.  Sunlight on a Broken Column, unlike other Partition novels, does not depict the atrocities and suffering of the displaced people directly. The home Ashiana becomes symbolic as it reflects the divided nation. “The memory of place, and specifically of the physical layout and material culture of home, is a common feature of partition narratives” (Burton102) The fourth part covers the narration after fourteen years, and gives us an account of Partition in a different manner. It describes the effects of Partition on a feudalistic Muslim family. Kemal and Saleem adhere to their respective decisions. The family unit also collapsed with the diversified views on division of the country. Saleem suddenly feels alienation in a country where his ancestors used to live a feudal life. Nationalism surpasses family bonding. Suddenly the friends become traitors. The novel is a scathing attack on the muslim leaders for splitting the people of their own religion into two parts– the secular Muslims and the Muslim Leaguers. Attia condemns the way of opportunistic Muslim leaders who left their Muslim community at the behest of Hindus. “Do you know who saved all the others who had no Sita’s and Ranjit’s? Where were all their leaders? Safely across the border. The only people left to save them were those very Hindus against whom they had ranted.” (SBC304) She raises the question of responsibility and duty of such leaders. She gives appraisal to Hindu community for their humanitarian help in times of turmoil. The novelist, through the protagonist Laila, comments on the remarkable courage and responsibility of Hindus by giving a description of the violence. “Do you know who saved me and my child? Sita, who took us to her house, in spite of putting her own life in danger with ours. And Ranjit, who came from his village, because he had heard of what was happening in the foothills and was afraid for us. He drove us back, pretending we were his family, risking discovery and death.” (SBC304) The novel encapsulates the friendly relations between the two communities and blasts politicians for their irresponsibility and false patriotism. In short, Attia criticizes and condemns the advocacy of Partition by some politicians. She describes the mental and emotional trauma of Muslim community.    

In the novel Sunlight on a Broken Column, the individual destiny of the protagonist Laila can be seen parallel to the destiny of India. Her struggle to get freedom from the traditional ways of Taluqdari system is same as the struggle of Indian subcontinent to get freedom from colonial power. Laila shapes and decides her life according to her own wishes. She marries Ameer against the wishes of her family. She preserves her individuality by selecting Ameer’s house over Ashiana and chooses India over newly created Pakistan.