India and Pakistan are now 60 years old, as is the bloody partition that created them. My father’s family was caught up in what became arguably the largest mass migration in history: 14.5 million people were moved, roughly the same number in each direction, and somewhere between 500,000 and one million of them died in the process. 
Because independence was declared prior to the actual Partition, it was up to the new governments of India and Pakistan to keep public order. No large population movements were contemplated; the plan called for safeguards for minorities on both sides of the new state line. It was an impossible task, at which both states failed. There was a complete breakdown of law and order [Link]
The management of partition was badly botched; if you think Brownie did a heck of a job, Mounty makes him look like a paragon of engagement and sensitivity. Mountbatten insisted that the partition line be drawn in only six weeks! Think of how slowly the US government moves today, and that will give you a sense of how ridiculous and uncaring that deadline was. The line was drawn by Sir Cyril Radcliffe; this is what his private secretary, Christopher Beaumont, had to say about the process:
“The viceroy, Mountbatten, must take the blame – though not the sole blame – for the massacres in the Punjab in which between 500,000 to a million men, women and children perished,” he writes. “The handover of power was done too quickly…”… it was “irresponsible” of Lord Mountbatten to insist that Beaumont complete the boundary within a six-week deadline – despite his protests. [Link]
<
p>Mountbatten was a pretty boy from a royal family whose track record during WWII led him to be “known in the British Admiralty as the Master of Disaster.” [Link] His track record in India seems similar – he was charming and glib, but unconcerned about the feasibility of plans or the lives which would be lost.
<
p>As Viceroy of India, he advanced the date of independence by nine months (no reason was ever given), making the problems associated with partition worse. Critics argue that he foresaw bloodshed and didn’t want it to happen on British watch; he was willing to make things worse as a form of CYA rather than take responsibility for the situation.
<
p>
<
p>So how did the Last Viceroy spend the evening of August 14th, having put calamity into motion? Was he apprehensive? Concerned about the lives he had condemned? Not at all:
… on the evening of August 14, 1947, a few hours before Britain’s Indian Empire was formally divided into the nation-states of India and Pakistan, Lord Louis Mountbatten and his wife, Edwina, sat down in the viceregal mansion in New Delhi to watch the latest Bob Hope movie, “My Favorite Brunette…” [Link]
<
p>In the end he was killed by the IRA rather than O’Dwyered by one of his victims from India. Mountbatten had a very difficult job to perform, but from what little I have read, he did not do it well.
Related links: Exit Wounds, the New Yorker book review of Indian Summer by Pankaj Mishra
The roots of hindu/muslim divergence are deep and go back to the hindu experience/perception of islamic invasion, and muslim rulers like Aurangzeb and theologians like Shah Waliullah . Believing that Veer Sarvarkar invented the two-nation theory is a bit naive, there were powerful trends in that direction in indian history for a long time.
I think the real issue is whether the disengagement/partition could have been managed with less violence. This is a question that deserves deeper analysis and explanation. What could have been some alternative scenarios? How could they have been managed/organized/staged?
Right, I think Ambedkar had a plan for this too. peaceful population transfer in Punjab and Bengal. Things could have been a little better, but I don’t think the situation would have improved much.
199 Krishnan
Savarkar was just one example. What “fringe” are you talking about? Is this the same fringe that was ruling India just recently? or the same fringe that justified killing Gandhi? or the same fringe that runs mumbai?
The managing of the partition and alternative scenarios is an interesting topic. I hate to pile on Mountbetten and the British in general as far as the partition is concerned. All along with various movement such as Quit-India etc. Indian leadership has been asking British to leave and when they decide to leave a few weeks early, that is somehow the main cause of all the carnage of partition??
Camille, it is one thing to say that Operation Blue Star was required at the time, and another to say that it was horribly mismanaged by the Indian government. The situation at the Golden Temple at the time was not v different from the recent Lal Masjid situation. It was perhaps worse as the terrorists inside the temple were better armed, and the violence was escalating even in and around the temple. One famous incident is where A.S. Atwal, a Sikh, was shot dead by terrorists as he was leaving the temple after saying his prayers. The government screwed up in how it handled the attack, but some sort of attack was necessary at that point.
I think this is great. There might not be videos and books but there is all of this. Oral history is a huge part of any culture (can you tell I am Anthropologist?). As long as ppl keep talking about particition and I-day – we can keep the memories and lessons learned alive.
True, it might reach the world outside – but its something!
Having said that, I think it would be cool to have something concrete to show my kids when they grow up!
:-). nice question. I would blame British only to a certain extent. Their main goal is to get their officers/families and troops home safely. Why should they bother about the natives killing each other?. They are not like angels sent from heaven to rule the people of India. If that’s the case they would not have to leave in the first place..
Xarigirl: if you find yourself in Karachi, swing by the Arts Council. There’s an exhibition that some of my friends and other first-generation Pakistanis put up, called “Shanaakht: the Identity Project“. We’re thinking of making it a permanent, mutable display.
sakshi, I disagree, but I am not going to waste more thread space on a topic that is not going to reach any kind of resolution and only stirs up bad blood.
If Jinnah was really a secularist but “playing†the Islamist card as a “common sense†move to achieve political power, then he completely and utterly deserves any tarring with the religious brush that he gets. If I’m understanding correctly, the assertion is that he inflamed and exploited religious identity as part of his power play for his and his cronies’ political fiefdom (and if it came with land, so much the better), and the quickest and most effective way to obtain such fiefdom was to create one arising out of and founded on religious identity. Then, after the fiefdom was achieved, he thought maybe they should pass enough laws to ensure that he could still enjoy his scotch. Thus, he is really, truly, just a secular guy at heart. No. I will consider him an amoral opportunist, able to sense changes in wind direction and adjust his sails accordingly. I will consider him a political and tactical genius (except –if the anecdote is true–when he thought he could be the face of a movement that ripped a nation apart and then be warmly welcomed back into Bombay with open arms and an undisturbed puttering about his garden retirement). I will even be willing to concede that he was a) confused and/or b)willing to exhibit more tolerance than others in his fiefdom for people who did not share his religious identity. But I would absolutely dispute any assertions as to his inherently “secular†nature, at least as that term is used these days—it is a disservice to true secularists who believe in the separating a state from the influence of a religious sphere, rather than basing the identity of that state on religion.
I think Jinnah lost control of something he had started. It seems clear that his conception of Pakistan was not inititally about territory – at one level he wanted separate electorates, combined with a system of overlapping jurisdictions and a federalist governing structure, all as protections against the majoritarian impulse, (which is a running danger in any Westminster-style Parliamentary system with a first-past-the-post winners).
His idea was to run his system throughout the entire area of British suzerainty/sovereignty. And even if his system was to be conceived as a nation, ‘Pakistan’ would share the entire territory of ‘Hindustan’, in a system of parallel governance with overlapping jurisdiction. In the end, people other than him defined it as a territorial concept, and he accepted it as a bargaining chip, then lost control of the whole thing.
Even when it became clear that Partition would happen, I think he had hoped that the ‘logic’ of the scheme, plus the usual British sense of ‘fair play’, would result in ‘Pakistan’ being awarded Kashmir outright, plus Hyderabad, and all of Bengal and Punjab, and he might also have gotten land corridors connecting the Eastern, Western and Southern wings. This would have been about the same size as the rest of the country that might have been ‘Hindustan’, and put the two nations more or less at par.
But the way Partition was actually worked out, privileged India, which, among other things, retained also the right to use the name – ‘India’, and the capital, New Delhi, even the controllership of Treasury, and all that followed from that. ‘India’ was partitioned into India and Pakistan. If you read his speeches from the late 1947 period, it is clear that this particularly rankled him, he couldn’t get over the fact that, as he saw it, ‘Hindustan has been calling itself ‘India”.
Of course, his scheme, like the two different conceptions of nationhood that India and Pakistan currently subscribe to, would have had internal contradictions, and would not have been perfect by any means. This does not mean we can’t revisit the whole issue, now, after 60 years, and at least begin to consider the contours of what a ‘more perfect union’ might mean for South Asia.
And I think it is petty in the extreme, that his house in Bombay is being denied to Pakistan as a place from where they can run their Consulate. Petty, petty, petty.
Right, and he would have also hoped Hindus would go back to their “dhimmi” status happily..
🙂
its easy to play by a fair set of rules once you’ve conquered the world and can set up the rules tilted towards yourself….
203 terranova2000
199 Krishnan
Savarkar was just one example. What “fringe” are you talking about? Is this the same fringe that was ruling India just recently? or the same fringe that justified killing Gandhi? or the same fringe that runs mumbai?
–> I was talking about the religious nut case fringe(both the hindu and muslim versions of it) at the time of independence.
This is one of the often quoted racio-cultaral supremacist phrase that I hate.
yeah…but he must have known that india was (and is) a pluralistic state. not a hindu state.
Terranova, Veer Savarkar was not some religious wacko as you think. Sure some of his ideas were not PC but he was trying to build a homeland where Hindus can live free of fear of persecution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar
He founded Hindutva as a response to increasing demands by Muslim fundementalists. And his “Hindutva” included Hinduism,Sikhism,Jainism and Buddhism,so it was not like he was a Hindu-only fundie. If you must criticize Savarkar, you should criticize the Muslim League, Moplah rebellion and Herat riots where Hindus were pretty much on the recieving end. Its so strange that you criticize Savarkar for his pro-Hindu stance yet you dont take the Muslim-only stance of the Muslim league to task.
Re Jinnah – his daughter Ruttee married Wadia (the Parsi industrialist) and settled down in Bombay. That rankled him no end. The Quads daughter not opting to go to Pak. Incidentally, their son is Nusli Wadia (Bombay Dyeing). Mother and Son visited Pakistan during the last cricket series.
Even when it became clear that Partition would happen, I think he had hoped that the ‘logic’ of the scheme, plus the usual British sense of ‘fair play’, would result in ‘Pakistan’ being awarded Kashmir outright, plus Hyderabad, and all of Bengal and Punjab, and he might also have gotten land corridors connecting the Eastern, Western and Southern wings. This would have been about the same size as the rest of the country that might have been ‘Hindustan’, and put the two nations more or less at par. Are you saying that he wanted to divide up the Indian subcontinent completely on religious lines, and did not get as far as he wanted? I don’t think this scheme was practical and for a person of his power to assume this might be considered irresponsible. Consider for instance Hyderabad. Hyderabad was a Hindu-majority state. First, dividing it up would have been hugely problematic from any practical point of view. There would have been even more bloodshed in the Partition had this happened. No question. Second, the people would land in Pakistani Andhra Pradesh would probably have been faced with the same types of issues as the people in Bangaldesh faced. Most of the Muslims in Hyderabad chose to stay in India. I think dividing up many of these places would have been just impractical.
But the way Partition was actually worked out, privileged India, which, among other things, retained also the right to use the name – ‘India’, and the capital, New Delhi, even the controllership of Treasury, and all that followed from that. ‘India’ was partitioned into India and Pakistan. If you read his speeches from the late 1947 period, it is clear that this particularly rankled him, he couldn’t get over the fact that, as he saw it, ‘Hindustan has been calling itself ‘India”. But Pakistan got plenty of ancient lands as well. They always wanted to name ‘Pakistan’. The Indians were just smart enough to pick an appropriate name for their country. If you don’t think a democratic people should have the right to decide the name of their own country, a secular name to boot, I think we probably disagree on a lot more than names.
Besides, Pakistan got the rights to most of the Mohenjadaro and Harappa area, the sites of the oldest evidence of civilization in the Indian subcontinent. And as for the Treasury, if you read the history of the time, I think you will see that India gave Pakistan one heck of a deal with the Treasury by the way.
Of course, his scheme, like the two different conceptions of nationhood that India and Pakistan currently subscribe to, would have had internal contradictions, and would not have been perfect by any means. This does not mean we can’t revisit the whole issue, now, after 60 years, and at least begin to consider the contours of what a ‘more perfect union’ might mean for South Asia. I prefer to view this in counter-factual terms as opposed to practical ones.
And I think it is petty in the extreme, that his house in Bombay is being denied to Pakistan as a place from where they can run their Consulate. Petty, petty, petty. There was no clause about continuing property rights for people who decided not to stay in India. Or Pakistan for that matter.
Whoaaa… it’s clear many people showed up for discussion section without having done the required reading.
People, people… the Mishra article in the New Yorker is only 4 pages. Read it with an eye to what he says about the ‘hardening’ of religious and political identities. The elections of the 1930s had a big role to play in people falling into their respective check boxes. Keep in mind that thinking in these constructed boxes was always a new thing for people living under British rule on the subcontinent.
Finally, the article is a chronicle of imperial misadventure. So, it helps to think about our current foray into Iraq. You want to see an example of how outside power ‘hardens’ religious/political identities. Ask those ‘blasphemers’ living in Northern Iraq, near Nineveh one of the most ancient civilizations in the world. The surge in Baghdad has pushed fanatics away from humvees and onto ‘softer’ targets.
chachaji, i think this may sound more provocative than I intended it to be. There were errors on the British administration side as one must expect in a situation of this sort, but one of the reasons that Mountbatten found it not entirely easy to trust Jinnah was that Mountbatten knew that Jinnah was behind some of the Direct Action that resulted in outpourings of violence. These Direct Actions often made things tougher for the administration, committed as it already was to the war in Europe.
Hi Shankar. Yes, your earlier response actually made me wonder if you were the same Shankar I had previously interacted with! Just a brief response for now – the Direct Action Day was August 16, 1946, exactly 61 years ago. The War was over Aug 15, 1945, a year earlier. And the Muslim League cooperated with the British Government throughout the War, 1939-45, while the Congress was mostly in jail. But all this does not affect the main point you make, that Mountbatten may not have trusted Jinnah, and that the League’s culpability in the Direct Action Day may have had something to do with it. I agree, and would add that, later, the way Partition actually unfolded may also have been affected by Mountbatten’s view of Jinnah.
That’s all for now. I might respond in more detail later.
And I think it is petty in the extreme, that his house in Bombay is being denied to Pakistan as a place from where they can run their Consulate. Petty, petty, petty. There was no clause about continuing property rights for people who decided not to stay in India. Or Pakistan for that matter. Re: Jinnah’s House
It is more complicated than that. He wanted the house for himself, and he requested Jawaharlal Nehru through the Indian ambassador at that time to be sure that his house does not get tossed around. The Government of India became the caretaker of that house. Now (at some point), Pakistan Government wanted Jinnah House as theirs, and be made into Consulate. No problem……yes, there is a problem. Jinnah’s daughter and her Mumbai-based family are claiming that house as theirs. They have the right to. Right now, I think the question of ownership of Jinnah House is in the courts.
Jinnah House present value is 15 million pounds (200 crore rupees)
the way Partition was actually worked out, privileged India chachaji, my comment was directed towards the earlier part of your statement – in italics above. I am not sure that the points on the name ‘India’ and ‘Pakistan’ and the award of Delhi are substantive ones towards this discussion on the Partition. The choice of the name ‘Pakistan’, or the name ‘India’, did not change the bargaining positions of India and Pakistan in the matter.
I am aware of the end date for the Second World War. That is why I talked about the British administration, not just the armed forces. And even the armed forces were around in Europe well past 1946.
If you look back a little, the Partition itself was by no means a done thing. If the Cripps Mission had not moved to consider the option of Partition, the Muslim League might have found it more difficult to push the idea forward. The same with Lord Linlithgow and his soft position on Partition. The problem was that the British administration was involved in the war, and their proximate priorities were driven by the exigencies of the conflict in Europe and Asia. Whether the Partition would happen at all was a point of bargain.
Cover Story review:
Thanks, Preston, . There’s their daughter Pamela Hicks’ book too, with a more staid cover.
2 · Krishnan
54 chachaji
Come on, Amrita, it is a historical picture, reflecting a real event, capturing people in a candid, unposed composition that was rare at the time, especially for near-royalty like the Mountbattens. Besides which, it also brilliantly captures Mountbatten’s indifference – in his faraway, I-don’t-give-a-damn look, which applies both to the Edwina-Jawaharlal relationship as well as to the process of Partition; as well as showing that Nehru was in fact quite a bit shorter than both the Viceregal beings; in addition it correctly captures the insinuatory nature of Nehru’s relationship – he came ‘in between’ Edwina and the Earl ! 🙂
–> If you saw another picture with Jinnah in the middle(between Edwina and the ‘Earl’ as you put it), would you insinuate pretty much the same thing ? It is one thing to read a thousand intrepretations into a picture. It is quite another to claim what you did about the picture above and then supply your intrepretation. Plus what does Nehru being short have to do with anything ?
Now, chachaji, history happens, but some of it doesn’t belong on book covers. Nehru’s family background is in no way inferior to Mountbatten’s, which may have been Edwina’s point, and short is what happened to the whole Subcontinent during British rule, but he looks like he’s tickled to be insinuating himself with both of them for all they represent. Agree with Krishnan.
Ennis on August 15, 2007 03:03 PM · Direct link
It is rude to Nehru, but I will not concede that Nehru == India.
I used it because it seemed to capture Mountbatten’s disengagement very nicely, and since I see no need to venerate Nehru (even on this day), that did not disqualify the picture.
If you hadna used it, we wouldna have this jolly chat, Ennis, so I’m totally fine with your giving it coverage/exposure, but whether you love or don’t love Nehru, he was the next head of govt., and how does that play in this picture?
Manju on August 15, 2007 04:03 PM · Direct link
i’m with chachaji on the pic: nehru moving in on lady mountbatten while “pretty boy” louis looks on…personifying the changes in the relationship between the two nations.
Louis so doesn’t look on, Manju, in fact he doesn’t give a hoot, and why would he? Nothing will happen– the taboo is full on.
desi567 on August 15, 2007 05:08 PM · Direct link
the cover is disgusting. That said, why was Nehru so fawning in front of the mountbattens? Stereotypes reinforced : Gora male : regal, dignified, powerful, macho. Gora female: attractive, and looking at the gora male only. Desi male : charmed out of his wits by the gora female, awed by and almost afraid of the Gora male, attempting to please the Gora female, bowed body, puppydog mannerisms. Only thing missing is the Desi female, we would have seen her looking at the desi male with disgust and draped over the gora male.
Couldn’t have said it better!
I actually said, Thanks Preston, you;re so right! There’s another book by that name, or nearly that name.
Hi Shankar. I think the opposite. I think it made a very great deal of difference, because it implied a certain presumption of continuity between the previous colonial Government of India and the ‘free’ Government of India, that should not have been there if an honest-to-goodness Partition and Transfer of Power was being done. In fact, it was more than that, the interim Premier during 1946-47 and the new Prime Minister post Aug 15, 1947, were the same man, Nehru. Even his Cabinet was essentially the same before and after August 15 1947, continuing even in the same offices, while Pakistan had to start from scratch. And India did sit on Pakistan’s share of the funds for quite a while, hoping that the delay might contribute to an infanticide of the Pakistan concept! Also, Jinnah had wanted to hold the Pakistan Constituent Assembly meetings in Delhi, as someone mentioned upthread. And why shouldn’t he have been able to – who knows, a ‘secular’ Pakistan might have emerged from those deliberations, and in course of time, that nation might even have federated with India!
The new GoI probably didn’t need even to re-order their stationery during 1947-50, because the new Seal of the Republic wasn’t adopted till 1950, (which, btw, was also the year that the democratically adopted name of ‘Bharat’ came into effect), while parts of the Pakistan government had to use scrap paper! The name ‘India’ carried on by default, appearing in the Constitution also, and nobody gave too much thought to how continuing to use it made the fairness of the Transfer of Power look.
I think, if Power was to be transferred to two new Dominions, this way of doing it undoubtedly privileged India. And the Congress government, which propagated the Indian nationalist rhetoric, did want to make it look like they, and they alone, had inherited the mantle from the British, and that Jinnah with his ‘rump’ of a ‘flawed’ Pakistan were the secessionists, a colossal misrepresentation of events. And I don’t think this was only them, there may well have been a feeling that Jinnah ‘would come to his senses’, see that his territorial Pakistan wouldn’t work, compromise with Nehru, and it would all be over, even among British officials, including Mountbatten.
In the event, while Pakistan, both in conception and in practice had flaws – so does India. The reason for looking at all this now, in addition to historic interest, is that, in my view, South Asia in the future, should move beyond the unitary nation-state idea, whether ‘secular’ or ‘religious’. There are too many contradictions in both visions. I feel that if these are not addressed, the same conflicts from the past will continue to haunt the future. The interesting issue to me is how we get there.
I think I’ve said most of what I wanted to on this subject.
… on the evening of August 14, 1947, a few hours before Britain’s Indian Empire was formally divided into the nation-states of India and Pakistan, Lord Louis Mountbatten and his wife, Edwina, sat down in the viceregal mansion in New Delhi to watch the latest Bob Hope movie, “My Favorite Brunette…â€
That is a historically wrong or misplaced fact.
On August, 14th, 1947, Mountbatten was in Pakistan celebrating their Independence. You can find thousands of pictures, in books, internet him giving speech with Jinnah, what not. In fact, CID had unearthed an assassination attempt at the 11th hour, and his motorcade route was changed unannounced.
On August 15th (that is the midnight), 1947, in Nehru “Tryst with Destiny” speech you will always see Mountbattens sitting in the background in the Indian Parliament. Technically, he was the 1st Governor General of India, and stayed on for year or so. Early in the day, his wife and daughter mingled with common Indians, that is quite well documented. His wife and daughter worked a lot with the refugees for years to come.
Google around, you will find pictures of what I am talking about.
I would not be surprised Pankaj Mishra is pulling this from ass, he has a track record of doing that.
This is not to say Britisher’s blotched partition or were hugely under staffed for Partition.
Traveling two countries in two new days, with all pomp, and red carpet, I cannot see if he even had the time to see a movie.
I meant: Traveling two new countries in two days
Google = Mountbatten 14 August 1947
See for yourself, there are videos
In fact,
The partition riots really escalated started after August, 17, 1947 when the details of Radcliff Report were made public. Leaders in India, and Pakistan, newly formed Indian and Pakistan Army worked 24/ 7 to avoid it but it was too much for them.
I guess Pankaj Mishra never likes to check his facts.
Link to this article was posted on the IM blog and I thought I’d share it with peeps.
Timeline:
The rioting at some level had started from June onwards.
Jinnah had quoted this to Mountbatten
On August, 14th, 1947, 10:00 PM, Mountbatten sent a telegram to Lord Listowell to “I personally have scrupulously avoided all connection with Boundary Commissions, including interpretation of their terms of reference and putting before them the various points of view forwarded to me.”
The Border Commission was made public on August 17th, and that is when all hell broke loose.
Amrita, I apologize if my original response to your comment was a bit flippant (in addition, of course, to being rather rude to Nehru). However, please do explain, when you have time, why you see the picture as being rude to Nehru and Indians. I see it as a historical picture. I would be offended if they had digitally re-posed the principals, to make Nehru shorter, or Mountbatten look even more far-away, etc. And I don’t know for a fact that they didn’t do so. But just what do you see as being wrong with the picture, why does it not belong on the book cover, and in Ennis’s post?
And blacks & whites never had sex in the antebellum south. But, of course, we know something did happen Amrita, if not between lady M and nehru, certainly between the mountbatten’s and other lovers. everyone in england and india knows the rumors, so i’m pretty sure this was the publishers intention. nehru makes his move and lady m responds eagerly. louis is emasculated, symbolizing england also losing its jewels.
am i the only sicko who sees it this way?
August 14-15, 1947 on youtube. Independence celebrations in Pakistan and India were less than 12 hours apart, Pakistan during the day of August, 14, and India at stroke of midnight on August 15th.
Excellent historical clip
False.
The partition riots really escalated started after August, 17, 1947 when the details of Radcliff Report were made public. Leaders in India, and Pakistan, newly formed Indian and Pakistan Army worked 24/ 7 to avoid it but it was too much for them.
Good point. This is the exact point I was making earlier when I stated that the ‘Direct Action Day’ riots has subsided by the time the partition riots started.
For AMITABH: Take your time to reply 🙂 Let me make two points:
(1) I thinks its pretty obvious that the Muslim League was primarily responsible for partition and obviously the blame cannot be shared equally between the Congress and the Muslim League. (2) I was asking you for evidence to back your assertion that the partition riots were started by Muslims. They may very well have been started by Muslims. I just havnt seen the evidence for that so I am willing to think otherwise in the light of contrary evidence.
chachaji, thanks for your comments. Let us agree to disagree on this matter 🙂
I would not be surprised Pankaj Mishra is pulling this from ass, he has a track record of doing that.. Kush, are you sure that these videos on the Internet were not all photoshopped? 🙂 Thanks for the links.
British-supervised elections in 1937 and 1946, which the Hindu-dominated Congress won easily, only hardened Muslim identity, and made partition inevitable. The surge in support for partition, in fact, happened between 1937 and 1946.
Through the nineteen-thirties, Gandhi had a few perceptive and sympathetic British interlocutors, such as the viceroy Lord Irwin, who when asked if he thought Gandhi was tiresome retorted, “Some people thought Our Lord very tiresome.†For the most part, though, Gandhi dealt with such hidebound members of Britain’s landowning class< as Lord Linlithgow, who, as viceroy of India in the crucial period from 1936 to 1943, liked to be accompanied into dinner every evening by a band playing “The Roast Beef of Old Englandâ€â€”a tactless choice of preprandial music in the land of the holy cow. In 1939, without consulting any Indian leaders, Linlithgow declared war on Germany on behalf of India, committing two and a half million Indian soldiers to the Allied cause. Convinced that independence for India was many decades away, he found an equally obdurate ally in London once Churchill came to power, in 1940. The Muslim League and the Congress with Nehru, Gandhi, Jinnah and many others who had spent time in England or otherwise interacted quite a bit with the British were quite capable of negotiating with Lord Linlithgow.
I would not be surprised Pankaj Mishra is pulling this from ass, he has a track record of doing that.
Kush: Whats the skinny on Pankaj Mishra?
Shankar, thanks also for your comments. My interest in what happened in 1946-47 is strong, but the minute details are less important than realizing that a version of a federated South Asia was proposed, seriously considered, accepted by many of the major parties, and then largely bungled – by adding riders and conditions and so on – due to a combination of petty jealousies, political and bureaucratic intrigue, and communal feeling, as well as a display of hurried impatience and tragic shortsightedness by the departing British. I regard it as a tragedy of almost unimaginable proportions – that was compounded further by the way Partition was implemented, and the hostility it engendered between Pakistan and India, which has lasted ever since.
The manner in which national narratives on both sides have been constructed since 1947 has, of course, tended to obscure, if not obfuscate what happened; each nation has tried to show that its own national history has been ‘in the right’, to attempt post-facto justifications of their stand etc – that is the nature of national narratives. But the effect of this is also that virtually nobody in South Asia today knows what actually happened during that time, and how big an opportunity was lost – even the barest details.
With 60 years of history now behind us – a history with several hot wars, some threatened nuclear confrontations, almost continuous low-intensity conflict – and several armed regional insurrections (in all three countries – I, B, P, plus Nepal and SriLanka), it is time to begin looking for alternative national models in South Asia that go beyond the unitary nation-state. I don’t pretend to know the final answer, but do believe the exploration should begin, and now is a good time.
Last word from me on this, and thanks all.
If people have any doubts that “partition” was not good after the imperialists left, please take a look at Lebanon and Nigeria now where the “imperialists” left without any kind of partition between rival religious groups and the pathetic “civil wars” that followed and killed many people (which continues in one form or another to this date).
Even a peon in the government cannot be appointed without applying religious quotas, and it is such a mess that even the government in Nigeria cannot take a simple census having the “religion” column in it. And a few states of Nigeria have already implemented Sharia with death for adultery and the “beauties” that come with it..
Indians should thank Jinnah for the partition.. and stoutly oppose any form of sugarcoating indulged by those who try to rewrite history.
Should Britain have partitioned the US to avoid the civil war? Should it have further divided India to avoid some of the strife that followed?
it looks like Britain itself is going to undergo some form of “partition” in the future, with scotland looking more and more likely to secede.
chachaji:
I don’t share your optimism on this: even if one accepts that Jinnah wanted some sort of secular Islamic state, there were other forces in Pakistan. The Jamaat-e-Islami used to refer to Jinnah as kafir-e-azam for his unorthodox lifestyle even at the height of his popularity. Later Jamaat-e-Islami was the vanguard of Zia’s Islamization program.
Similar forces existed in India too: the RSS, etc, but Nehru, for all his faults, strongly articulated his vision of a secular India (even today the hindu rightwing wants to claim themselves as real secularists:there is just no getting away from the term in India). Jinnah’s point of an Islamic secular Pakistan was perhaps too subtle for a majority illiterate nation, and he didn’t make things better by never articulating it clearly and forcefully.
Kush: Whats the skinny on Pankaj Mishra?
Will tell later.
Cheers
Kush/AlCfD, To qualify my comment a bit : I don’t agree with an interpretation of Mountbattern the Viceroy as being unaware of the ‘significance of the occasion’ of Indian independence. I don’t think that is nescessarily what Pankaj Mishra seeks to convey although that could well be the impression one might form. I think a couple of his points in the article could have been made more clearly, but I don’t nescessarily think that he is wrong.
I do agree that Pankaj Mishra’s columns on economics and India make arguments that seem a little, umm, tenuous?
chachaji, thanks for the amplification of your previous points.
245 Ennis
Should Britain have partitioned the US to avoid the civil war? Should it have further divided India to avoid some of the strife that followed?
–> Partition the 13 colonies of US at the time of independence ? What would be the basis ? How would that have avoided civil war ? British did let overbloated princes of the princely states retain their power after partition. What more division are you looking for ? Linguistic nations ? The success british had is all the more astounding given their general incompetence.