Chapter 14. Understanding Partition Politics, Memories, Experiences

The Partition of British India in 1947 into the independent nations of India and Pakistan was a momentous event with profound political, social, and human consequences. This chapter delves into the history of Partition, exploring the factors that led to it, the experiences of those who lived through it, and the diverse ways it is remembered and understood.

Some Partition Experiences

The Partition involved the division of British India into two separate states: India and Pakistan. Pakistan comprised two wings, West Pakistan and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), separated by Indian territory.

This division was accompanied by immense violence, mass displacement, and trauma. Millions of people were uprooted from their homes, forced to migrate across the newly drawn borders.

The human experiences of Partition are often recounted through stories of suffering, loss, violence (including communal violence), and the arduous journeys undertaken by refugees. These personal accounts provide a powerful and often harrowing glimpse into the lived reality of this historical event.

Exploring these individual experiences helps historians understand the profound impact of political decisions on ordinary lives and how such large-scale events are remembered and narrated by the people who lived through them.

A Momentous Marker

Partition stands as a defining moment in the history of the Indian subcontinent. It reshaped the political map and had lasting consequences for communities and individuals.

It marks a rupture, separating not just territories but also communities that had often lived side-by-side for generations.

Partition Or Holocaust?

The violence and scale of displacement during Partition have led some historians and witnesses to compare it to a "holocaust" or a genocide. This comparison highlights the immense human cost, the targeted nature of the violence against specific communities, and the widespread loss of life, property, and dignity.

However, using terms like "holocaust" is debated among scholars. While acknowledging the horrific nature of the events, some argue that the term "holocaust" should be reserved for the specific historical context of the systematic, state-sponsored genocide of Jews by the Nazi regime. They prefer terms like "mass violence" or "genocide" (in a broader sense) to describe the Partition violence, which involved multiple actors (state agents, communal groups, individuals) and had complex origins.

Regardless of the terminology, the scale of death (estimated at hundreds of thousands to over a million), displacement (millions becoming refugees), and violence was unprecedented in the region's history and constitutes a humanitarian catastrophe.

The Power Of Stereotypes

The violence during Partition was fueled and shaped by pre-existing stereotypes about different religious communities (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs).

Stereotypes portrayed certain communities as inherently violent, aggressive, or disloyal to the "other" community or the future state they would reside in. These simplified and often negative images were amplified by communal propaganda and rumors, contributing to an atmosphere of fear, suspicion, and hatred.

The circulation of stereotypes helped to justify violence in the eyes of perpetrators and mobilize individuals into communal groups. Stereotypes also influenced how victims were perceived and treated.

Understanding the role of stereotypes is crucial for analyzing the dynamics of Partition violence and how identities were constructed and manipulated during this period of upheaval.

Why And How Did Partition Happen?

The Partition of India in 1947 was the result of a complex interplay of historical factors, political developments, and decisions made in the crucial years leading up to independence.

Culminating Point Of A Long History?

One perspective argues that Partition was the inevitable outcome of a long history of communal politics in India, where divisions between Hindu and Muslim communities were exacerbated over time, particularly under British rule (e.g., through policies like separate electorates, discussed in Chapter 13).

Historians holding this view emphasize the growing political differences between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, portraying Partition as the logical conclusion of irreconcilable communal demands.

However, another perspective challenges this idea of inevitability. It argues that while communal tensions existed, Partition was a relatively sudden development driven by political decisions made in the 1940s, particularly the rapid timeline set for British withdrawal. This view emphasizes that many leaders on both sides did not initially envision a complete partition and that the scale of violence was not anticipated.

Partition's "suddenness" is highlighted by the limited time for planning the division of assets, administration, and populations, contributing to the chaos and violence.

The Provincial Elections Of 1937 And The Congress Ministries

The provincial elections held in 1937 under the Government of India Act 1935 were a significant turning point. The Indian National Congress achieved comprehensive victories in most provinces, forming ministries in eight out of eleven provinces. The Muslim League's performance was relatively weak, winning only a small number of seats.

The Congress ministries' formation and policies (e.g., refusal to form coalition governments with the League in some provinces, perceived insensitivity to Muslim concerns) led the Muslim League to feel increasingly marginalized and excluded from political power in Congress-majority provinces. This experience reinforced the League's demand for separate political representation and ultimately fueled its call for a separate nation for Muslims.

The “Pakistan” Resolution

In response to their perceived exclusion and growing concerns about the future in a Congress-dominated India, the Muslim League formally demanded a measure of autonomy for Muslim-majority areas. At its Lahore session in 1940, the League passed the famous resolution often referred to as the "Pakistan" Resolution.

The resolution did not explicitly mention "Pakistan" but called for "Independent States" to be created in Muslim-majority areas of the northwest and eastern parts of the subcontinent, where Muslims constituted a majority. This resolution marked a formal shift in the Muslim League's political objectives towards territorial separation.

The Suddenness Of Partition

As discussed, the decision to partition and the subsequent implementation in 1947 happened with remarkable speed. After years of failed negotiations about a united India, the British decision to leave quickly, coupled with escalating political tensions and communal violence, led to a rushed division.

The plan for partition was announced in June 1947, and independence was granted just over two months later, on August 15. There was insufficient time to plan and execute the division of administrative structures, assets, and the large-scale migration of populations across the new, hastily drawn borders (like the Radcliffe Line). This lack of preparation contributed significantly to the chaos, violence, and human suffering that characterized Partition.

Post-War Developments

World War II (1939-1945) brought significant political changes. Britain, weakened by the war, decided to grant independence to India. The Labour government coming to power in Britain in 1945 was generally more sympathetic to Indian aspirations for self-rule.

However, the war years (when many Congress leaders were jailed during the Quit India Movement) also saw the Muslim League expand its influence. This increased the political polarization between the Congress and the League.

A Possible Alternative To Partition

Even in the final years, attempts were made to find an alternative to complete partition. The Cabinet Mission sent by the British government in 1946 proposed a plan for a united India with a federal structure, where provinces would have considerable autonomy, and groups of provinces could form regional unions.

This plan aimed to address the Muslim League's demand for autonomy while keeping India united. However, the plan was ultimately rejected by both the Congress and the Muslim League due to differing interpretations and disagreements over its specifics.

Towards Partition

Following the failure of the Cabinet Mission plan, negotiations broke down. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of the Muslim League, called for a "Direct Action Day" on August 16, 1946, to press the demand for Pakistan. This led to widespread and bloody riots, beginning in Calcutta and spreading across the subcontinent.

The escalating violence and deepening political divide convinced the British, particularly the new Viceroy Lord Mountbatten (who replaced Wavell in Feb 1947), that Partition was the only feasible option to achieve a quick transfer of power.

Mountbatten announced the plan for Partition in June 1947, leading directly to the division of British India and the creation of India and Pakistan on August 15, 1947.

The Withdrawal Of Law And Order

One of the most devastating aspects of Partition was the complete breakdown of state authority and the withdrawal of law and order in many areas during the transition period. As the British administration wound down and the new states were not fully prepared to take over, a power vacuum emerged.

This vacuum allowed communal violence to escalate unchecked in many regions, particularly in Punjab and Bengal, which were divided. Police forces and administrative officials were themselves often divided along communal lines or were overwhelmed by the scale of the violence, making them ineffective in protecting civilians.

The withdrawal of law and order created an environment where mass killings, arson, looting, and violence against women occurred on an unprecedented scale, transforming once peaceful neighborhoods into scenes of terror and displacement.

The One-Man Army

Amidst the widespread violence and state failure, Mahatma Gandhi played a remarkable and exceptional role in attempting to restore peace and harmony. He traveled to riot-affected areas, like Noakhali in Bengal, and walked among the people, appealing for an end to violence and promoting communal amity.

When Calcutta was gripped by violence just before and after Independence, Gandhi went there and undertook a fast, which helped to bring peace to the city, earning him the description of a "one-man army" from Mountbatten.

His efforts highlighted the power of moral authority and non-violent persuasion even when state machinery had collapsed. He continued his work for peace in Delhi and Punjab after Independence, trying to heal the wounds of Partition.

Gendering Partition

The Partition had a particularly devastating and gendered impact. Communal violence disproportionately targeted women, and women became symbols of community honor.

Violence against women during Partition included rape, abduction, forced marriage, and forced conversion. Women were seen as repositories of the community's honor; violence against them was intended to humiliate and dishonor the "other" community.

“Recovering” Women

Following Partition, the Indian and Pakistani governments agreed to a policy of "recovering" women who had been abducted and forced into marriage or conversion during the violence and returning them to their original families. This policy was pursued by state agents and social workers on both sides of the border.

However, this process was extremely complex and traumatic for the women involved. Many had established new lives, sometimes bearing children in their new circumstances. Being "recovered" often meant being forcibly removed from their new families and returned to families who might not fully accept them back due to societal norms and the trauma they had experienced.

This policy, while intended to restore women to their original communities, did not always prioritize the women's own wishes or well-being and subjected them to further displacement and trauma.

Preserving “Honour”

In the brutal context of communal violence, women's bodies became sites where inter-communal hatred was enacted. Violence against women was not random; it was often a deliberate act to wound the collective honor of the targeted community.

Tragically, in some instances, families themselves committed violence against their own women, killing daughters, sisters, or wives. This horrific act was seen by some as a desperate attempt to preserve the family's or community's "honor" by preventing the women from being potentially captured, abducted, raped, or forcibly converted by members of the "other" community.

These acts highlight the extreme pressures and distorted notions of honor that emerged during the violence, where women's lives and bodies were seen as less important than maintaining abstract concepts of communal or familial honor.

Regional Variations

The experience of Partition was not uniform across the subcontinent. While the violence and displacement were most severe in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal (the provinces that were divided), the specific nature of the violence and its impact varied regionally.

In Punjab, the violence was often marked by brutal massacres, forced conversions, and large-scale, often rapid, reciprocal displacement of populations across the border. Trainloads of refugees facing violence became a grim symbol of the Punjab Partition.

In Bengal, the violence was also severe, but sometimes characterized by different patterns, including cycles of riots, slower migration patterns in some areas, and different forms of displacement compared to Punjab.

Other regions, while not directly divided, also experienced communal violence and witnessed the influx of refugees.

These regional variations were influenced by differences in demographics, the nature of political mobilization, the presence of armed groups, the response of state authorities, and local historical dynamics.

Understanding Partition requires acknowledging these distinct regional experiences and avoiding a monolithic narrative.

Help, Humanity, Harmony

While accounts of violence and suffering dominate many narratives of Partition, it is also crucial to remember and highlight stories of help, humanity, and harmony that existed amidst the chaos. Amidst the widespread brutality, there were countless instances of individuals and communities risking their own lives to help members of different religious groups.

Stories exist of neighbors protecting neighbors, people sharing food and shelter with strangers from the "other" community, and individuals facilitating the safe passage of those trying to escape violence. Many acts of courage and compassion occurred, demonstrating the resilience of human kindness even in the face of extreme adversity.

These narratives challenge the idea that communal hatred was universal and remind us that efforts towards harmony and mutual aid were also part of the Partition experience.

Highlighting these instances is important for a balanced understanding of Partition and for recognizing the agency of individuals who chose humanity and help over violence and hatred.

Oral Testimonies And History

Reconstructing the history of Partition, especially the experiences of ordinary people, relies heavily on diverse sources. Alongside official records (government reports, administrative documents) and written accounts (newspapers, private papers, memoirs), oral testimonies are a critical source.

Oral testimonies are historical accounts based on the memories and personal narratives of individuals who lived through the events. They are gathered through interviews with survivors and witnesses.

Strengths of oral testimonies:

• They provide a voice to those who might not have left written records, including women, the poor, and marginalized groups whose experiences are often absent from official archives.
• They offer unique insights into the lived experiences, emotions, perceptions, and psychological impact of Partition.
• They capture details of everyday life, human relationships, and individual acts of courage or despair that official sources might not document.

Limitations of oral testimonies:

• Memories can be selective, shaped by later experiences, beliefs, and the process of narrating the story over time.
• Accounts can be subjective and influenced by personal biases or trauma.
• Verifying details can be challenging.

Historians use oral testimonies in conjunction with other sources, cross-referencing information and analyzing them critically to build a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of Partition, particularly its immense human dimensions that are often missing from state-centric narratives.