In ten days time we will remember the partition of the subcontinent into Pakistan and India 60 years ago, followed later by the [later] breakaway of Bangladesh.
To mark this there are several programmes on radio and TV. I declare an interest – I was in army intelligence in Bombay in the days leading up to the end of the Raj – I left on the Georgic, the last ship to leave British India.
Already the remarks by presenters are slanted to suggest that it was the wicked British who partitioned India. Legally this is true – but the fact is that Mountbatten absolutely did not want partition, and along with Nehru and Gandhi fought hard to preserve that great country as one.
Another programme is to dwell on Muhammad Ali Jinnah ‘and his vision’. Jinnah was not originally in favour of partition; he was a completely westernised gentleman in his tailored English suits. He was threatened by the Muslim League, who promised violence if they did not get an Islamic state. In an attempt to keep India whole, Gandhi and Nehru said that Jinnah could be at the top of the new government but Jinnah was trapped by the Islamist militants.
The consequence was upwards of 2 millions slaughtered; 300,000 killed later in the nascent Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) by West Pakistan (now Pakistan) forces, who used widespread rape as a weapon of suppression. And the death a few months later of Jinnah himself – can anyone doubt that he died crushed by the awful consequences of his surrender to the fanatics?
And consider what India might have become if it had stayed united – instead there were two wars, continual fighting over Kashmir, the degradation of Bangladesh, the tottering state of Pakistan and borders armed like an iron curtain dividing areas, such as the Punjab, which for centuries had been one. What a cost to satisfy the greed for power by the Islamists.
But will this history be presented in these programmes, or will the British as usual be cast as villains?
Bernard is right to ask this question – there is likely to be a great deal of glossing over of the trauma of the partition of India. For those of us born since then, knowledge of the partition of India into three pieces – what is now India and the then Pakistan (in two pieces, West and East, hundreds of miles apart, destined to fall apart from the get go), is limited to the historically aware – and on current evidence such historical awareness seems to pass much of the youth-obsessed BBC (and other broadcasters) by, never mind their tendency to revisionism when it suits them.
There are lots of good sites on the web describing these fascinating and horrific events. Googling for ‘Partition of India’ leads to links such as Partition of India on Wikipedia and this graphic BBC picture gallery of photos by Margaret Bourke-White. Wikipedia also has an article on the Bangladesh Liberation War that serves as a useful starting point on the break-up of West and East Pakistan into modern day Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Please let us know in the comments or by email to biasedbbc@gmail.com of any shoddy or partial anniversary coverage that you see or hear.
The problem with painting us as the bad guys is why? What possible benefit could there be to Britain in a break up of British India. Ive never heard a good explanation for this.
We made India out of entities that had never formally been part of the same state before.
In hindsight of course without an Imperial overlord (us!) a state like India could never have been viable long term. India as it is now might yet subdivide.
It’s interesting to listen to the BBC’s wistful acceptance of the bloody events which occurred during the partition of India and creation of Pakistan in 1947/8.
It resulted in several million refugees and appalling atrocities being committed by both sides in the name of nation and faith on a huge scale.
Yet I’ve heard no speakers make blanket condemnation of either government. Nor have I heard any real debate about the need for partition. I haven’t heard any attempt to apportion the greater blame for the violence at the door of either side.
I haven’t heard speakers arguing that the descendants of displaced persons should have a right of return or compensation for loss of health, life or property.
It would be interesting to compare the BBC coverage of India’s partition with next year’s output on the 60th anniversary of the partition of what is now Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
The UN partition of the Holy Land differed from that of India and Pakistan in that one party was prepared to accept the land it had been awarded, including all of the people living there, Jewish or Arab and the other party wasn’t.
The ensuing attack upon the Jewish State directly resulted in today’s violence.
What are the odds of BBC coverage reflecting these facts?
C. Hitchen’s recently raised a fundamental observation by Marx on the British in India, that frequently gets overlooked. I doubt very much that it will be taken up by any of the BBC Janus faced “celebs” making all of their personal voyages to India or Pakistan courtesy of the British licence payer:
Marx’s appreciation of the laws of unintended consequence, and his disdain for superficial moralism, also allowed him to see that there was more to the British presence in India than met the eye. No doubt the aim of the East India Company had been the subordination of Indian markets and Indian labour for selfish ends, but this did not alter the fact that capitalism was also transforming the subcontinent in what might be called a dynamic way. And he was clear-eyed about the alternatives. India, he pointed out, had always been subjugated by outsiders. “The question is not whether the English had a right to conquer India, but whether we are to prefer India conquered by the Turk, by the Persian, by the Russian, to India conquered by the Briton.” If the conqueror was to be the country that pioneered the industrial revolution, he added, then India would benefit by the introduction of four new factors that would tend towards nation building. These were the electric telegraph for communications, steamships for rapid contact with the outside world, railways for the movement of people and products, and “the free press, introduced for the first time to Asiatic society, and managed principally by the common offspring of Hindus and Europeans”. His insight into the Janus-faced nature of the Anglo-Indian relationship, and of the potential this afforded for a future independence, may be one of the reasons why Marxism still remains a stronger force in India than in most other societies.
The Grub Street Years
There’s an excellent and readable account of partition in Andrew Roberts’ Eminent Churchillians (chapter 2).
Following on from kb’s comment, I really do not think anyone should rush in to defend Mountbatten, whose behaviour in those negotiations was appalling.
The standard narrative in both Britain and India, is that Britain maintained it’s control through divide and rule. Supposedly there was some measure of harmony between the different communities before the advent of British rule. In reality the years from 1000 to 1700 saw between 40-100m Hindus murdered by the Muslim rulers, and the destruction of thousands of Hindu temples, facts recorded by the Muslims themselves.
Now you can imagine that India with it’s volatile “multiculturalism” has decided that it is safer to play down such a past rather than risk stoking up inter communal violence. Far easier to unite people by focusing blame on a departed “other” (the British), who are around to defend themselves. But that doesn’t work if the narrative is broadcast in England.
I wonder if we shall hear any honesty about the history of Indian inter communal relations?
My understanding is that it was not so much the fact of partition which caused most of the terrible consequences which followed, but the haste which the incoming Labour government forced upon proceedings that caused them. Attlee was determined to end colonialism in India in as short a time as possible causing towns, villages and families to be torn apart.
Typical lefty – it’s always about *THEM* and never about the supposed beneficiaries of their policies.
There is also material about partition on the BBC’s Open Archive.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/trial/open/collection/1595
well, heres one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6926057.stm
Now that I’ve heard some of the programmes, I’m relieved to say that Britain has not been singled out for condemmnation. The interviews and discussions in India and Pakistan, conducted by commentators ethnically linked to the countries suggested a general view that partition has been a disaster. However the part played by the Muslim League in influencing Jinnah was never discussed. It’s also clear that right to the end there were strong feelings against partition among some Muslims. In any case Jinnah’s dream of a truly modern,democratic and multi-faith Pakistan has not yet been realised.
The most revealing remark was from a Pakistani taxi-driver; when it was suggested that he use a mobile phone to get directions, he refused, saying that mobile phones were unislamic.
It is to be applauded that the BBC has given us such a televisual feast over the last few weeks. I am certain that the extended coverage struck a chord with the vast majority of people of these islands. Quite unlike the unnecesary high profile stance the BBC afforded the tercentenary of the formation of the United Kingdom on May 1st. I look forward in anticipation of further extended coverage throughout next August, the 61st. anniversary.