Customer Reviews

The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I bought this book after reading the positive review in The Economist. Khan does an excellent job showing the enormity and tragedy of Partition in people's lives -- more or less ignoring the diplomatic and political history that has been well covered in other works. History is always told with hindsight; Khan shows convincingly that while Partition was widely supported (and opposed), no one, not even the leaders who pushed it hardest had any understanding of what it would do to their country. Although there is an epilogue reflecting on the continued resonance of Partition today, the account ends in the immediate aftermath of partition. It left me wanting more -- a good sign. The book confirmed my conviction that modern nationalism is a folly that has cost humanity dearly. Anyone looking for a highly readable, thoroughly documented and moving account of the Partition of India and its human and social consequences should consider this book.

I was born and brought up in India and I have a keen interest in South Asian history. Out of the 15 or so books on partition that I read (sometimes just skimmed through!), this book is undoubtedly the best. (Patrick French's book 'Liberty or Death' is also VERY good, but it covers lot of other issues- not just Partition and is quite long!).

If you have an appreciation for good English writing, this book will be a pleasure to read- but don't expect something that panders to popular stereotypes about India/South Asia or interesting anecdotes about eccentric Indian kings or leaders- this is a serious work of scholarship suitable only for the deeply interested casual reader. The author appears to be a first rate scholar who has a very impressive command over the subject matter- she sometimes manages to convey more in a couple of paragraphs than some other historians will do in entire chapters. I needed all my prior knowledge of Indian history to begin to understand how good this book really is! In the interest of brevity, I will mention only two major strengths of this book relative to other general accounts of the Partition of India.

1.This is history from the bottom up- instead of focusing on the discussions between leaders of the Indian National Congress, Muslim League and high ranking British officials leading up to the partition, the author concentrates on how the politics related to the partition played out on the streets of India- the fears, insecurities and expectations of the common people and how politicians sought to engage them. The majority of studies on Partition concentrate only on the 'elite politics' aspect- what Nehru, Jinnah or Mountbatten did or didn't do or say etc. Not that this is not important - but to really understand the positions taken by Nehru/Jinnah/Gandhi/Mountbatten and others- it is not enough to understand their personalities and their relationships- we also have to understand the broader social/political environment in which these positions were formed. The political decisions and actions of the major players cannot be understood in isolation- they become much more intelligible if you have a better understanding of the popular expectations, pressures and fears to which these leaders were compelled to respond. (This is probably particularly true of the Partition which became a highly emotive issue for many Hindus and Muslims/Sikhs during those times). In Yasmin Khan's book - this broader context, the evolving political situation in India in the late 1930's and early to mid 1940's is discussed with a richness and detail that is not equaled by any other book that I have read or heard about on the Partition of India- and this is a particular merit of this book.

2.Both Hindu and Muslim nationalists (who have a particular stake in distorting the history of partition for their own purposes) will find a lot to be angry about in this book- and this is a very good thing! I think this is a highly judicious account which is not biased towards the official Indian or Pakistani version of the history of partition (although- of course, many will disagree- which again is unsurprising!).

Overall, this is a relatively brief and exceedingly well written general history of the partition. (The overall tone of the writing is analytical

- but there is little unnecessary academic jargon and it is not very dry either).

While many books demonize India or Pakistan in the blame game of partition, Yasmin Khan indicates there was a shared breakdown of Hindu and Muslim trust leading up to the event. This was exacerbated by the clumsy imposition of premature partition upon India and Pakistan by the British government. Without making clear what partition meant or how it would be implemented, fears were greatly magnified, leading to some of the worst civil violence in India-Pakistan history; a virtual state of ethnic cleansing existed, perpetrated by extremists on both sides in 1947. So there is plenty of blame to be passed around. Khan's book seems to do historical justice to the even without detectable Hindu or Muslim bias. His history is vividly descriptive, but sometimes shies away from the political details and power plays one might have wished he had explored further. Nonetheless I found it to be a succinct, commendable book on the event of India's partition.

The Partition of India is a much studied though least discussed topic. Let me qualify what I mean by that seeming contradiction of terms. Many academics have studied the cause for the Partition and its horrendous aftermaths, but that's it. It has become an academic exercise that has lacked thorough discussion by the very people that it wreaked havoc on. India sees the Partition through her own prism as does Pakistan. Both appear to be entrenched in the view that the other side caused it and our side suffered massively for it. As a result, students in India read the Indian version of the very same truth that is regurgitated in a much different form to Pakistani students. The truth becomes a casualty by the politics of each state.

Today's world knows more about the Jewish plight in Europe and the after-effects of the atomic bombs in Japan than it does about the Partition --- an event that displaced 18 million people, killed 3 million, and scarred many million more. The Indian and Pakistani states are simply not interested in preserving the memories --- as horrid as they are --- for future generations. The trains full of dead bodies arriving in empty stations; countless women abducted, left behind, or bartered for passage from one country to another; religions adopted or discarded at the whim of unruly mobs; riches lost and families torn apart. All these are the realities of the Partition that will go mostly unrecorded except for an academic mention. I am simply amazed by the single mindedness of the Israeli government to keep the memory of the Holocaust fresh in contemporary print and media (movies, etc.) just as I am amazed by the Indian and Pakistani state to interpret the Partition to suit the political need of the hour.

There are many reasons why the Partition occurred. The British wanted to accelerate their withdrawal from India, having just finished World War II with depleted coffers. They did not have the treasury nor the will to continue their dominion. Europe was licking its wounds from World War II as well and was not interested in the cleaving of a nation far from its borders. The Muslim League wanted a separate state for Muslims but had no idea what it would mean to divide the nation based on religious lines and to rule a new nation founded on religious principles -- who protects the minorities? The Congress had its hand full trying to consolidate a new nation from the former princely states.

It is debatable whether the Partition could have been avoided. Was it for the British simply a matter of drawing a random line and dividing Punjab and present day Bangladesh as they did? Did they anticipate the mass exodus from each country to the other of the affected people? Did Jinnah anticipate this? Did Nehru? The book makes a point that the refugee crisis careened out of control because the world was not prepared to handle such a mass exodus. Red Cross did not exist in 1947 and the newly formed United Nations did not have the accouterments like UNHCR to deal with the refugee crisis. Whatever the causes and effects, the Partition ranks alongside the Holocaust and the use of atomic weapons as a testament to humanity's worst. Except that unlike the Holocaust and atomic bombs, most of the world is ignorant of the horrors of the Partition.

For those of us in the West who grew up hero-worshipping Gandhi's pacifism; wearing Nehru jackets everywhere including to Civil Rights rallies; and watching "The Jewel in the Crown," this is an eye-opening story.

Although I remember the shock of the 1984 murder of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards, I was blown away by the violence that accompanied the post WWII separation of Pakistan from India, and the lack of real interest on the part of the then-ending British regime. The painful holocaust that accompanied the partition of India and Pakistan which took place only a few years before we were born, has escaped most Westerners. Khan, whose grandfathers fought on different sides in this era, has a fairly-even-handed approach and examines both the Hindu and Muslim sides of the story.

No blame is assigned to either side for the horrors that are portrayed but the fear and confusion of ordinary people in a changing world, the many murders of innocent families with children, the ruined lives of thousands of displaced persons,are carefully documented and well-footnoted.

This would be a great book to use in a World History class and would also a good choice for discussions in a sociology course. It should be read by thinking people everywhere.

I think it is high time for Westerners to read this and other books about 20th century India and Pakistan. The current turmoil in southern Asia makes it very important that we begin to pay attention not only to current events but also to recent history.

And I do think the world should continue to see Gandhi and Nehru, and the world's largest democracy,India, as excellent role models just as we did back in John Lennon's day.

Kim Burdick

Stanton, DE

Most histories of the Indian Partition focus on the leadership but this one actually provides the social, economic and human context of the event. Khan is very balanced in her analysis identifying the forces that were building in the run-up to the Partition. The tragic consequences of these forces were were inevitable but they were ignored by native and colonial leaders due to either their incompetence or their indulgence. While lots of evil was committed by both sides, the book illustrates the uncertain context in which such evil was predictable, even if not justifiable.

This is a well-researched and well-written book on a very touchy issue of the division of the Indian sub-continent. A well-biased version as well. The author took pains to dissect the various sources, taking into account their biases and prejudices, and tried to portray the true unfoldings of the game the British played, which they thought played very cunningly. People are still suffering from the left-over mess, be it in India-Pakistan, be it in middle-east.

Having read Patrick French's historical narrative of Indian Independence, I was interested in something a little more balanced to tell both sides of the story.

Yasmin has done a good job of rendering this rather complex and heartbreaking time of political and sectarian violence -- renting the map left a large historical scar that still plays highly in international politics. This book is a good place to start to understand the difference in national identity when aspirations divide and become fault lines for violence.

Unfortunately I think that this study could have been a whole lot better if she had expanded the text about 1/3 its present size. Many aspects, although well described are dealt with in rather superficial terms... but keeping in mind that this is an introduction and geared for the general reader, it is an extremely well written piece.

I bought this book after reading a positive review in the Economist. I am not sure why it has attracted such stellar reviews everywhere. The prose I found uninspiring. The narrative throws no new light on the history of the partition. Yes, it does focus a great deal on the experience of the common man, but I don't see what makes this book deserving of such praise.

After Reading Narendra Singh Sarila's fantastic account of the partition in "In the Shadow of the Great Game", which gives a great many details on the main Indian and British figures that played a role in the partition, and their respective motivations.

This book barely scratches the surface of the real complexity, and seems to be another attempt by british intellectuals to spin the parittion in a convenient manner.