So this is the story of the partition of India. I am more interested in the question of how a deeply intermixed and profoundly syncretic, centuries-old culture could unravel in a couple of decades between the 1930s and the late 1940s. One of the first events of decolonization in the twentieth century, Partition was also one of the most bloody. On all accounts, she fails. Why did such widespread violence suddenly erupt? As an author it is very easy to get carried away and present a biased point of view but she has handled this in a very subtle way and present a balanced point of view on such a sensitive subject. It's remarkable how poorly it was all handled on both sides, and it was the middle-class ass-shit extremists who drove much of the sectarian violence, dividing communities that had lived together for centuries. It reads more like a hurried A break-up is such a drag.
Yasmin Khan's empathetic account gives a great insight into the hopes, dreams, and fears of the millions affected by it. Just like many other questions in recent history, this debate too may never be resolved satisfactorily. Having read this book; I now believe that Pakistan began as a poetical idea and ended up as a bloody and brutal reality that served neither Islam or Muslims. The estimated half a million people who were slaughtered during partition, the twelve million who became refugees in their own land-this catastrophe cannot be understood by simply saying, oh, the British did this or Nehru did that. Drawing together fresh information from an array of sources, Khan underscores the catastrophic human cost and shows why the repercussions of Partition resound even now, some sixty years later.
There are scholars who point the finger at the perfidy of the British and their 'divide and rule' policy. John Withington takes the reader on an epic journey through the annals of the nastiest things to have afflicted mankind. There is not narrative progression so much as there is insistent repetition, predominantly about these 3 things: 1. There is little interrogation of the violence in the Panjab, of the princely rulers and fascist militias responsible for the violence at the behest of the states this is mentioned, not detailed. Edgar Hoover, who ran the F.
Perhaps I just lack the prerequisites. His power shaped America; his legacy haunts it. By the author's own admission, she attempts to write a history fo Partition that is about everyday people on both sides of what became the Indo-Pak border and that does not ossify nation states in their current formation. This results in muddled exposition. In spite of the haste and recklessness with which Lord Mountbatten proceeded with partition, he had no clue either about the millions of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims who would find themselves living in the 'wrong country' once partition becomes a reality.
Like many second generation Pakistani's, I have always been interested in the facts behind partition, particularly how Muslims and Hindus came to butcher one another so mercilessly after having co-existed so peacefully for hundreds of years. Similarly, she cites only a single piece of fiction, Tamas by Bhisam Sahni, repeatedly through the text. Will you kindly advise me what to do and where to in this critical moment of my life. Akbar says that this has been the case for the past two hundred years. Then the violence began to boil up over Bihar, the United Provinces, East Bengal about 5000 people dead , and on and on.
Hindus embraced the English language and modernity through education in western science and values. What happened was that the British, worn down by years of passive resistance Gandhi-style, almost bankrupt at the end of World War Two, knew they were going to have to let India go, so they did it in the worst possible way, and stole away like a thief in the night, no concept of duty of care or responsibility anywhere to be had, no thought that things might go haywire, it was like — Okay, you bastards, you want your independence? She exposes the widespread obliviousness to what Partition would entail in practice and how it would affect the populace. The E-mail message field is required. Peter's, College Oxford and quickly developed a passion for the history of Asia. She deftly covers the status of the major players, the underlying social, religious and nationalistic conflicts that resulted in the earthquake that followed independence, and why everything went south for millions of innocent people. Three days, 4000 dead, 10,000 injured. It charts the long, complex and often brutal processes that engulfed millions of unsuspecting people in chaos.
. He was not a monster, but a brilliant confidence man who ruled by fear, force, and fraud. What makes this book so superlative is that Yasmin Khan combines personal insight with real-life examples. I highly recommend it to anyone such as myself who is interested in the topic. One shudders to think further.
The resulting narrative she presents thereby ignores portions of Partition narratives that need to be told. She is especially nuanced about the ways in which partition affected different classes and localities, the horrendous experience of woman and the variety of efforts that the new Indian and Pakistani governments dealt with the millions of refugees. Of course, It was not a flash in the pan but a result of intense political planning. There is not narrative progression so much as there is insistent repetition, predominantly about these 3 things: 1. The British callously did little or nothing to prevent it. Forgive us, but we do not have other texts.
By subscribing, you get access to a huge library of multimedia content, which is updated daily. A lot has been said on this subject in the form of novels, short stories, historical texts, plays and films. I remember reading stories about Jinnah in Pakistan Urdu books as a child, and even then I realised they were fantasy. Third-party sites are multimedia services that allow you to read and download e-books. There are others who point to the hubris of Jinna The partition of India into two nation states in 1947 and the violence that accompanied the exchange of a population of 12 million people between India and Pakistan is surely one of the most significant events of the twentieth century. The narrative offered to us in Indian textbooks is that partition happened due to the refusal of the Muslim League to accept a secular, peace-loving and plural India as the idea of 'Swaraj'.