What do you think?
Rate this book
Contemporary South Asia
Remembering Partition: Violence, Nationalism and History in India
Gyan Pandey's latest book is a compelling examination of the violence that marked the partition of India in 1947, and how the preceding events have been documented. In the process, the author provides a critique of history-writing and nationalist myth-making. He also investigates how local forms of community are established by the way in which violent events are remembered and written about. The book will be of interest to historians of South Asia, to sociologists and to anyone concerned with the Indian subaltern story.
236 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
14 people are currently reading
246 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
April 2, 2009
In recent years, most historians have agreed that the partition of British India was a messy and convoluted event that set off a chain reaction of violence, nationalistic uprising and intense political debate. In his highly acclaimed book, Remembering Partition, historian Gyanendra Pandey takes an in depth look at how Indian partition was viewed and understood by different communities within India, and how the “rupture of violence” triggered a ultra-nationalistic movement between opposing communities within former British India.
Pandey’s thesis is made clear right from the start. As he states in his introduction, the book’s purpose is to focus “on a moment of rupture and genocidal violence, marking the termination of one regime and the inauguration of two new ones.” And, “It seeks to investigate what that moment of rupture, and the violent founding of new states claiming the legitimacy of nation-statehood, tells us about the procedures of nationhood, history and particular forms of sociality” (1). In addition, Pandey endeavors to explain how this moment of violence and fervent nationalism caused rival segments of the population, who were formerly under the same British banner, to move in opposition to one another and seek to legitimize their respective claims to national independence.
To set the stage for the impending violence, nationalistic surge and mass migrations to come, Pandey attempts to break down Indian partition into three separate and smaller partitions (24-25). The first of Pandey’s smaller partitions was the Muslim League’s insistence and demand for an independent Pakistani state. As Pandey notes, this was to be a Muslim-majority state free from Hindu influence and control (26). For years, Muslims living under British rule had witnessed the increasing strength and influence that the Hindus had on Congress, and as a result, sought to find their own unique and sovereign state free from the growing Hindu majority.
The second of Pandey’s smaller partitions is the acceptance of Hindu and Sikh leaders to allow the partition/quasi-annexation of the Muslim-majority provinces of Punjab and Bengal. This partition was Both Punjab and Bengal were to be divided with the Muslims controlling one half while the Hindus and Sikhs controlled the other. The division of these Muslim-dominated areas was heated to say the least. Pandey points out that this division essentially se the stage for much of the violence that was to come.
The third and final of Pandey’s partitions, which was also the most important, was the systematic forced removal, massacre, rape, torture and forced conversion of hundreds of thousands of people (35-39). Pandey argues that it was during this stage of partition that nationalistic lines were drawn and allegiance was tested. Violence became the medium through which national pride evolved. It also helped to trigger the mass exodus of people to areas where their respective religion was “accepted.”
Through these mini-partitions, Pandey argues that the partition of India was not a straightforward event where the “keys” were simply handed over from the British in 1947. Instead, partition has a deep cultural and nationalistic history that dates back at least a few years before the actual “transition” of power from the British. National, religious and cultural allegiances had been tested through the fires of violence and forced migration, all of which created a highly tense and volatile period of Indian history.
Throughout the remainder of the book, Pandey attempts to explain how history and historians who have studied Indian partition tended to take a more all-encompassing or macro view of the events leading up, and in their mind, concluding in 1947 (50). For Pandey, this simplistic view of the history of Indian partition ignores important fundamental issues that are unique to the development of Indian nationalism in diverse locations throughout the country. For example, Pandey points out how events in local areas (like Delhi and the Garmukhteshwar) became the “standard” that was then applied to the entire national landscape and historical dialogue by historians who failed to understand that many of these events were highly localized in nature (147).
Along with the misapplication of the local with the national, Pandey also points out that historians have mistakenly misinterpreted what partition meant to the individual. As he states, the violence of partition was partition for many of its participants. A large number of people were forced to either stand defiant to the violence or make huge compromises (like converting to another faith) in order to survive (190). Pandey argues that it was these horrors of the actual people who participated that is left out of the historical record. As a result, Indian partition is seen, by many of its participants, not on the large nationalistic scale, but on the local level where violence, rape, etc. is forever interwoven with partition.
As future historians attempt to dissect the national (and local) story of Indian partition, Pandey’s Remembering Partition will likely serve as an effective barometer by which to judge one’s research. Remembering Partition is an invaluable addition to the historiography of Indian partition that changes the reader’s understanding on an event, which on the surface seems uneventful. By helping to shed light on the true nature of Indian partition, Pandey’s work is likely to stand as a bright beacon on insight on this often misunderstood historical event.
Pandey’s thesis is made clear right from the start. As he states in his introduction, the book’s purpose is to focus “on a moment of rupture and genocidal violence, marking the termination of one regime and the inauguration of two new ones.” And, “It seeks to investigate what that moment of rupture, and the violent founding of new states claiming the legitimacy of nation-statehood, tells us about the procedures of nationhood, history and particular forms of sociality” (1). In addition, Pandey endeavors to explain how this moment of violence and fervent nationalism caused rival segments of the population, who were formerly under the same British banner, to move in opposition to one another and seek to legitimize their respective claims to national independence.
To set the stage for the impending violence, nationalistic surge and mass migrations to come, Pandey attempts to break down Indian partition into three separate and smaller partitions (24-25). The first of Pandey’s smaller partitions was the Muslim League’s insistence and demand for an independent Pakistani state. As Pandey notes, this was to be a Muslim-majority state free from Hindu influence and control (26). For years, Muslims living under British rule had witnessed the increasing strength and influence that the Hindus had on Congress, and as a result, sought to find their own unique and sovereign state free from the growing Hindu majority.
The second of Pandey’s smaller partitions is the acceptance of Hindu and Sikh leaders to allow the partition/quasi-annexation of the Muslim-majority provinces of Punjab and Bengal. This partition was Both Punjab and Bengal were to be divided with the Muslims controlling one half while the Hindus and Sikhs controlled the other. The division of these Muslim-dominated areas was heated to say the least. Pandey points out that this division essentially se the stage for much of the violence that was to come.
The third and final of Pandey’s partitions, which was also the most important, was the systematic forced removal, massacre, rape, torture and forced conversion of hundreds of thousands of people (35-39). Pandey argues that it was during this stage of partition that nationalistic lines were drawn and allegiance was tested. Violence became the medium through which national pride evolved. It also helped to trigger the mass exodus of people to areas where their respective religion was “accepted.”
Through these mini-partitions, Pandey argues that the partition of India was not a straightforward event where the “keys” were simply handed over from the British in 1947. Instead, partition has a deep cultural and nationalistic history that dates back at least a few years before the actual “transition” of power from the British. National, religious and cultural allegiances had been tested through the fires of violence and forced migration, all of which created a highly tense and volatile period of Indian history.
Throughout the remainder of the book, Pandey attempts to explain how history and historians who have studied Indian partition tended to take a more all-encompassing or macro view of the events leading up, and in their mind, concluding in 1947 (50). For Pandey, this simplistic view of the history of Indian partition ignores important fundamental issues that are unique to the development of Indian nationalism in diverse locations throughout the country. For example, Pandey points out how events in local areas (like Delhi and the Garmukhteshwar) became the “standard” that was then applied to the entire national landscape and historical dialogue by historians who failed to understand that many of these events were highly localized in nature (147).
Along with the misapplication of the local with the national, Pandey also points out that historians have mistakenly misinterpreted what partition meant to the individual. As he states, the violence of partition was partition for many of its participants. A large number of people were forced to either stand defiant to the violence or make huge compromises (like converting to another faith) in order to survive (190). Pandey argues that it was these horrors of the actual people who participated that is left out of the historical record. As a result, Indian partition is seen, by many of its participants, not on the large nationalistic scale, but on the local level where violence, rape, etc. is forever interwoven with partition.
As future historians attempt to dissect the national (and local) story of Indian partition, Pandey’s Remembering Partition will likely serve as an effective barometer by which to judge one’s research. Remembering Partition is an invaluable addition to the historiography of Indian partition that changes the reader’s understanding on an event, which on the surface seems uneventful. By helping to shed light on the true nature of Indian partition, Pandey’s work is likely to stand as a bright beacon on insight on this often misunderstood historical event.
August 25, 2022
Please note, this Book is not for beginners. Before reading this, one must have read 2-3 other Books on partition.
Despite the nuance and subtleties this Book has, I would rate it 3 star. I would have given it a 4 star review, but giving it 1 star less for two reasons- (1) It starts very slow, spends so many pages of the beginning few chapters in just setting up the stage for the Book’s content. It was so slow, that at one point I was almost thinking to put this Book down! But thank God I didn’t, because in later pages, it gives such great insights at few places
(2) Second reason is, it doesn’t give any new information about the partition, but it provides newer insights and perspectives. It does tell in detail about a few riots/violent massacres, but the purpose of those was to analyse the psychology behind those.
Detailed review as below. I kept writing this, as I went ahead reading. So you will notice the change of opinion from bad to good, as you read ahead. Here it is- Bad, very bad book. The author just keeps mentioning one author after another, keeps picking every author’s random comments and keep analysing it. It is hardly telling anything about partition, but just analysing other authors’ comments/views on partition. Till 66 pages of the Book (almost 30%), the author keeps hopping around picking just random author’s statements on the issue. In many parts, he mentions one new author in every 3-4 lines! I was like, for God sake, start writing something about partition, what happened, why happened, who messed up etc. But he just keeps going on and on about other authors’ writings and how they have treated history, Historiography etc.
1st chapter titled “By way of Introduction”, runs for a whole 20 pages, and is full of complex terminologies and draws comparing examples of Historical writings from around the world- Germany, France etc. I mean, out of 205 pages, 20 page was spent in just setting up the stage for the Book, that too with complex terms and non-relatable examples.
2nd Chapter- “the three partitions of 1947”- had some substance. The author there argues how in 1947 there was not one partition, but actually 3 partitions (figuratively), and he explains that well. Though it doesn’t tell anything new, compared to some other Books on partition.
3rd Chapter- “Historians’ History”, again looks so waste. Why write this kind of chapter at all!
4th Chapter- “the evidence of the historian”- the author argues that most of the historians’ accounts of violence, don’t come from witness accounts or first person accounts, but from mere heresay and rumours. He implied that most of the accounts of Violence of those times, might be vastly exaggerated for various reasons, and many of statistics of deaths are derived not from hard evidence, but from just point of convenience (median count, most popularly repeated count etc.) Quoting- “These are oral reports that approximate to gospel, and that are then confirmed in the writing”!
He however doesn’t give his opinion on how to find the truth. May be he implied that the truth will forever be unknown!
In his 5th Chapter- “Folding the local into the National: GarhMukteshwar”, the author brilliantly analyses the Garmukteshwar massacre of Muslims by Hindus (Haryanvi Jats supported by local Hindus). He analyses how each party treated the massacre and how each one of them wrote about the massacre- First he gave some bare facts about the massacre. Then Congress side’s position on this. And then Muslim League’s and Britishers’. By analysing their positions on this massacre, the author tried brilliantly, to highlight that each of the parties wrote and spoke about the massacre in their own biased way, so as to set the future narrative in their own favour. There was also another aspect, as written by the author- “This convergence of attitudes in Indian, Pakistani and British writings on Garhmukhteshwar points to a common effort at distancing the writer's
own ‘history’ from such 'extraordinary' and brutal violence.” He also illustrates so much on the “local” Vs “National” aspect, i.e. how the people in power treats even such brutal event affecting thousands, as a “local” event, pushing it to some small footnote of writing in their large History/memoir writings. Several brilliant para on this issue is there in this chapter.
Chapter 6, focussing on Delhi- “Focussing the National into the local: Delhi 1947-1948”- It had pretty good description of the events and massacres in Delhi during that time.
Chapter 7, The 2nd last chapter on “Discipling Differences”, focussed on the human turmoil of partition and the great Hindu-Muslim divide in times of post-partition chaos. It talks about how the assimilation of Muslims living in Indian region, was almost demanded, and many Muslims gave explicit statements of assurances. And it talks in such horrific detail about abducted women’ recovery and and restoration program overriding their wishes. It also talks with great subtlety, the difficult choices Muslims in Indian region, had to make, to choose between India or Pakistan. Some affluent ones were able to do a trial of living in both the sides one by one and then decide, but many had no luxury to do such trials. So this chapter basically focussed great deal, on the effect of partition on the Hindu-Muslim assimilation, on Muslims’ impossibility to choose between India and Pakistan, and the unimaginable torture that abducted women had to go through.
Last Chapter- “Constructing Community”- focussed on the nuances of society building, how people regrouped, lived on, settled with other religion’s people. It dealt with the matter with great subtlety, giving several examples, like of the Sikh converted Muslim guy, who made it big and now refuses to even acknowledges that he was a Muslim earlier! The chapter quotes ex-AirForce Chief BS Dhanoa’s father- SS Dhanoa’s accounts- detailing the talk the author had with him, his mother and his uncle. The chapter highlights how people tried to live on by pushing “it happened outside” talks, by repeating that everything was fine in own village, local Muslims were always safe and the trouble were only outside. The author here basically focuses on how people at large, tried to bury their guild and hide their own failures and crimes, by consciously and subconsciously repeating the lies. The author also recounts the testimony of a captain in the army of the erstwhile state of Alwar, where he talks about the killing of Muslims of Alwar. Quoting from book- “It had been decided to clear the state of Muslims. The orders came from Sardar Patel. He spoke to HH on the hot line. The killings of Hindus at Noakhali and Punjab had to be avenged….”
All in all, a great read, but not a must read.
Despite the nuance and subtleties this Book has, I would rate it 3 star. I would have given it a 4 star review, but giving it 1 star less for two reasons- (1) It starts very slow, spends so many pages of the beginning few chapters in just setting up the stage for the Book’s content. It was so slow, that at one point I was almost thinking to put this Book down! But thank God I didn’t, because in later pages, it gives such great insights at few places
(2) Second reason is, it doesn’t give any new information about the partition, but it provides newer insights and perspectives. It does tell in detail about a few riots/violent massacres, but the purpose of those was to analyse the psychology behind those.
Detailed review as below. I kept writing this, as I went ahead reading. So you will notice the change of opinion from bad to good, as you read ahead. Here it is- Bad, very bad book. The author just keeps mentioning one author after another, keeps picking every author’s random comments and keep analysing it. It is hardly telling anything about partition, but just analysing other authors’ comments/views on partition. Till 66 pages of the Book (almost 30%), the author keeps hopping around picking just random author’s statements on the issue. In many parts, he mentions one new author in every 3-4 lines! I was like, for God sake, start writing something about partition, what happened, why happened, who messed up etc. But he just keeps going on and on about other authors’ writings and how they have treated history, Historiography etc.
1st chapter titled “By way of Introduction”, runs for a whole 20 pages, and is full of complex terminologies and draws comparing examples of Historical writings from around the world- Germany, France etc. I mean, out of 205 pages, 20 page was spent in just setting up the stage for the Book, that too with complex terms and non-relatable examples.
2nd Chapter- “the three partitions of 1947”- had some substance. The author there argues how in 1947 there was not one partition, but actually 3 partitions (figuratively), and he explains that well. Though it doesn’t tell anything new, compared to some other Books on partition.
3rd Chapter- “Historians’ History”, again looks so waste. Why write this kind of chapter at all!
4th Chapter- “the evidence of the historian”- the author argues that most of the historians’ accounts of violence, don’t come from witness accounts or first person accounts, but from mere heresay and rumours. He implied that most of the accounts of Violence of those times, might be vastly exaggerated for various reasons, and many of statistics of deaths are derived not from hard evidence, but from just point of convenience (median count, most popularly repeated count etc.) Quoting- “These are oral reports that approximate to gospel, and that are then confirmed in the writing”!
He however doesn’t give his opinion on how to find the truth. May be he implied that the truth will forever be unknown!
In his 5th Chapter- “Folding the local into the National: GarhMukteshwar”, the author brilliantly analyses the Garmukteshwar massacre of Muslims by Hindus (Haryanvi Jats supported by local Hindus). He analyses how each party treated the massacre and how each one of them wrote about the massacre- First he gave some bare facts about the massacre. Then Congress side’s position on this. And then Muslim League’s and Britishers’. By analysing their positions on this massacre, the author tried brilliantly, to highlight that each of the parties wrote and spoke about the massacre in their own biased way, so as to set the future narrative in their own favour. There was also another aspect, as written by the author- “This convergence of attitudes in Indian, Pakistani and British writings on Garhmukhteshwar points to a common effort at distancing the writer's
own ‘history’ from such 'extraordinary' and brutal violence.” He also illustrates so much on the “local” Vs “National” aspect, i.e. how the people in power treats even such brutal event affecting thousands, as a “local” event, pushing it to some small footnote of writing in their large History/memoir writings. Several brilliant para on this issue is there in this chapter.
Chapter 6, focussing on Delhi- “Focussing the National into the local: Delhi 1947-1948”- It had pretty good description of the events and massacres in Delhi during that time.
Chapter 7, The 2nd last chapter on “Discipling Differences”, focussed on the human turmoil of partition and the great Hindu-Muslim divide in times of post-partition chaos. It talks about how the assimilation of Muslims living in Indian region, was almost demanded, and many Muslims gave explicit statements of assurances. And it talks in such horrific detail about abducted women’ recovery and and restoration program overriding their wishes. It also talks with great subtlety, the difficult choices Muslims in Indian region, had to make, to choose between India or Pakistan. Some affluent ones were able to do a trial of living in both the sides one by one and then decide, but many had no luxury to do such trials. So this chapter basically focussed great deal, on the effect of partition on the Hindu-Muslim assimilation, on Muslims’ impossibility to choose between India and Pakistan, and the unimaginable torture that abducted women had to go through.
Last Chapter- “Constructing Community”- focussed on the nuances of society building, how people regrouped, lived on, settled with other religion’s people. It dealt with the matter with great subtlety, giving several examples, like of the Sikh converted Muslim guy, who made it big and now refuses to even acknowledges that he was a Muslim earlier! The chapter quotes ex-AirForce Chief BS Dhanoa’s father- SS Dhanoa’s accounts- detailing the talk the author had with him, his mother and his uncle. The chapter highlights how people tried to live on by pushing “it happened outside” talks, by repeating that everything was fine in own village, local Muslims were always safe and the trouble were only outside. The author here basically focuses on how people at large, tried to bury their guild and hide their own failures and crimes, by consciously and subconsciously repeating the lies. The author also recounts the testimony of a captain in the army of the erstwhile state of Alwar, where he talks about the killing of Muslims of Alwar. Quoting from book- “It had been decided to clear the state of Muslims. The orders came from Sardar Patel. He spoke to HH on the hot line. The killings of Hindus at Noakhali and Punjab had to be avenged….”
All in all, a great read, but not a must read.
May 9, 2017
Remembering Partition, Gyanendra Pandey
A disruptive moment in human civilization attracts the historian’s attention. But more often than not, the discipline of history as narrated by the historian is enmeshed with the regimes of State, Nation and Politics. Gyanendra Pandey differentiates the disciplinary form of history to draw a parallel viewpoint which offers new perspective to look at history itself. Pandey takes the Partition of South Asia to bring into account the human dimension of event that has been overshadowed by the political events shrouding the liberation of India and Pakistan. He enfolds the local into the national by focusing on events at Garhmukhteshwar, and then restructures the national into the local by talking about the riot-ridden days in Delhi following the Partition. The national, according to Pandey, is homogeneous in its configuration that disciplines the socio-ethnic differences in a linear theoretical framework. The local instead appears as a spatial configuration that is heterogeneous in nature. The monolithic narration of disciplinary history is interrogated in this book as Pandey reminisces the days of the Partition. His accounts of history are based on the interviews that he had collected. These discussions open up new spaces in Partition studies that scholars can delve deep into in order to understand the history of the Partition—an event that corresponds with the independence of India and formation of Pakistan.
A disruptive moment in human civilization attracts the historian’s attention. But more often than not, the discipline of history as narrated by the historian is enmeshed with the regimes of State, Nation and Politics. Gyanendra Pandey differentiates the disciplinary form of history to draw a parallel viewpoint which offers new perspective to look at history itself. Pandey takes the Partition of South Asia to bring into account the human dimension of event that has been overshadowed by the political events shrouding the liberation of India and Pakistan. He enfolds the local into the national by focusing on events at Garhmukhteshwar, and then restructures the national into the local by talking about the riot-ridden days in Delhi following the Partition. The national, according to Pandey, is homogeneous in its configuration that disciplines the socio-ethnic differences in a linear theoretical framework. The local instead appears as a spatial configuration that is heterogeneous in nature. The monolithic narration of disciplinary history is interrogated in this book as Pandey reminisces the days of the Partition. His accounts of history are based on the interviews that he had collected. These discussions open up new spaces in Partition studies that scholars can delve deep into in order to understand the history of the Partition—an event that corresponds with the independence of India and formation of Pakistan.
August 9, 2022
An emotional read that pushed my understanding of historiography, community, and nationalism. Would recommend to diasporic Desis to discuss with their elders
April 18, 2024
this was so dense but we powered through
January 31, 2022
I would note a similarity in the scale of violence and a common thread precipitated by the Partition as equal to that which was unleashed in the Cultural Revolution. The common aspect was that the 1947 Partition was preceded by a man-made famine in 1943, precipitated under the responsibility of the British during the Second World War. The 1966 Cultural Revolution was preceded by a man-made famine in 1962, occurred under the responsibility of the CPC when the party attempted to kickstart China's industrial revolution i.e. The Great Leap Forward. The effects from both events still linger on in both countries, more pronounced at India than at China, but in different forms. The former takes form of "communal" or "religious" distinction, between Hindus & Muslims, whereas in the latter it assumes a more "political" or "economic" guise, between the party elites & the common folk.
May 14, 2007
This is a really good explanation of Partition, which has not been presented often. Along with providing the historical context of partition, Pandey also critically analyzes the stories of partition and the various social and political factors that influenced these perceptions. He analyzes the way people look at history and how that affected the events of partition. Excellent book on partition
October 8, 2010
Gyanendra Pandey's book reveals much about the violence, the myth making of historians,newspapers,the colonials and all politicians.The tragedy of the uprooted, and the hatred of the other, the violence latent in society is analysed, and is not swept under the carpet. The lessons are relevent even today.
August 28, 2013
Brilliant analysis of the problems inherent to Partition historiography. Pandey questions the standard account of Parition in which the violence is seen as an outlier, an unnatural development of the division of the subcontinent. Definitely a must read for anyone with an interest in Modern South Asia.
June 14, 2007
An excellent analysis of the historiography of Partition and the relationship between history and violence.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews