Partition: The Story of Indian Independence and the Creation of Pakistan in 1947

by Barney White-Spunner

THE INTERNATIONAL BESTSELLER‘Stands out for its judicious and unsparing look at events from a British perspective’ Dominic Sandbrook, Sunday TimesBetween January and August 1947 the conflicting political, religious and social tensions in India culminated in independence from Britain and the creation of Pakistan; in Partition, Barney White-Spunner shines a light on those turbulent months. This period saw the end of ninety years of the British Raj, and the effective power of the Maharajahs, as the Congress Party established itself, commanding a democratic government in Delhi. It also witnessed the rushed creation of Pakistan as a country in two halves whose capitals were 2000 kilometres apart. From September to December 1947 the euphoria surrounding independence dissipated into shame and incrimination; nearly one million people died and countless more lost their homes and their livelihoods as partition was realised. The events of those months would dictate the history of South Asia for the next seventy years, leading to three wars, countless acts of terrorism, polarisation around the Cold War powers and to two nations with millions living in poverty spending disproportionate amounts on their military. The legacy of decisions taken that year still continues. Those at the centre became some of the most enduring characters of the twentieth century. Gandhi and Nehru enjoyed almost saint-like status in India, and still do, while Jinnah is lionised in Pakistan. The British cast, from Churchill to Attlee and Mountbatten, find their contribution praised and damned in equal measure. Yet it is not only the national players whose stories fascinate. Many ordinary people who witnessed the events of that year are still alive and have a clear recollection of the excitement and the horror.Illustrating the story of 1947 with their experiences, Partition brings this terrible era for the Indian subcontinent vividly to life.  

Genres: History, Nonfiction, India, Asia, Indian Literature, Pakistan, Humanities

567 pages, Kindle Edition

First published August 1, 2017

Reviews

[Maziyar Yf · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتاب تقسیم هند اثری است که به یکی از مهم‌ترین رویدادهای تاریخ معاصر جنوب آسیا، یعنی تقسیم هند و تشکیل دو کشور هند و پاکستان و سپس تقسیم پاکستان به دو کشور پاکستان و بنگلادش پرداخته. نویسنده این کتاب، بارنی وایت اسپانر، افسر بازنشسته ارتش بریتانیا و تحلیلگر مسائل سیاسی است که با استفاده از منابع و اسناد تاریخی، رویدادهای پیچیده و پرتنش منجر به تقسیم هند را با دقت و بی طرفی بررسی کرده .
وایت اسپانر با زبانی ساده و روان، به تحلیل عوامل مختلفی که به تقسیم هند منجر شد، پرداخته. از جمله این عوامل می‌توان به تنش‌های مذهبی، اختلافات سیاسی، دخالت‌های خارجی و نقش رهبران مختلف هندی نام برد . هم چنین اسپانر رویدادهای مهمی مانند جنبش استقلال هند، کنگره ملی هند، لیگ مسلمین را بررسی کرده و نقش رهبرانی چون مهاتما گاندی، محمد علی جناح و لرد ماونتباتن را شرح داده . او در پایان هم به بررسی پیامدهای این رویداد بر منطقه جنوب آسیا پرداخته . پیامدهایی مانند جنگ‌های هند و پاکستان، مساله کشمیر که تا این لحظه هم حل نشده مانده است .
عوامل موثر در تقسیم هند:
تنش‌های دیرینه بین هندوها ، سیک ها و مسلمانان هند یکی از اصلی‌ترین دلایل تقسیم بود. لیگ مسلمین به رهبری محمد علی جناح خواستار ایجاد یک کشور جداگانه برای مسلمانان به نام پاکستان بود. سیاست استعماری انگلیس در هند نیز با ایجاد اختلافات بین گروه‌های مختلف و تقویت احساسات ملی‌گرایانه، به تشدید تنش‌ها کمک کرد . از طرف دیگر ، تلاش‌های متعدد برای ایجاد یک هند واحد با مشارکت همه گروه‌های مذهبی و قومی هم به شکست انجامید و پایان جنگ جهانی دوم و هزینه‌های سنگین آن، بریتانیا را مجبور کرد تا از هند خارج شود. این گونه شرایط برای تشکیل کشور هند آماده شد ، گرچه از دل این تشکیل ، پاکستان و سپس بنگلادش هم متولد شدند .
افرادی که در تقسیم هند نقش داشتند
مهاتما گاندی، رهبر بزرگ جنبش استقلال هند که با روش‌های مسالمت‌آمیز به مبارزه با استعمار بریتانیا پرداخت . او گرچه طرفدار یک هند واحد بود، اما در نهایت با تقسیم هند به عنوان یک واقعیت تلخ روبرو شد. جواهر لعل نهروهم که یکی از رهبران کنگره ملی هند وسپس نخستین نخست‌وزیر هند شد همانند گاندی طرفدار یک هند واحد بود، اما در نهایت با تقسیم هند موافقت کرد. در طرف مقابل محمد علی جناح که بنیان‌گذار لیگ مسلمین و مهم‌ترین رهبر مسلمانان هند بود بر ایجاد یک کشور جداگانه برای مسلمانان هند یعنی پاکستان اصرار داشت.
لرد ماونتباتن به عنوان آخرین فرماندار کل هند ، مسئولیت نظارت بر انتقال قدرت و تقسیم هند را بر عهده داشت. تصمیمات و اقدامات ماونتباتن در تسریع روند تقسیم هند نقش مهمی ایفا کرد.
علاوه بر این افراد، بسیاری از سیاستمداران، رهبران مذهبی و فعالان اجتماعی در سطوح مختلف، در این رویداد تاریخی نقش داشتند.
فرآیند تقسیم:
بیشتر کتاب به فرآیند تقسیم و چگونگی اجرای آن اختصاص یافته ؛ این فرآیند نقشه راه عظیمی بوده که در سال 1947، برای تقسیم هند به دو کشور هند و پاکستان ارائه شد. این طرح بر اساس جمعیت مسلمان و هندو در مناطق مختلف هند صورت گرفت. به موجب این طرح ، نزدیک به شش میلیون مسلمان ، خانه و زندگی خود را در هند رها کرده و به پاکستان گریختند ، از طرف دیگر هم ، همین تعداد هندو و سیک ، مجبور به ترک پاکستان و اقامت در هند شدند . این مهاجرت اجباری در نوع خود ، بزرگترین مهاجرت بوده و از آن جایی که قطار ، ماشین و یا حتی گاری برای این جمعیت انبوه در دسترس نبوده ، عمده این مهاجرت با پای پیاده انجام میشده . در همین پیاده روی ها بوده که سیک ها و هندوها به مسلمانان و مسلمانان به سیک ها و هندوها حمله می کردند . این حمله ها که به غیر نظامیان ، شامل کودکان و زنان انجام میشده ، افزون بر تلفاتی میلیونی با شکنجه سخت و حشیانه و با تجاوز هم همراه بوده .
عکس العمل رهبران هند ، مانند گاندی و نهرو به این فجایع جالب وبوده فرو پاشیدن و نابودی تقریبا مطلق دولت را نشان می داده .برای نمونه ، گاندی به جز روزه گرفتن تا زمانی که خشونت ها متوقف نشود ، راهی دیگر نداشته .

افزون بر تفکیک انسان ها به هندی و مسلمان ، همان اندک ملزومات و لوازم اداری یا تجهیزات ارتش یا واگن های قطار یا حتی ماشین های اداری در وزارت خانه ها هم باید به نسبت در نظر گرفته شده ، میان دو کشور تقسیم می شد .
بنابراین در فرآیند تقسیم ، پاکستان عملا از صفر شروع به دولت و دولت سازی کرد اما هند بر پایه های سست و لرزان نظم موجود ، بنا شد .
تقسیم هند و نقش بریتانیا و لرد ماونتباتن
نویسنده نقش بریتانیا در این تقسیم سخت دردناک را پر رنگ وتاثیرگذار دانسته ، بریتانیا بیش از دو قرن بر هند حکومت کرد و با سیاست‌های تقسیم‌ بنیان و تحریک اختلافات بین گروه‌های مختلف، زمینه را برای تقسیم هند فراهم کرد. هم چنین بریتانیا با تقویت اختلافات مذهبی، زبانی و قومی بین هندوها و مسلمانان، از این اختلافات برای حفظ سلطه خود بر هند استفاده می‌کرد. بریتانیا هرگز برای ایجاد یک هند واحد و مستقل برنامه‌ای نداشت و بیشتر به دنبال حفظ منافع خود در منطقه بود.
لرد لوئیس ماونتباتن که آخرین فرماندار کل هند بریتانیا بود نقش بسیار مهمی در تقسیم هند و ایجاد دو کشور مستقل هند و پاکستان ایفا کرد. تصمیمات و اقدامات او در تسریع روند تقسیم هند و پیامدهای آن بسیار بحث‌برانگیز بوده است.
نقش اصلی ماونتباتن
• ماونتباتن با توجه به شرایط آشفته هند و فشارهای داخلی و خارجی، تصمیم گرفت که روند انتقال قدرت را سرعت بخشد. او تاریخ جدیدی برای استقلال هند و پاکستان تعیین کرد که این تصمیم به شدت مورد انتقاد قرار گرفت و بیشتر به آشفتگی اوضاع افزود . او کمیسیونی را برای تعیین مرزهای بین هند و پاکستان تشکیل داد. اما این کمیسیون نتوانست مرزهایی را تعیین کند که مورد قبول همه طرفین باشد و این امر منجر به درگیری‌های مرزی و جنگ میان دو کشور شد. ماونتباتن با وجود خشونت‌های گسترده و آوارگی میلیون‌ها نفر در آستانه تقسیم، از مداخله مستقیم در این درگیری‌ها خودداری کرد.
اما از طرف دیگر ، ماونتباتن در شرایط بسیار دشواری و غیر قابل پیش بینی قرار داشت و تصمیمات او تحت تأثیر عوامل مختلفی مانند فشارهای داخلی و خارجی، عدم همکاری رهبران هندی و زمان محدود بود.
در کل، نقش ماونت‌بَتِن در تقسیم هند بسیار پیچیده و بحث‌برانگیز است. برخی او را مسئول بسیاری از مشکلات پس از تقسیم می‌دانند و برخی دیگر معتقدند که او در شرایط دشوار بهترین تصمیم ممکن را گرفت . اما نباید فراموش کرد که او در موقعیت بسیار پیچیده و دشواری قرار گرفته بود که تا آن زمان پیش نیامده بود .
ترجمه فاجعه‌بار کتاب رومانوف‌ها سبب شد تا نسبت به خرید کتاب‌های کتابسرای تندیس بسیار محتاط و بدبین شوم. با این حال، به محض مشاهده نام سعید کلاتی به‌عنوان مترجم، کتاب را خریداری کردم. خوشبختانه، تجربه خواندن این کتاب کاملاً متفاوت بود. ترجمه روان و دقیق جناب کلاتی همراه با ویراستاری بی‌نقص آن، تضادی آشکار با ترجمه ضعیف کتاب رومانوف‌ها داشت.
در پایان وایت اسپانر کوشیده دشواری های فرآیند تقسیم ، خشونت و آوارگی میلیون ها نفر و سرانجام میراث تقسیم هند را شرح دهد. کتاب تقسیم هند ، به بررسی عمیق این وقایع پرداخته و پیامدهای گسترده آن بر جامعه و تاریخ هند را نشان می دهد.

[Sajith Kumar · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is yet another routine book on the Partition of India in 1947 when the country was divided into two nations - Pakistan for Muslims and India for the others and also for those Muslims who did not want to leave. More importantly, it was a firm indicator that nations could be carved out of nothing more solid than religious belief. Hardly a year after Pakistan's birth, the second nation was created on the basis of religion - Israel. The actual process of partition was inevitable when looking back, but the two countries even now approach the issue differently. Indians – many of them – still think of the partition as a grave error. However, Pakistanis – all of them – treat it as a pragmatic decision which would have been better if taken a little earlier. Accusations were flung far and wide among Indian political parties as late as December 2019 on who was responsible for partition. In this background, this book is especially relevant as it gives a bare bones analysis of events and helps to identify the politicians responsible for India's division. It also provides a vivid description of the brutal violence that engulfed the divided province of Punjab in which nearly a million people lost their lives and ten times that amount lost their homes. Barney White-Spunner is a British military officer who had commanded allied troops in Iraq during the US invasion of 2003. He is a military historian with a few books to his credit.

Politics is usually not familiar territory for military historians, but White-Spunner makes a short analysis of the state of Indian politics during and after the Second World War which led to partition. The Congress threw away the ministries they had formed in the provinces on the flimsy premise that they were not consulted before India was formally committed to the World War. This made the party utterly powerless in the turbulent post-war period. Their leaders were imprisoned for most of the latter half of the war because of their ill-timed, violent and eventually futile anti-British campaign christened ‘Quit India’ in 1942. The Muslim League flourished in the interval and commanded favourable response from the British. By the end of the war, it was evident to all that Britain would hand over power very soon. It was more a question of when than if. India erupted through all outlets at the prospect of impending freedom. In 1946, there had been 1629 strikes involving the loss of 1.2 million man-days. In January 1946, the Royal Air Force mutinied in Karachi. It consisted only of a series of sit-down protests, but on 18 February, the Navy mutinied and had to be disarmed by the army. Bihar Police rioted in May and the problems of demobilizing two million men drafted for war-time service proved yet another challenge. Widespread communal riots added to the administration’s woes. The civil service was tired, demoralized and lacked support with an intractable political situation in a crumbling country. The book presents a grim picture of the British Raj withering away on a daily basis.

The author brings to light the pitiable condition of the minorities in both countries. They were subjected to loot, arson, rape and murder in India. In Pakistan, they had to endure all of these in addition to forced conversion to Islam. In Thoa Khalsa village near Rawalpindi Muslim mobs were more considerate! They demanded ‘only’ the Sikh women to be handed over to them. The horrific details of the atrocities on Sikhs and Hindus are given in the book (p. 82-3). The Punjab Police, which was ninety per cent Muslim at that time, openly sided with the assailants and facilitated their attacks on helpless minorities. This brutal assault is known as the ‘Rape of Rawalpindi’ (p.84). In Bengal, the level of violence was slightly muted as compared to Punjab. Still, one Muslim organisation in Bengal offered 25 rupees for every Hindu killed and 15 rupees for everyone injured (p.137). When news of this violence spread, Indian Muslims had to endure equally brutal acts of atrocities at the hands of Hindus and Sikhs.

The Congress party enjoyed a good rapport with the British Labour party who came to power in 1945. Clement Attlee, the Prime Minister, Stafford Cripps, the minister for India and Nehru were from that generation of socialist politicians who saw problems only in social and economic terms and underestimated the depth of religious feeling in Indian society. Nehru’s disastrous attempt to obtain accession of the Muslim-majority North West Frontier Province (NWFP) to India proves this in embarrassing detail. The province was ruled by Congress, but this was solely due to the personal charisma of the much respected Abdul Ghaffar Khan who led the party in that province. The people wanted to join Pakistan. Nehru visited the province in an effort to convince the tribal elders which turned out to be a nightmare for him. A jirga of Afridi leaders refused to meet him. In Waziristan the locals said plainly that they did not like him or Congress. Nehru then accused them of being the paid pensioners of the British. At Landi Kotal at the foot of the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan, the army had to open fire to extricate Nehru from a hostile crowd. In Malakand, his car was fired on. With a badly bruised ear and chin and an even more bruised ego, Nehru accused the Raj and their political agents for organizing the protests (p.128).

This book fixes the responsibility for the decision of Partition on the shoulders of Nehru and the Congress party. His back channel influence on Atlee through V K Krishna Menon often bypassed Lord Mountbatten, who was the Viceroy. Nehru implored him to consider handing over power in June 1947 itself since Congress was impatient for power (p.170). Mountbatten was putting into practice what the Congress wanted. It also finds one of the prime reasons for the Pakistan army’s influential role in that country’s politics then and later. Immediately after independence, Pakistan struggled to establish itself as a country from nothing of the basic institutions a country needs. The army stepped in to a central role and maintained that role in the years to come in the face of repeated floundering of democracy run by incompetent and corrupt politicians.

Generally, the books on India's partition penned by European and American authors tend to be well-balanced and convincingly impartial. Unfortunately, White-Spunner is a disappointing exception to this rule. The book’s anti-Sikh bias is disturbingly open and jarringly evident. He singles out Sikhs as the perpetrators of the most grievous violence. On many occasions, he describes Sikh violence in graphic detail presenting the horrors in revolting openness. He then signs off with a one-liner that similar things had happened in Pakistan also. In one instance, he compares the Sikh mob to ‘dogs taken to killing sheep’ (p.254) and opines that Sikh savagery was appalling. The author seems to have accorded undue credibility to funny anecdotes we usually hear in office lore. He recounts an incident of V P Menon diving under the table when the Maharaja of Jodhpur threatened him with an improvised revolver immediately after signing away the papers of accession to India.

The book is split into chapters reserved for each month of the year 1947. This is not a good division structurally or content-wise, but can be read like a diary. The author does not seem to be much knowledgeable about India and its history. He repeats the conclusions proposed by earlier historians which are sometimes way off the mark. He claims that Islam spread in India not by conquest, but by the preaching of Sufis and that most of the converted people were of lower castes. The research for this book is laughably thin, probably reflecting the standards acceptable in sensational journalism or pulp fiction. Collins and Lapierre’s ‘Freedom at Midnight’ finds references many times in the narrative. White-Spunner’s total unfamiliarity with India can be seen in such comments in which he terms Travancore as a huge state in geographical terms (p.105).

This book is recommended for extremely light reading though many readers will be upset by its marked anti-Sikh bias.

[Max Berendsen · Rating 4 out of 5]

A compelling history of events which have increasingly been driven into obscurity in recent decades. Reading "Partition" was a true eye-opener for me. In high school I was told that the partition of the British Raj "didn't go quite smoothly". After finishing this book I believe that my history teacher at the time deserves the prize for Understatement of the Century.

Just two years after the end of the horrors of the Holocaust in Europe, the peoples of the British Raj went through a course of sectarian violence, forced evacuation and natural disasters on a scale never seen throughout history. Barney White-Spunner masterfully sheds light on a period of history the rest of the world is way too ignorant about. No stone is left unturned in the examination of the people and their actions which led to perhaps the greatest humanitarian tragedy in world history.

From Nehru to Jinnah, Attlee to Mountbatten and local Maharajahs to colonial administration clerks, White-Spunner provides a nuanced and moving account of the partition of the British Raj.

Just the inclusion of a bit more local perspective in the book would have made it a five star rating for me.

[Sherene · Rating 5 out of 5]

Was a bit wary picking up this recently published book, marking the 70th anniversary of Indian & Pakistani Independence....I wondered whether a British perspective on this topic could possibly be fair to all the complexity of partition. That said, having finished this book, I now realize how little I knew about the topic in reality. As a daughter of an ex-Gurkha military officer who has served in Jammu & Kashmir, the book made for fascinating reading.

My history lessons in school glossed over the sheer human tragedy involved in the Partition with some round number of casualties presented as a meaningless statistic - the snippets in this book of butchery and cruelty on all Indian sides (Hindu, Muslim, Sikh) make for shocking content...along the lines of books such as The Rape of Nanking, but mostly the book is a month-by-month political and military history. The British made some very poor judgment calls, overstaying their time by at least a decade if not two, and I had hardly realised Churchill was such a racist - I can now never forgive in my mind his role in allowing the Bengal Famine play out in its worst form. Gandhi comes out looking mostly OK in this account but Nehru's idiocy with the handling of the only functioning institution in the country at the time, the military, and his insistence on calling Jinnah's bluff is responsible for partition itself and the human cost that came with it. Auchinlek's poor calls with the Indian Army, especially under-utilizing British & Gurkha forces, and the resultant lives lost will also remain with me. To read this book is to realize how different history could have been if some key figures had played things out just a bit differently... highly recommend reading!

[Dr.Javed Rasheed · Rating 4 out of 5]

For a few of my generation who were born ten years after India attained its independence this book makes an interesting reading. Written from a British Soldiers point of view and perspective,a a man from the British forces who is stationed in Basra in Iraq in 2008 from where it starts… it’s a well researched and very well written book.We have read about the partition in books and heard about the partition from our elders but the violence,hatred,brutality that existed during pre independence and post independence era makes a painful reading as some instances and anecdotes are disturbing and distressing.Everything comes with a price and Independence and partition was not an easy task ! What I liked is that as the author himself suggested the British should have started trade relations with India instead of ruling India for almost 200 years and the concept of “British Imperialism” in India and elsewhere with that typical British mentality of “ Rule, Britainiaca shall rule the waves… “ the atrocities and incidents that followed like The Jallianwala Bagh massacre and The Black Hole of Calcutta to name a few ! I don’t want to go into the politics,politicians their eccentricities and idiosyncrasies that have been mentioned in this book. Frankly I was not aware of the minute details that are mentioned in the book regarding incidents, anecdotes , that do make an interesting reading ! History doesn’t forget and certain decisions are not forgiven and how some go down in history and how history judges even 77 years after India attained independence it is entirely the readers discretion !
Dr.Javed Rasheed

[Arjun · Rating 4 out of 5]

The historiography of Indian Independence in 1947 is evolving quite rapidly and - as with most independence movements – the most important debates are only really emerging decades on from the event. On this 70th anniversary, I think 'Partition' makes an important contribution to what is now a two-sided discussion about how the independence movement was handled by the three major interests (the British government, the Congress Party and the Muslim League) and whether the scale of the damage inflicted on tens of millions of people was inevitable or avoidable.

Two features of the book surprised me, both in a positive sense. The first is that the author's military background is very helpful and adds credibility to his core arguments. The dominant interpretation of Partition in the last 70 years is that it was a largely political event with little in the way of military dynamic; actually, as White-Spunner argues in possibly his strongest thesis, a major fault for the extreme violence of 1947 lies with the inaction and mismanagement of the British Army in India under Commander-in-Chief Auchinleck, the inadequacy of the Punjab Border Force of only 20,000 men having to keep the peace in a geographic area bigger than Ireland and the terrible decision to split up the Indian army and create a separate force for Pakistan, which prompted a major military re-organisation just as the violence was accelerating beyond comprehension in Punjab.

The second surprising – and I think ambitious – feature of this book is that it is written chronologically with each chapter corresponding to each month in 1947. Initially this creates some narrative problems because the historical path to Partition in 1947 begins at least as early as the Indian Mutiny of 1857. Having to refer back a bit haphazardly to this event, then World War I, the Rowlatt Acts and the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre (1919), the Government of India Act (1935), World War II, the Bengal Famine (1942-44) and the Rape of Rawalpindi (1946) as key turning points in relations between the various parties creates some stress on the early narrative structure of a book that is built around the timeline of 1947. However, once the background has been covered and the 1947 narrative begins properly, the structure works well and the passage through the year – the unusually hot weather in Delhi, organisation of the partition announcement, the late monsoon etc. – is really well written.

The most interesting aspect of this book are the heroes and villains that come out of the story. Auchinleck is the obvious villain – portrayed as a nostalgic, class-obsessed army general living off previous glories, who believed the British Army’s only purpose in India was to protect the British and therefore under-utilised his army when it was most needed. Lord Mountbatten is the most obvious hero – a competent and honest man who was respected by Hindus and Muslims alike. Jinnah – leader of the Muslim League – emerges relatively unscathed particularly as the author finds numerous credible sources to suggest strongly that he never wanted a partition of India and instead favoured a federal solution (one that would have likely avoided millions of deaths). In brief mentions Churchill comes across very poorly – pushing against Indian independence right up to (and even after) the point at which the final plan is signed in August 1947; however, one suspects the wheels of historiography on Churchill might take a bit longer to turn.

The most interesting interpretation however is that of India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru who – though the architect of a new nation that arguably would not have been conceived without him – comes across as aloof, intellectually over-confident and temperamental. White-Spunner convincingly argues that Nehru’s Socialist ideals fuelled his belief that at a rural level the majority of Hindu & Muslim communities were relatively united behind the idea of a Hindu-led India (incorrect); that the Muslim League would never actual sign off on partition (incorrect); that the Indian army was unimportant to the independence movement and could not be trusted (incorrect); and complacently believed that Partition would not be sustainable and ultimately Pakistan would be forced to re-unite with India (also incorrect). Nehru’s personal historiography is fascinating and changing very rapidly now that India has entered a new landscape economically, politically and socially since the early 2000s – one that is very different to his Socialist ideals. It will be interesting to see how much more of a critical consensus on him emerges over the next few years/decades.

From a personal perspective there were many parts of this book that were extremely difficult to read because of the graphic detail presented of some of the atrocities (my grandfather also migrated from Rawalpindi to Delhi in 1946 and it is only having read about the extreme violence and brutality that this book describes explicitly that I understand why he never really spoke in detail about the events of this period). In the author’s own words, this was one of the most shameful episodes of recent human history and it is hard to disagree with him on the evidence presented.

I have two minor criticisms of this book: first, that the author's conclusion on the broader question of who politically (if anyone) actually wanted a partition of India is left unclear and is not satisfactorily answered. Second, more could be said or explained about British political decision-making and motivations because some decisions in 1947 (particularly with respect to the Army) do not make any sense at all. Perhaps there is still more to be unearthed in unreleased memoirs and archives. However, for what it is – an attempt to explain why Partition unfolded as it did – this book is I think a valuable historical contribution to the field and a very worthwhile read.

[Stu Radley · Rating 4 out of 5]

My first attempt at trying to understand the history and legacy of the partition. Written chronologically month by month can be helpful at points but also results in the narrative bouncing around somewhat with the eventual conclusion seemingly rushed. Written very much from an Anglo perspective it would be interesting to read something from the other side too.

[Harry Croft · Rating 3 out of 5]

As might be expected of a former army man, White-Spunner's history of Partition is foremost a military history. Despite this, sufficient attention is also given to the catastrophe in the Punjab, and the problems which arose in Kasmir and Bengal. This book succeeds in its month-by-month narrative of events, but falls a little short in the same way; its scope seems too narrow. Significant figures such as Gandhi, Nehru, Mountbatten etc feel uncharacterised, and the longer-term elements of the Indian independence movement are discussed fleetingly throughout the text, and only briefly in conclusion.

[Jessie · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a subject that I wanted to learn more about, and this book is a good place to start. The background to partition is discussed comprehensively, with descriptions of horrific violence and inhumanity included throughout - would not recommend this if you do not have a strong stomach. The author concludes with a brief discussion of where the blame for the one million deaths that arose from partition lies, although his conclusion struck me as quite naive and I will be reading more from others. Two stars - sometimes hard to follow and could have done with being edited/edited by someone better.

[SUBRATA DATTA · Rating 3 out of 5]

Barney White-Spunner was a senior-ranking British Army officer who was involved in action in many theatres. He is also a military historian.

It is not clear what prompted a British military academic to undertake the writing of the “story” of the partition of the sub continent, seventy years after the event – or the series of events.

That said, it is to be admitted that White-Spunner’s book is a welcome addition to the already significant and voluminous literature on the subject.

What is unmistakably noticeable in White-Spunner’s account is the emphasis that has been put on the military aspect of the history. Field Marshal Claude (“Auk”) Auchinleck, Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army, comes out as a tragic hero. A man obsessed with the welfare of the Indian Army ends up being blamed for the not doing enough to prevent the bloodbath in the Punjab.

Given White-Spunner’s professional and academic background, such emphasis on the military aspect – at times slowing down the pace of the narrative considerably – is only to be expected.

The conclusions that White-Spunner has reached are straightforward enough and probably the conclusions of history as we approach 75 years of Partition - three years hence. “Once Attlee has made his historic announcement on 20 February (1946) [that India will be given freedom within June 1948], and given the very strong links between the Congress and the Labour government, it was Nehru and Patel who dictated events. It was Nehru who, … decided to go for partition.”

An event that has left its indelible mark on the history of the sub continent – and of the world at large.

But, White-Spunner asserts, “there was nothing inevitable about the slaughter in the Punjab, nothing inevitable about Kashmir or about the subsequent wars. The Joint Defence arrangements could have worked. The relationship could have been as England to Scotland rather than as an armed stand-off.”

Seven decades on, it sounds like daydreaming. But the sentiment is touching.

White-Spunner lays out his account in month-by-month narrative – from January to December 1947. The format gives the narrative a sense of flow.

The bibliography at the end is useful and will spur the interested reader to delve deeper into the subject.

As has already been said, Barney White-Spunner’s Partition is a welcome addition to the growing body of Partition literature.

[N · Rating 4 out of 5]

Partition was a bloody holocaust that scarred and traumatized both India and Pakistan during its birth and consequently, they're a lot of antagonism between the two nations even though there is a shared culture and history. The writer of the book is Barney White-Spunner who served as Lieutenant General in the British army during the Battle of Basra, Iraq. It’s no secret that the British army had a tough time in Basra and in the writer’s own words they couldn’t even set up a power generator. British army performance made the writer intellectually enquire how the British empire operated during the partition and sees Basra as a microcosm.

The book is a Soldier’s perspective on the events that lead to the catastrophic partition of India and covers the last twelve months of the British Raj. The military man explains how the British Raj administered and controlled British India, and explains the ICS civil administration & police force were not fully operational and it was limping towards a slow death. The British army was the only fully functioning body that Raj could depend on.

One of the surprising things I learned is that the British officials like Sir Evan Jenkins and Sir Olaf Caroe had a better understanding of the provinces they governed than their Indian counterparts in Congress and Muslim League and correctly predicted the event which followed. Generally, books on Partitions don’t focus much on the princely states other than Hyderabad and Kashmir but Barney spends time in explaining the role of 562 princely states which controlled almost one-third of the country.

The important and inevitable questions (like Was the partition inevitable? Was the loss of lives and property loss unavoidable? Who is responsible for the partition of the nation?) are discussed. And all the usual suspects are rightly criticized where it's due.
Overall, this was a quick read on the partition. Would recommend reading it.

[Kanti · Rating 4 out of 5]

"For many Indians the end of British rule was, once the celebrations were over, something of a non-event. 'One hundred and fifty years would wash off in the first one hundred and fifty minutes'."

Barney White-Spunner's well researched book on India's 1947 partition is highly interesting yet very depressing.

"It is important first to accept that the events of August to November 1947 were a tragedy, a terrible tragedy, not just in bloodshed and human misery but in their consequences."

This book covers, majorly, the events that happened between January to December of the year 1947, with few references to the earlier and later years in India's history.

"In August 1947 over half a million servicemen stood idle."

And, over a million people were murdered. No one were held accountable for these killings and terrible events that could have been averted.

Partition, building boundaries and walls and creating new countries - these are not just mere historical events - they cost lives, they cause pain, they separate families, they instill deep hatred - and all this to serve what purpose?

In my opinion, enough blood has been shed. It's time we, humans, think beyond "nationalism", boundaries, killing each other in the name of 'motherland' and cleansing - we need to accept that humans on any land or soil are as human and worthy as us.

[Cee Jackson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I love India!

I have visited a small corner of the country on nine occasions (Goa and Karnataka) and have made many friends, Hindu and Muslim as well as Christian. Not that religion is of any consequence to me, but it ID play a massive part in the Partition process of 1947.

And so, when this book was published year or so back, I felt compelled to buy it and read up on WHY India is as it it today.

Now, I KNOW the subject of Partition is a complex one, involving a great many people, but I just found the book TOO mired in the names of the key personalities. And I'm an impatient / lazy reader, I guess, so continuously reading long Indian names kind of put me off. Twice i tried. I rested a while and tried to pick up again from page #120, but just struggled to get into it.

I'll shortly try to read up on this mega event that has shaped the world, as I genuinely want to understand. But maybe I need to do so via the means of a more narrative book, such as 'The Lives of Others,' by Neel Mukhergee.

I never was any good at History at school - perhaps this is why. ;)

[Sambasivan · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are two main reasons why this book is to be read. One: this is the first book on partition that gives a ringside view of the inner workings of the British imperialists both in India and in London, and two: the objective evaluation of the various players in the holocaust that followed the decision to partition the country with incisive logic and analysis. The author has really done his homework well. The gory story of the partition comes alive and the needless loss of lives is quite palpable. One simple example: half a million strong army was idling away instead of protecting the people due to the sheer negligence and pusillanimity of the players involved including the great Indian freedom fighters. This gave me a new perspective of the Independence saga. Must read.

[Garry Robertson · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was a very interesting book. I knew about some of the events but going to school in Canada, it wasn't taught much past a mention in history.

It's easy in hindsight to see how events could have been handled much differently and, hopefully, had a better result for all involved.

Even though it was written from a British viewpoint, I think it gave a much more even description of the events of the time than I had previously been aware of. There were strong opinions by the people involved on both sides, or is it three sides, of the events.

Overall, an excellent book of a turbulent time in the birth of two nations.

[Richard Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

Truly brutal in its description of what events took place in the Raj during the process of Partition. Alot can be learnt from reading this book, as a Brit with Indian partner. You can understand the rivalry between the three nations born out of the Raj, and see how religion played such a huge role (and continues) in India. At times this book is graphic in its explaination, however i feel it is justified and required to truly obtain an understanding. Interesting facts such as the basis of the Pakistani flags colours, and the reasons for them, are eye opening and show a different side to the nation we see today.
Highly recommended read

[Calum Campbell · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good and, to my admittedly ilinformed eyes, unbiased account of the troubles of 1947 and the creation of modern India and Pakistan. Even as a British soilder himself the author is highly critical of the role played by Britain but also highlights the other characters who must shoulder some of the blame. Overall a very good overview of a tumultuous year which would shape the world we see today.

[Shareq · Rating 5 out of 5]

Was a bit apprehensive about this book given the author’s background but I must say it was a fascinating account of the events during the partition. The horrors are described graphically which may be difficult for some. I particularly enjoyed the description of relationships between key figures such as Mountbatten and Jinnah which undoubtedly affected decisions.

Overall by the end of the book I felt to be generally balanced and comprehensive. Definitely a great read!

[stephen johnson]

I was enjoying this book UNTIL I reached page 255. Mr. White-Spunner makes a huge error on this page. He mixes up two Sikh men interviewed in a film produced by the BBC. He claims that Aridaman Singh Dhillon joined in a raid and killed a "fucking Muslim." However, it was Jathedar Singara Singh, an evil, unrepentant and boastful murderer who took part in this particular raid. Mr. Dhillon did not have a mood change and join the massacre as Mr. White-Spunner claims. Sloppy research.

[Shantinath Chaudhary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nice Book. Took quite long to read due to other preoccupations, but what a nice read. This Book throws a new light on the failure behind containing the post-partition violence, and it also shows J&K defence by Indian Army, in a new light. It is written by a British author, so many of the references are of British folks, so an obvious British tint is visible, but the Book remains objective at most places. Another great read to understand the partition…

[tot taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

British government excels again (not)

I picked this book because I knew nothing of the end of the Taj or partition this book have me that information.
But it all so shows the greed for power on the part of the leading Indian politicians and total lack of understanding and ability of the British government to listen to the people that did allowed this catastrophe to take place.
Well worth reading.

[Zumzaa]

Fact heavy book and despite perhaps achieving what it intended to it was not my intention to read such a book. It drags because it's impossible to remember all that it presents to you and fails to offer summaries or even an interesting broader perspective for the most part. Although it does make its point on Britain's devastating role to end which was at least an entertaining send off.

[S M Shahrukh · Rating 3 out of 5]

A graphic novel, quite informative, too. Needed a better job at South Asian names, needed a good editor to make the sentences to be better framed, phrased, with clearer enunciation. However, it helps dispel some long-held 'myths' about the partition and the parties/players involved.

[Hammad · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for all Indians and Pakistanis

A big thank you to the author for giving an unbiased view of India’s partition. Something neither Indians or Pakistanis are able to fully comprehend as the history we are taught in schools is biased and distorted.

[Gareth Evans · Rating 4 out of 5]

A subject, perhaps to my shame, I knew little about, but that’s what books are for I guess. The author makes it clear he is not a professional historian and that he is writing from a British perspective. I found it to be a clear account of the process of partition and the tragic consequences.

[Bhageerath Vadhi · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book gives you a different perspective and the hardships that were encountered during the gloomy period of 1947.

[Penny]

Very detailed, not in the mood to read anymore

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very good book on which to start off if your knowledge of partition is somewhat hazy. It successfully introduces you to the major characters, regions and general issues, which ultimately do provide a well-rounded and fairly neutral view of these fascinating and yet awful events. I would recommend as a good place to start off!

[Varun Bhakay · Rating 3 out of 5]

Partition. A single word that carries so much weight in the sub-continent. A country, a civilisation, a people – divided by lines on a map overnight. A mass migration like none other before or after it.

In Lt. Gen. Sir Barney White-Spunner’s Partition: The Story of Indian Independence and the Creation of Pakistan in 1947, the events that unfolded from January to December 1947 are recorded in meticulous detail.

Gen. White-Spunner’s account offers a different perspective, since it is not driven by popular culture that has clouded many aspects of history in India. It also helps that he was a senior officer when the British were in Iraq, another place he feels his country should have left earlier. He doesn’t hesitate the slightest to shine a light on British atrocities in India. It is this admission that made me more willing to read a British account of Partition than anything else.

Gen. White-Spunner talks about all the major players – Wavell, Auchinleck, and the Holy Trinity of Gandhi, Jinnah and Nehru – as well as the major events of the time. In that sense, one might call the book a chronological account of Partition, but by weaving in first-hand accounts and a twenty-first-century perspective that brings so much more to the table.

The importance of the book lies in the sheer ineptness it portrays as being a trait of both the experienced Raj administration and of the greenhorn Indian one. The horrors unfolded on the scale that they did because of heightened passions and hatred, yes, but how the system just collapsed is shocking.

Yet, for all the sensible points the General makes, there are naïve ones too. His hope that India’s relationship with England could’ve been like that of Scotland and England is strange – one can hardly imagine the kind of practices England allowed to prosper in India being the norm in Scotland and then the countries parting on decent terms.

All in all, an interesting book that should be read more for the military and political blunders of the time than for its conclusions.

[Amy Fitzsimmons · Rating 3 out of 5]

Picked this up because I knew nothing about the events. Its packed with detail but is a great over view making it a great but intense introduction to the history of India and Pakistan